4681
Comments (257)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
deleted 1 point ago +14 / -13
42
ALargeRock 42 points ago +42 / -0

Which should be heard. If it’s illegal for states to change election laws without legislation, than the case has standing.

Which is also how fraud would be proven.

-20
deleted -20 points ago +3 / -23
18
ALargeRock 18 points ago +19 / -1

So in an emergency, every law is up for a change without consent of the governed by skipping the legislative process?

Gee, I bet nothing wrong can happen with that...

-6
deleted -6 points ago +3 / -9
3
randomusename 3 points ago +3 / -0

The Supreme Court has sent the message that they don't want the courts involved in elections. They ruled against a judge in Alabama who wanted to allow easier absentee ballots, then refused to hear a case from Rhode Island asking to challenge the Sec of State making mail ballots the norm outside of the state legislators (they said no standing, but of course Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch voted to hear it)

And now this.

Its a chicken shit position that takes away a key balance of power negating the 3rd branch of government.

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

the constitution is toiled paper when I say so

26
logan34 26 points ago +27 / -1

The year is 2025. Kamala Harris just won her second term with 90% of the popular vote. Through executive order, the citizens have lost the entire bill of rights. Poverty is widespread, and gun ownership is punishable by death sentence without trial. The country is 130 trillion in debt to China, who is ready to collect.

The concerned masses, instead of actually fighting for their right to liberty, use ham radios to spread out the message to “TRUST THE PLAN” with the belief that someone else will come wipe their asses for them.

-4
deleted -4 points ago +4 / -8
10
wwwchae 10 points ago +13 / -3

Trust the plan!

-10
deleted -10 points ago +5 / -15
17
christianknight 17 points ago +17 / -0

I think he was being sarcastic

2
Philhelm 2 points ago +2 / -0

Hence the italic font.

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

Hopefully lol

1
wwwchae 1 point ago +1 / -0

Oh I wasn't speaking of myself... was speaking of someone else...

Also Qtsrd? Pretty sure it is Qtard...

Supreme Court has constantly refused to look at the election fraud cases the 2 rejections are only further proof of that.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
0
deleted 0 points ago +2 / -2
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
-1
Skyrison -1 points ago +1 / -2

fuck you