4137
Comments (221)
sorted by:
358
deleted 358 points ago +362 / -4
126
GunTottinPatriot 126 points ago +128 / -2

Pretty sure her evidence will have plenty of standing under Martial Law though

132
uzi5v2 132 points ago +133 / -1

Military Tribunals are more fun than Supreme Court verdicts anyway!

76
Peachykeen74 76 points ago +78 / -2

I appreciate that at Nuremberg, the judges banged the gavel and right then & there, the evildoers were marched outside in their suits and uniforms, and had judgment swiftly rendered upon them.

45
GlacialSpeed 45 points ago +47 / -2

That would set the right tone. And serve as a reminder for anyone that ever thought of stealing an election in the future.

Courts/Judges, fix this so there's no war.

35
ShitOfPeace 35 points ago +35 / -0

They better fix it.

If they don't I fully support a civil war.

13
TheFountainhead 13 points ago +13 / -0

We need to start calling it The Rededication.

5
Destineed369 5 points ago +5 / -0

Confirmation of Rights.

22
jpower 22 points ago +23 / -1

Too bad we don't have the caliber of judges these days

18
doug2 18 points ago +18 / -0

I read in a magazine that enough evidence triggers a new ball game.

Guns.

11
ConcernedFrenchFrog 11 points ago +13 / -2

Nuremberg trials were a fucking joke. They declared that and I quote "the tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof " (page 10 article 21 https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.2_Charter%20of%20IMT%201945.pdf)

Many german military personnel were tortured days on and out to obtain admissions of guilt . This shit was a shameful sham from the then rising NWO bois

9
Peachykeen74 9 points ago +9 / -0

Learning new things. Well, we’ve got some work to do for TRUE justice.

8
Wtf_socialismreally 8 points ago +8 / -0

Hold on, torture is on the table?

That sounds like a positive to me.

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
7
Wtf_socialismreally 7 points ago +7 / -0

It already is

1
ConcernedFrenchFrog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Well, it doesn't help with the quality of the evidences tho

-2
deleted -2 points ago +2 / -4
1
Dirkboss 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you support Nazi Germany?

2
JeremiahKassin 2 points ago +2 / -0

There's a group of Nazis here that like to pretend they're with us. They're relatively small, but very vocal. Just deport when you find them.

1
BidensRottingCorpse 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m simply quoting general Patton

9
Homopratensis2 9 points ago +9 / -0

What are you talking about. Many were executed years after and some had their sentences reduced.

2
Jimmy_Russler 2 points ago +2 / -0

"We don't need evidence for established facts"

I guess all the evidence these autists gathered wasn't needed

16
LilyBee24 16 points ago +16 / -0

I think they would definitely boast patriotic morale and honestly. The stupid young of today may actually wake up to see what consequences look like.

-19
WeCax49 -19 points ago +9 / -28

There won't be military tribunals.

7
deleted 7 points ago +12 / -5
4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
89
slaphappy2 89 points ago +90 / -1

Damn - you were fast- beat me to it !

30
wakingthelions 30 points ago +31 / -1

Maybe those cowards finally realize cowardice won’t be tolerated, and actually did their job.

30
slaphappy2 30 points ago +30 / -0

LOL ! Their cowardice is plenty rewarded. Antifa has promised not to beat the shit out of them, thanks to their recent decisions in favor of election fraud.

11
Peachykeen74 11 points ago +11 / -0

Hope they ask forgiveness of GOD ALMIGHTY and do righteousness in his sight. Num 32:13, SCOTUS.

7
OneBigMaga 7 points ago +7 / -0

The taxes case was also Docketed. It means nothing.

5
NotaNihilist 5 points ago +5 / -0

They'll cuck and punt as expected.

18
lordvon 18 points ago +18 / -0

no standing refers to the supreme court's lack of spine. jk. i hope this goes somewhere.

15
Peachykeen74 15 points ago +15 / -0

It’s true. No spine makes for no standing. No sitting, either.

14
bill_in_texas 14 points ago +14 / -0

SIOTUS? Supreme Invertebrates of the United States?

4
Mockingsmirk45 4 points ago +4 / -0

Underrated comment right here!

14
doejohnblowjoe 14 points ago +14 / -0

Supposedly there are electors in the lawsuit. So they should have standing but who knows.

168
TxSxB 168 points ago +168 / -0

On this weeks episode of "How cucked is SCOTUS?"

45
deleted 45 points ago +45 / -0
7
nrjk1 7 points ago +7 / -0

Todays episode: "Very"

122
slaphappy2 122 points ago +122 / -0

"By the longstanding legal doctrine of "Rinse and Repeat" the Court declares this suit null and void. We have ignored so much other fraud that the precedent we set obligates us to dismiss the suit..."

39
Peachykeen74 39 points ago +39 / -0

Greeeeat. So “no standing” is now “precedent.” Time to get off this ride.

Jesus is going to do a mighty work in spite of this.

16
JesusisKing 16 points ago +16 / -0

The mighty work he has done is in your heart!

11
AlphaNathan 11 points ago +11 / -0

Amen!

5
dldeuce 5 points ago +5 / -0

The no standing precedence was set firmly in 2008 for all the eligibility suits. I've been saying it for weeks now. Trump has standing. Voters and electors won't.

17
ironhorse 17 points ago +17 / -0

We The People have had enough of The Court's malfeasance and that obligates us to act in a manner that the Court will not approve of but we're not listening to the Court anymore. gun go brrrrrrrt

4
iamjohnwick 4 points ago +4 / -0

I’ll be your huckleberry

64
deleted 64 points ago +65 / -1
61
orange_kek_great 61 points ago +63 / -2

SCOTUS is useless.

40
slaphappy2 40 points ago +41 / -1

They are extremely useful to the republican/democrat uniparty.

6
Wtf_socialismreally 6 points ago +6 / -0

Republicrat

42
DickTick 42 points ago +57 / -15

What are they actually asking the Supreme Court though? you can't just go to the Supreme Court with a bunch of proof of fraud... That's not how the Supreme Court works. You have to have a very specific constitutional question that was not able to be resolved in the lower courts and it has to have harmed the filing party....

You can't ask them to decide an election... you can't ask them to make sweeping decisions... you can't ask them to do anything like that... all they can do is answer straightforward constitutionality questions...

67
slaphappy2 67 points ago +71 / -4

George Bush asked them to stop recounts in 2000. And SCOTUS ordered the stopping of recounts - thus deciding the election.

That kind of refutes your weak argument.

There is nothing about hanging chads in the Constitution.

If you want to bring in stuff about "equal protection of the laws" - well, that was exactly what Texas just claimed - and SCOTUS told them FUCK YOU.

13
Peachykeen74 13 points ago +13 / -0

Pretty sure people stopped naming their kids “chad” after that debacle.

8
Wtf_socialismreally 8 points ago +8 / -0

Weirdly, Chad became a negative for a long time.

Now it's a positive again.

Shit's weird.

4
doobiedaddy 4 points ago +11 / -7

The constitutional question was whether or not FL had to stop counting ballots by the safe harbor deadline. That is a constitutional question as the deadline is directly associated with the Electoral College provisions laid out in the Constitution.

28
slaphappy2 28 points ago +29 / -1

There is no "Safe Harbor" deadline in the Constitution. You have no idea what you are talking about.

-3
doobiedaddy -3 points ago +3 / -6

Safe Harbor is directly related to the Electoral College and its date that they vote and the date the votes are counted. The Constitution grants the Congress the power to set those dates. Therefore, the power granted by the Constitution to Congress to set those dates are a matter of debate between the federal government and the states.

Florida asked SCOTUS to declare if they should continue counting or not based on those protocols. It is a constitutional matter, and as such that’s why they ruled on it in Bush v. Gore.

4
edxzxz 4 points ago +4 / -0

My understanding of the Gore SCOTUS case is dem counties were working hard to make any kind of dimpled or non punched out 'chad' count as if it were punched through signifying a vote, all the other counties were following the state's law that they had to be completely punched out, and so it was a constitutional question of equal protection under the law with people in some counties having flubbed attempts to vote count, and others not having their count. The repeated tries to count and count again were stopped because SCOTUS said you've counted everything valid and the repeats are to salvage botched tries which is unfair.

2
doobiedaddy 2 points ago +3 / -1

There was absolutely an equal protection side to the decision. However, it focused on the fact that there wasn’t a unified way of counting the under votes. And since there wasn’t enough time to develop a system that would be equally as fair before the safe harbor deadline, the court had to shut the recount down.

0
DickTick 0 points ago +3 / -3

Thank you...

It's terrifying how few of our members around here have even the foggiest clue what the Supreme Court does or how they function.....

2
okayfilet 2 points ago +2 / -0

The difference is, Bush was a well connected member of the Uniparty.

1
slaphappy2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Should be obvious to everyone here by now.

-2
DickTick -2 points ago +2 / -4

No..... you just don't seem to understand what that case was actually about then.... because at its core was still a simple constitutionality question.... The way every single case ever brought before SCOTUS is.....

13
deleted 13 points ago +13 / -0
8
lordvon 8 points ago +8 / -0

good point. lets look up the suit.

4
sply1 4 points ago +4 / -0

equal protection is the constitutional matter. Maybe also disenfranchisement...

1
ThatOtherGuyBob 1 point ago +1 / -0

SCOTUS is the supreme court in the land and can do pretty much anything they want .. if they wish.

36
deleted 36 points ago +37 / -1
10
slaphappy2 10 points ago +10 / -0

The Republican State legislatures have already made it clear that they are in favor of Democrat Party election fraud - since they chose Biden electors, right ?

What am I missing here ?

8
deleted 8 points ago +9 / -1
1
slaphappy2 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Democrats are lucky - they have a party - we do not.

2
deleted 2 points ago +3 / -1
0
slaphappy2 0 points ago +1 / -1

If there were a Muslim political party in the USA nobody would stuff the ballot boxes against them.

They would just send some guys with AK-47s right into a Democratic club.

They wouldn't have to do it twice.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
1
slaphappy2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I have no idea what you are talking about with "Biden actually won".

31
MAGALogic 31 points ago +32 / -1

Sidney Powell is literally a one person wrecking crew along with her team. The work she has put in isn't larp.

13
GiveMe1776 13 points ago +15 / -2

Might as well be, hasn’t stopped the deep state one bit

1
zipodk 1 point ago +1 / -0

New account but accurate

29
Dogpile1 29 points ago +29 / -0

Laches, too late. So sorry.

14
slaphappy2 14 points ago +14 / -0

Yes, we all love "Laches" from SCOTUS's Greatest Holiday Hits album !

4
PocketPosse 4 points ago +4 / -0

John's nuts resting on an orphan child, Flight logs tipping what he knows...

4
slaphappy2 4 points ago +4 / -0

Giddy-yap giddy-yap giddy-yap let's go

Let's fake votes for Joe

We're riding in a cloud of Hunter's blow

Giddy-yap giddy-yap giddy-yap it's great

Let's tabulate

We're gliding along with the song of a fraudulent swing state !

2
PocketPosse 2 points ago +2 / -0

Snowflakes that reee when no judge will eye laches...

2
slaphappy2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Fake Biden ballots in 4 AM batches

SCOTUS rulings that proclaim "No stand-DING"

These are a few of my least favorite things...

2
PocketPosse 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wreck the laws with blows of folly. Fail law law law law...

1
PocketPosse 1 point ago +1 / -0

Here we go a fossiling the grave of RBG

1
PocketPosse 1 point ago +1 / -0

We'll have a blue congress, without you. Expections of red, under an orange victory...

2
slaphappy2 2 points ago +2 / -0

t's the most fraudulent time of the year

When the states have no standing

Lindsay Graham is grandstanding

He's looking so queer !

It's the most fraudulent time of the year

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
26
deleted 26 points ago +26 / -0
24
deleted 24 points ago +27 / -3
9
Shitposter69 9 points ago +9 / -0

RBG? lol, I'm picturing RBG with RGB lights on her casket.

1
CgMaui 1 point ago +1 / -0

🎉🥳 Party lights. 🥳🎉

20
MsPresElect 20 points ago +21 / -1

Spoiler alert: They'll cuck out again.

20
deleted 20 points ago +20 / -0
16
deleted 16 points ago +16 / -0
11
TwitterIsTrash 11 points ago +11 / -0

If they turn it down, we need to gather outside the justices’ houses and the Supreme Court and make their lives miserable every day

5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
11
DaveMastor 11 points ago +11 / -0

Pray for the Supreme Court. I don't care if you think they're going to cuck or not, they probably will. Pray for them.

10
Nowsthetime 10 points ago +10 / -0

I believe in positive high energy. Let’s pray pray pray and pray!

10
2
eatcheese 2 points ago +2 / -0

The date looks wrong?

1
zippy2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Do you have a time machine?

1
JohnPaluska [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

No the date is right. Just nobody reported on it until yesterday.

9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
9
BritGroyper 9 points ago +9 / -0

What does it even matter at this point. Even if SCOTUS does rule in our favour, which is unlikely, we'd still have to rely on swamp politicians to overturn the vote. I'm sorry but it's hard to get excited about this stuff at all right now. Trump needs to deputize his support and invoke martial law. Screw the consequences.

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
3
slaphappy2 3 points ago +4 / -1

If SCOTUS ruled properly, they could have changed everything.

No doubt about it.

2
JohnPaluska [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Believe it or not, SCOTUS does have the power to pause election certification and demand recounts and audits. So it actually does matter a lot.

1
BritGroyper 1 point ago +1 / -0

If that's the case then that's good. I hope they grow a pair and start taking their job seriously.

8
Basileus 8 points ago +8 / -0

Lucy with the football....

7
NaturalBornTexan 7 points ago +7 / -0

Nice to see this! I'm Pro-Powell, but the typos are really frustrating. "ELEMENTH" / "ERREONEOUSLY" etc. Regardless, this is a smart approach by suing Benson and others on behalf of the GOP Electors. If the SCOTUS says THEY don't have standing, then basically no one does.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
4
Nowsthetime 4 points ago +4 / -0

14th... Lin Wood’s the 11th. Seems very far away. And then how much time to review the response?

4
Pumpitrealgood 4 points ago +4 / -0

yeah, if this gets rejected I do believe Trump will finally pull the trigger. He can either wait until after Xmas, but I prefer he does it now, would be a good Xmas present to have military tribunals for these criminals that have brought the country to the precipice. Either we have justice, or we do not have a country.

4
Nowsthetime 4 points ago +4 / -0

Oh my oh my oh my. Either it’s nothing’s going right or EVERY SINGLE THING is going the right way!

4
FORMERCHILDSTAR 4 points ago +4 / -0

Maybe Sydney Powell should revoke her citizenship and submit the complaint in Spanish...then she would defiantly have standing.

3
TheSwampsPlug 3 points ago +3 / -0

So is this the final shot they get before the bring in the military? because i want the military.

3
CaptainButthurt 3 points ago +3 / -0

They dont have time for this. They're far too busy telling states that you can't require citizenship to be eligible to vote.

3
Redpillhope 3 points ago +3 / -0

I trust some of the SCOTUS members.

I believe that 5 of them DO faithfully honor the constitution to the best of their abilities.

That said, if SCOTUS determines there is no constitutional way to undo a rigged and stolen election by blatantly corrupt treasonous individuals, then what good is the constitution?

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
3
tiredofwinning2020 3 points ago +3 / -0

Annnnnnnd nothing will happen in 5...4....

We need Trump to invoke the special prosecutor clause to get unlimited subpoena power and actually get quick movement on things. Enough is enough.

3
Porkster420 3 points ago +3 / -0

nO sTaNdInG!!!1!!1111

3
slaphappy2 3 points ago +3 / -0

Too late ! Laches on YOU ! That comment was already made.

2
PhantomShield72 2 points ago +3 / -1

S T A N D I N G

2
WindyCityBluez 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ok.. SCOTUS now has cover against people calling them bias. They didn't bite at the first two cases. If the 3 trump judges blow this off, you know they are comprised. Something far bigger is at play here.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Ejax 0 points ago +1 / -1

As long as you aren't asking us to explain it to you like you are in Kindergarten.

2
dldeuce 2 points ago +2 / -0

"VI. WHETHER THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED WHEN IT FOUND THAT THE PETITIONERS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THEIR INJURY CAN BE REDRESSED BY THE RELIEF SOUGHT AND HELD THAT THE PETITIONERS POSSESS NO STANDING TO PURSUE THEIR EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM WHEN GIVEN THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT, THE ISSUE OF VOTER FRAUD AND VALIDATION OF ELECTION IS THE VERY RELIEF THAT A COURT CAN REDRESS PURSUANT TO THE EQUAL PROTECTION AND THE PETITIONERS CLEARLY HAVE STANDING?"

Want to bet?

2
nrjk1 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hawaiian judge declares he is a SCOTUS judge and says it's unconstitutional. Sorry, guys, we need to take the L on this one...

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Redskyatnight 2 points ago +2 / -0

Powell and wood have yet to literally give any evidence of anything. They tweet every 30 minutes but that’s about it

2
me-no-likely2 2 points ago +2 / -0

Let me guess. No standing, or shoulda sued back in 2009

2
misterLahey 2 points ago +2 / -0

In before Supreme Faggots dismiss.

2
PubliusInvictus 2 points ago +2 / -0

So who the fuck would have standing and not get subject to the bullshit legal cowardice know as laches? Supreme Court is creating a huge black hole in the constitutional order after dismissing Texas et al.

2
bigrex64 2 points ago +2 / -0

sounds like it's time for a purview.

2
EmyAmeGPGM 2 points ago +2 / -0

June 2021

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
JohnCClark 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ugh... The formatting looks so unprofessional. Not following the SCOTUS’s font / margin / line-spacing rules. It does not instill confidence.

2
Kekbewithus 2 points ago +2 / -0

Case dismissed, 2-7 sorry.

2
ShitOfPeace 2 points ago +2 / -0

They'll issue a motion to dismiss on the grounds that MI being overturned wouldn't change the overall result. I'd bet on it.

If the SC wants to be a bunch of hacks we'll see it then.

1
BostonVoter 1 point ago +1 / -0

Amazing