By failing to address the concerns in this election, the Supreme Court is allowing violations of the 1st and 2nd articles and the 1st, 10th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution (off the top of my head) Whether their reasons for refusing to hear these cases are rooted in cowardice or complicity, the result is to allow election fraud to change results in the face of statistical impossibilities and numerous procedural illegalities.
No Constitution means no law, of any kind. Toss the 10th Amendment, for example, and you've tossed the basis for all local law enforcement of criminal and civil law. To make matters worse, they cowered while the most conspicuous possible matter, a presidential election, was being considered. Now at least 75 million (and probably quite a few more) voters realize that there is an authority that will select candidates when they don't like what the voters have to say.
There was no conclusion. There was no presentation or examination of evidence. There was only abdication of responsibility. Mathematical analysis alone is enough to demonstrate that vote counts are off. Deeper dives into the math make the question laughable. That's before you get into legal issues, one of which the Supremes Court flagged for observation (in Pennsylvania) before the election.
At the very least, anyone who doesn't understand math and doesn't find it odd that ballot dumps occurred in four cities simultaneously without observers and when the counting was supposedly paused (more statistical impossibilities in those ratios, by the way) should be eager to lay the matter to rest with transparent analysis, no?
Strangely, no one on the Left has argued for this. Instead, they have argued against allowing evidence and processes to be examined. If you think the evidence backs your claim, you welcome analysis. You don't destroy evidence and refuse court orders if you think you won honestly.
If Trump has won in this way, your "different political viewpoint" would have you howling for transparency. The difference is that I would be standing beside you, because I value the Constitution and truth more than I value the results of any particular election.
Very few people will benefit from the post-Constitutional era we seem to be entering. There are a fair number of people who have been moved to unfocused hatred by the same slanted media that has refused to report on the laughably fraud in this election, but there is nothing for them in our glorious new globalist technocracy.
I suspect that fewer still will recognize how they participated in bringing it about, either.
It's a very obvious thing. They looked at no evidence; they didn't hear a case. If they had heard the case and ruled against it, I could at least respect their backbone and corruption because that's directly standing up to the entire conservative population in the US. Instead, they were cowards, citing concerns over unrest, and completely cucked out and didn't hear the case. If this case isn't worth hearing, then SCOTUS isn't worth having.
By failing to address the concerns in this election, the Supreme Court is allowing violations of the 1st and 2nd articles and the 1st, 10th, and 14th amendments of the Constitution (off the top of my head) Whether their reasons for refusing to hear these cases are rooted in cowardice or complicity, the result is to allow election fraud to change results in the face of statistical impossibilities and numerous procedural illegalities.
No Constitution means no law, of any kind. Toss the 10th Amendment, for example, and you've tossed the basis for all local law enforcement of criminal and civil law. To make matters worse, they cowered while the most conspicuous possible matter, a presidential election, was being considered. Now at least 75 million (and probably quite a few more) voters realize that there is an authority that will select candidates when they don't like what the voters have to say.
There was no conclusion. There was no presentation or examination of evidence. There was only abdication of responsibility. Mathematical analysis alone is enough to demonstrate that vote counts are off. Deeper dives into the math make the question laughable. That's before you get into legal issues, one of which the Supremes Court flagged for observation (in Pennsylvania) before the election.
At the very least, anyone who doesn't understand math and doesn't find it odd that ballot dumps occurred in four cities simultaneously without observers and when the counting was supposedly paused (more statistical impossibilities in those ratios, by the way) should be eager to lay the matter to rest with transparent analysis, no?
Strangely, no one on the Left has argued for this. Instead, they have argued against allowing evidence and processes to be examined. If you think the evidence backs your claim, you welcome analysis. You don't destroy evidence and refuse court orders if you think you won honestly.
If Trump has won in this way, your "different political viewpoint" would have you howling for transparency. The difference is that I would be standing beside you, because I value the Constitution and truth more than I value the results of any particular election.
Very few people will benefit from the post-Constitutional era we seem to be entering. There are a fair number of people who have been moved to unfocused hatred by the same slanted media that has refused to report on the laughably fraud in this election, but there is nothing for them in our glorious new globalist technocracy.
I suspect that fewer still will recognize how they participated in bringing it about, either.
It's a very obvious thing. They looked at no evidence; they didn't hear a case. If they had heard the case and ruled against it, I could at least respect their backbone and corruption because that's directly standing up to the entire conservative population in the US. Instead, they were cowards, citing concerns over unrest, and completely cucked out and didn't hear the case. If this case isn't worth hearing, then SCOTUS isn't worth having.