I like groups of people simply because they are native to certain places. For example, I like people from America, France, Germany, Poland, etc. I generally don't like/trust people from other places like all of Africa, China, etc. Obviously when meeting individuals, it's a case-by-case basis because there are good people all over the world. But I was merely saying that them executing homos and cheaters isn't nearly so bad an example of the "people" being "bad" per se.

You know it was a bit tongue-in-cheek remark, right?

I don't think it would be so close to Christmas, but then again what the hell do I know

Trump is losing patience. I love it.

That's supposed to make me not like them?

I've always said that France is our biggest ally. Your country has an incredible history and you need your own Trump. Does Massena have any ancestors still living? Suchet? Ney?

NH is one of the whitest, and thus, most safe states in the country. Of course they want to change that.

He had a very similar threat struck down by the courts as violating the anti-commandeering and also the spending clause concerning funding of sanctuary cities. I wonder why he thinks this one won't be struck down as well?

Can we stop cucking out over gays?

If the Court took this stance concerning Mootness, then Roe v Wade would have never existed.

Mootness is a restraint, like standing, on judicial review. In order to hear a case, the plaintiff must not have their case be moot, which means whatever injury suffered must exist throughout the entirety of the judicial proceedings. In Roe v Wade, the plaintiff was a pregnant woman. Given that the case could not be resolved before the plaintiff actually had the baby, the case should technically have been thrown out as moot. After all, the whole issue of aborting a pregnancy can't reasonably be solved after a pregnancy. However, the Court bent the rules to allow her to avoid a mootness issue by creating an exception to mootness called "capable of repetition yet evading review". This means that if there is a reasonable chance that the same injury could result to that plaintiff again where if they brought suit again, they would still end up moot, the Court can hear the case anyways.

Here, the issue is the same. If they say a case is moot merely because the election is over and therefore the plaintiff's injury is over, why can they not say it's capable of repetition yet evading review again? It's not always reasonable to bring this type of suit pre-election because there may not have been mass fraud pre-election, only post.

The double standard is palpable.

I'm still confused. Half the people are saying this doesn't mean anything unless Trump wins in the courts, and the other half are saying that Pence gets to decide if he picks the Trump or Biden electors in January. The latter seems like a much better option. Does anyone know for certain? I don't want someone's best guess.

I had Constitutional Law this semester. It was like learning to be a astronomer during an asteroid shower.

Disagree. Snowden is a traitor

Can we stop advocating outright murder on this site simply because SCOTUS denied cert on one case? This is ridiculous. There are tons of legal ways to still attain victory and yet we have people who have likely never got in a fistfight, much less shot someone pretending they're going to start a revolution. So much fucking LARPing. How about we exhaust our LEGAL options before we start panicking and doing something we're gonna regret.

Part of me thinks spooks are the ones making these ridiculous and reactionary posts just to discredit the website and thus Trump supporters.

SCOTUS denied certiorari for the Texas suit. That means they have declined to hear the case. They did so, because any plaintiff must have what is called "standing". This concept essentially means that one has to have a particularized injury from the defendant. As a very easy way to demonstrate this, imagine that person X wants to sue Walmart for discriminatory hiring practices. X alleges that Walmart only hires whites in their stores in Arkansas. X himself lives in New Jersey and has not tried to get a job at Walmart before. A "generalized grievance" generally means that X could not bring suit against Walmart.

Here, the Court denied cert because Texas lacked standing. How Georgia governs their elections does not affect Texas, at least procedurally. Now, Texas argues that since it's a federal election, that fraudulent voting in another state diminishes their vote through an Equal Protection (14th amendment) claim. But SCOTUS never got to decide that issue (which means, decided on the "merits") because they lacked standing to hear the issue in the first place.

Can you guys chill the fuck out. It's not as if we pushed all in on SCOTUS granting cert. There are multiple paths to victory and very little has changed. You all just got your hopes up with the Texas suit.

Trump will be president still next month. We are fine.

How unbelievable it is that people in the public spotlight like this, these "checkmark" people have zero historical context. Lincoln imprisoned tons of journalists for criticizing the Union.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day

I take it you haven't looked at the massive compilations of Q proofs? They are really remarkable. Like, less likely to be a coincidence than Joe Biden winning the presidency in a legit fashion. Since Q is legit, it makes even more sense that he'd occasionally drop disinfo to make the deep state use ammunition or facilitate them into making bad moves.

Seriously, look up compilations videos of Q proofs. It's staggering.

But Gaetz is already in Congress and so is Rubio. I don't get it

YES LARA PLEASE

It's almost a relief in some ways. We no longer have to pretend we can change each others minds. We don't have to worry about optics anymore. We don't have to cater and compromise with them. It's all out information warfare and we must win or the Republic is dead.

Fight fight fight. Now is the time to stand.

Try it.

Haha we are very similar. I am a 2L and was a huge college football fan. The last few months, I have not given a crap about football but have been following the Trump campaign. Big things like this really put sports in perspective. I'll relax and care about football again once I know the republic is safe.

Would love to how Sekulow argue our case

Na she's a tough one. She knows the stakes.