I agree that he's relevant. However, I would hate to see his quotables be mentioned in the media to slander our movement. He's doing the right stuff but memeing him to popularity may or may not hurt us.
He has a platform and can potentially use it to propel our movement into the future but I'm not sure he realizes that yet.
I can see your point, however, Alito and Thomas are saying they agree with the matter. Judges at the lowest level are strange when it comes to making rulings (from what I've seen). "I won't make a ruling but the prosecutor and defense should come to terms and I'll turn a blind eye and go with it."
Same applies here as far as SCOTUS not taking the matter. I think SCOTUS is saying "let things play out until you absolutely desperately need us." I agree these are desperate times but the SCOTUS has to look at history and the future and more often than not, they let will the parties and lower courts decide until they absolutely cannot. I feel like this is not an absolute dismissal, just yet.
I realize that this news is upsetting and seems bad. But I think the discussion needs to be had based upon the rejection instead of calling for Civil War, just yet.
Is the Supreme Court not taking this up because they are saying that the case is not a federal matter and a state matter as the situation currently stands? All of the mid-level cases are still trending in the right direction so I can somewhat understand them saying they need the lesser courts to make judgement before SCOTUS can even take up a case because if they rule, it will set precedence and will create a 'butterfly effect' which I can understand them not wanting to deal with.
Not trying to be a Doomer here but the way I see the rejection is that the Texas lawsuit usurps the 'chain of command' for the judicial process and they decided it as such. I still think they are on our side but the timing may just be incorrect.
EDIT: changed ruling to rejection accordingly
A new election, entirely feasible I suppose, is unlikely due to the time frame here running up against inauguration. So this ruling, will throw out gam-gam's vote and the 6 (?) illegal votes trying to cancel hers. That's where my uncertainty lies, what happens if this goes through?
I know we're strong on how we think the vote should be but I truly don't know how it lays post decision. (It should be positive though)
That's kind where there's uncertainty. Not that it goes south for the Trump team but Parnell seems to not have a suggested resolution and is relying on exact interpretation of the law by someone with expertise.
So I think it's based off 'legal' versus 'illegal' votes pertaining to the state so if the ballots in question are determined illegal, they will be removed, malicious or not.
Each state will be held as a different legal matter during this potential hold of PA. As much as a PA SCOTUS matter holds up, the other states need to be litigated too.
I'm probably wrong but other states will see more focus now.
Conceding means nothing LEGALLY. It's for show. But worst cases scenario, we're looking at swearing in scenarios. I don't think it will get that far, but it's one of the pathways.
We're on the same page, I just felt like it needed to be stated.
I agree with you that Trump was a bull in the china shop, but Trump had his own version of professionalism. Call you out and make you face the facts and then make you eat the lie. It's what we hope to deal with on a daily basis in our own lives and can only hope our representatives would do for us in the government.