1
Tazr671 1 point ago +2 / -1

Every time I have seen Pence take on some cuck he leaves a grease spot in the road. Trump has many talents, but debating is not one of them. Pence on the other hand is a master.

6
Tazr671 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes because it was imperialism for the US to won and operate the CZ Carter gave it back to a corrupt government who brought in the CCP.

<P>They have been at war with us for a long long time.

1
Tazr671 1 point ago +1 / -0

US CONSTITUTION Article VII "The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same."

<P>The Constitution is a compact between the states. Out of that compact the SC derives the power and duty to try cases under that Constitution to settle controversies between the states "in law and equity."

<P>The seven deserted their post in a time of constitutional crisis.

1
Tazr671 1 point ago +1 / -0

Incorrect. The test in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife, as Scalia wrote it is: to show "they have suffered an injury in fact, i. e., a concrete and particularized,** actual or imminent invasion of a legally protected interest**."

<P>That states have an interest that the other states live up to their bargain in the Constitution. And the harm iif not actual because the EC has not yet met is certainly imminent because they will meet in the near future on a date certain and the outcome is a foregone conclusion in the due course of things.

3
Tazr671 3 points ago +3 / -0

This isn't a would have allowed thing. It's a shall have original jurisdiction thing. It's one of those non-discretionary shall thingees that the judges all go on about, except when it applies to them themselves.

2
Tazr671 2 points ago +2 / -0

No they didn't say "all we need" is standing. They said the States don't have standing and therefore they will not proceed further on a "shall have original jurisdiction" case.

2
Tazr671 2 points ago +2 / -0

We have slipped into 3rd world shitholedom

1
Tazr671 1 point ago +2 / -1

Paxton for new CJ of the New USA SC.

1
Tazr671 1 point ago +1 / -0

I am not losing my mind. Three AJs on the SC lost theirs. They had a sacred oath to uphold the constitution, the perfect case to do so, and they violated it.

2
Tazr671 2 points ago +2 / -0

Useless cowards is what they are.

3
Tazr671 3 points ago +3 / -0

Standing is an issue? The Constitution is a compact between the states and it's breech is a breech of contract and a breech of a sacred oath to God. If the SC will not enforce the Constitution then the five cucks are cowards.

16
Tazr671 16 points ago +16 / -0

Give this pede a white feather. 100,000,000,0000 white feathers for the wall around the swamp.

1
Tazr671 1 point ago +1 / -0

What merits. The case is frivolous. They said so. And the SC cannot take jurisdiction to decide a case under the constitution because it would be abusive to these self abusers.

2
Tazr671 2 points ago +2 / -0

No. It's half the country coming against those who rigged this election and all those who are standing up for the rigging. and all the folks who benefit from the rigging [e.g. Cornyn]

1
Tazr671 1 point ago +1 / -0

Any normal person with his clearances would be indicted and held without bail.

2
Tazr671 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why would they sue? They are in charge. Just pass a resolution stating the facts, invalidating the certified slate and naming the electors for the state. It's a US constitution thing. The governor and administrative state have nothing to do with it.

2
Tazr671 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's a suit against the state. The AG has to respond for the state. The SOS does not represent the state.

3
Tazr671 3 points ago +3 / -0

Napalm, pede.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›