866
posted ago by duckduck ago by duckduck +866 / -0

What is their argument? "It already happened" isn't an explanation. I know "covid" was their excuse for changing the rules, but what is their explanation for keeping those changes and letting them stand?

Comments (51)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
4
DoIMAGAYouHornyBaby 4 points ago +4 / -0

Does it take certification of false elections for other states to have standing? I cant say for sure, but it does seem likely . I have to believe there was a plan. If there’s one one thing i’ve learned, its to never bet against Trump.

4
duckduck [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

The "standing" argument was always an excuse so the Supreme Court could avoid it. The Texas case was brought about specifically because it literally has to be handled by the Supreme Court (state versus state obviously can't be decided in-state), and they still wouldn't take it.