If SCOTUS continues to allow this shit to stand then screw 'em. Appoint 78 more justices for all the good they are doing us now anyway. We have a fucking conservative majority and they dismiss Texas on Standing. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.
It TX was dismissed for standing why can't the legislatures of those states go to SCOTUS. Surely they'd have standing.
I thought SCOTUS was going to deny Texas because they were asking to give the power back to the legislatures. I was sure SCOTUS was going to say that obviously the legislatures don't want the power or they would have taken it back themselves. I didn't expect it to be denied for standing. Legislatures won't do shit. Trump is almost out of time. Electors are seated on Monday aren't they? How in the world can every single branch of government allow this charade of an election to stand? It jut boggles the mind.
Bastards. How can TX not have standing when their citizens were disenfranchised by the actions of another state. Standing and latches, such fucking cop outs.
I keep hearing this argument and I must be missing something about it. Why would a site like this, or any of the others be any different than an opinion section in a newspaper? Put up a disclaimer that the views expressed by visitors to the site are not necessarily the views of the site itself, and that the purpose of the site is free expression of views and that the site does remove viewer posts for any reason other than posts prohibited by law. Why isn't that sufficient? That's what they do in the newspaper's opinion sections and what they say whenever an opinion piece is run on the news. In fact, they should probably just loop that every 20 seconds since the journalists now offer nothing but opinions.
The Dems constantly speak about disenfranchising the voters in the states that cheated but they never talk about the voters in every other state who those four states have already disenfranchised. SCOTUS should either remove the electors from the board for those four states or allow the legislatures to choose the electors. Let the people in those states who caused the rest of the country to be disenfranchised deal with their governors and election officials who caused their votes to be invalidated. My vote should not be diluted by by their fraud.
That is my concern. The legislatures didn't even make any real attempts at taking back their power. Some of them blew a lot of hot air but nothing went beyond resolutions. I hope that SCOTUS doesn't cite the legislatures' inaction as a way to dismiss Texas' suit under the guise that the legislatures chose not to involve themselves, so they must tacitly approved of the results in each state. How many of the four states being sued by Texas have legislatures controlled by Democrats? Is it all of them? If even one of those states has a Republican majority then they need to be derided, shamed, and have shoes thrown at them, but only after they send electors for Trump to Congress.
Did she drive up on the sidewalk? If not, non story.
Glad that they joined. their argument is similar to something I've been saying since the Texas suit was filed which has me very concerned. Clearly it is the legislatures plenary power to determine the manner in which its electors are chosen and clearly in at least these four states the legislature's powers were usurped by the executive and/or judicial branches. Yet the legislatures made no attempts to seize back their authority. None. I fear that SCOTUS could use this to rule against Texas. If the legislatures were so concerned that their authority had been usurped, they had a duty to call special sessions and vote to take back their constitutional right to choose those electors. Since they did not, it gives SCOTUS an easy way out of this.
Your initial rebuttal to PA's response to Texas is incorrect. Act 77 was adopted by the PA legislature. It was not an Executive order of the Governor. However, that doesn't' make it any less unconstitutional. The legislature cant' create laws that are not Constitutional and the allegation made by Texas is that Act 77, created by the PA legislature, is unconstitutional. The argument made to the courts by PA in a prior lawsuit was that Act 77 was adopted two years ago so Plaintiffs are not bringing their case about it in a timely manner. Lower courts have agreed with this and have denied relief in cases brought on the matter. I would agree with the doctrine of timeliness in most areas, which is why we have statutes of limitations. However, just as there are exceptions to statute of limitation for the most egregious of crimes, such as murder, so too, the burden of bringing a suit in a timely manner should not be considered in cases involving unconstitutionality. Simply because the legislation is only being contested two years after it's adoption does not automatically confer constitutionality on that legislation. If it was in fact unconstitutional at the time he legislation was drafted, and if the Constitution has not been amended since, then the legislation would remain unconstitutional today. The only thing that can turn something which is unconstitutional into something which is constitutional is an amendment tot he Constitution. Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the nation, then any legislation created which violates it must be void, regardless of how long that legislation has existed. In other words, logically there can never be a statute of limitations on unconstitutionality.
That will just act as an incentive for them to break in. "Look at all of this great shit he leaves out here in the open, must be stuff 10x better inside."
Not buying it. It just all fits too perfectly into the narrative.
Almost as bad as politician or journalist.
Need to do some more studying of the law because SCOTUS having the Legislatures choose their electors, or even nullifying the electors form those states are not without precedent. It's not a regular occurrence but it's certainly not without precedent. It scares me to think that this person is law student, accepts that the case has a ton of merit, yet still wants the matter to fail. How much do you want to bet he/she is headed for the Public Defender's office once their have their law degree? If a case has merit then it should be decided on it's merits, not on a cop out like standing or because of public pressure. Either the Constitution means something or the Country is built entirely on a lie.
The Democrats screw black people at every opportunity they can. Slowly but surely though blacks are waking up to it thanks to Trump, and the Dems know it, which is why they need the illegal immigrants to become citizens to replace the blacks. Then they'll us the same formula on that group for the next 30 years.
Yep, I remember them saying back in 2016, when Trump was on his "What the hell do you have to lose" mantra, that if Trump got double digit support from the black community it would be almost an impossibility for Democrats to win the election. Well, son-of-a-bitch. Apparently they didn't factor in fraud.
In my early years I was a Democrat because my parents were and my grandparents were before them. I was not interested in politics so just voted the way most of the people I knew voted. But in my mid twenties I started questioning who these people were and what they really stood for, and just after studying the party's platforms it was obvious that I was never a Democrat. I think most people just don't pay attention and really have little idea what they are actually voting for. The blacks though are a conundrum. You have to be exceptionally stupid to get screwed year after year by the same people who promise you everything and never follow through, yet you keep rewarding those same people with more and more dominion over your life. It's the same with the Jews. The consistently vote overwhelmingly Democrat despite the fact that the Democrats are really openly hostile to Israel and Republican's are staunch, stalwart supporters of Israel. It simply defies all logic.
I think it's rather ironic that they are joining the suit when all of the bullshit centered around them from the very beginning. Not sure if them entering the suit helps or hurts it because of the doctrine of clean hands. I don't think they have them.
Good Lord. That woman was on the Families, Children and Seniors committee? How bad did her opponent have to be to lose to this whack job?
By the look of things Florida is going to tear Georgia up. Damn.
The Texas case was only just filed yesterday. What if TX had not actually filed a case? Should we be thanking out lucky stars that TX field suit?
No they didn't.
It's a total guessing game. I'm hedging my bets and moved half of my retirement into cash or money market accounts and left the other half in predominantly defense and construction/infrastructure sectors. If it booms, I'm not going to become a billionaire, but if it completely tanks I'm also not going to have to add 10 years to my retirement age.
If SCOTUS continues to allow this shit to stand then screw 'em. Appoint 78 more justices for all the good they are doing us now anyway. We have a fucking conservative majority and they dismiss Texas on Standing. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on.