The SCOTUS is not a trial court. It doesn't hear evidence.
You don't get to do that. You don't get to present new evidence on appeal, neither do you get to re-try the evidence.
Just re the current PA decision (technically they were "late" ie not within the 180 days the statute gave to complain about the (unconstitutional) change to the PA voting laws):
The problem with the 180 day PA deadline is that the Plaintiffs hadn't been injured yet. If they (or anyone) had gone to court "timely", then the court would have just said (pick one) "no standing, "prospective injury" "not ripe" (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ripeness+(law)) ...
Practically speaking, the current result is "if no one timely objects, we get away with amending the [State] Constitution without bothering to follow the prescribed process to do so" and "failure of anyone to object in 180 days ratifies our violation of the [State] Constitution"...
That is not an acceptable result.
I would argue that if it was an unconstitutional law (because it conflicts with or adds to, the State Constitution without the proper procedural steps taken to do so) then it is void ab initio, meaning it is invalid from its inception, having no force or effect, and not legally valid AT ANY POINT IN TIME. (So the deadline has no effect either.) Maybe the SCOTUS will take that position.
Unlike Bush v. Gore, Trump is the presumptive "losing party" at this point in the election... IMO that will make it harder for any Court to reverse the results.
The problem with the 180 day PA deadline is that the Plaintiffs hadn't been injured yet. If they (or anyone) had gone to court "timely", then the court would have just said (pick one) "no standing:, "prospective injury" "not ripe" (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Ripeness+(law)) ...
Practically speaking, the current result is "if no one timely objects, we get away with amending the [State] Constitution without bothering to follow the prescribed process to do so" and "failure of anyone to object in 180 days ratifies our violation of the [State] Constitution"...
That is not an acceptable result.
I would argue that if it was an unconstitutional law (because it conflicts with or adds to, the State Constitution without the proper procedural steps taken to do so) then it is void ab initio, meaning it is invalid from its inception, having no force or effect, and not legally valid AT ANY POINT IN TIME. (So the deadline has no effect either.) I hope the SCOTUS will take that position.
I am over 60 and have never seen a Media Blackout like this. It's insane. It has to stop. It is terrifying -- the mass brainwashing that has gone on for four years was bad enough. But this? Censorship, Silencing, Blackout? They were quicker to cut off Republicans on Facebook/Youtube/Twitter than they were beheading/Jihadist propaganda!
No, the link works fine. I have archived it also, however, out of an abundance of caution: https://archive.is/yzMxv
It's ATLANTA GA you dumbshit.
Good catch Pede!
Good, but February is gonna' be a little late...
This is Sydney Powell's son.
Apologies to everyone, I accidentally wrote "AZ race" when I meant "NV race" in the Title. At least the rest of the sentence makes clear I was talking about the NEVADA election!
"“We have found discrepancies that we can't explain that would cast a doubt on whether or not that margin of victory is solid," Clark County Registrar of Voters Joe Gloria said in his report Monday to county commissioners. Gloria revealed that in nearly 1,000 ballots "they had found the discrepancies in tracking, moving from signature to manual signature verifications, as well as in the ballot curing process."
On Tuesday, on the heels of that decision, six Nevada Electoral College candidates pledged to Trump filed an election contest under Nevada's election code, citing what it claimed were substantial irregularities, improprieties, and fraud that occurred in Nevada's 2020 presidential election.
"The suit details the unreliability of the Agilis ballot processing and signature scanning machine used in Clark County, and the electronic voting machines used throughout the state," said Jenna Ellis, Trump campaign senior legal advisor. "It also argues that the denial of observer access to the duplication process, and the impropriety of some Native American outreach programs that resulted in apparent vote-buying, cast substantial doubt on the results of the election. No less than 40,000 votes, and possibly more, were impacted by these various defects. This margin is greater than the margin between President Trump and Joe Biden in Nevada.
"We believe the discrepancies discovered in the days following Nevada's election and invited by the Democrats' last-minute changes to the law monumentally influenced this presidential election to benefit Joe Biden, and as a result, these irregularities have deprived Nevadans of their right to a free and fair election. These malicious actions, which have impacted more than 40,000 ballots, cannot be overlooked, and President Trump will continue battling for justice and seeking to restore Americans' faith in our electoral process."
The contest was filed in the First Judicial District Court in Carson City, Nev."
WHAT IS the SOURCE for this picture?
Yeah, but I believe that was witnessed in Detroit, Michigan, not Philadelphia. I thought the Sharpies made sense too -- but that was AZ...
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-buffalo-chronicle/ Doesn't sound any more FAKE than the mainstream news. Maybe they got this one right?
UGH. Obama Appointee judge....
Depends on how much proof he has (time, place, pictures, emails, electronic check from Dems, whatever).
And more articles and opinion pieces questioning the validity of the election are going Mainstream.
And if you watched today's video, the fucker went and back-pedaled -- what was THAT about?
GREAT ARTICLE! Thank you Pede!
You have no understanding of what you are talking about. It is just gobbledygook. You are, however, entitled to your opinion.
SCOTUS employs the severability doctrine when they deem one or more clauses of a passed statute to be unconstitutional. This doctrine is used to evaluate the rest of the legislative statute, if it lacks severability clauses, to determine if the unconstitutional clauses can be severed from the rest of statute without affecting the intent or execution of the statute, thus keeping as much of the passed statute as possible. Statutes are generally presumed to be severable. The judicial power to sever is not granted by the legislature but rather flows from powers inherent in the judiciary.
Except that isn't how it works. SCOTUS employs the severability doctrine when they deem one or more clauses of a passed statute to be unconstitutional. This doctrine is used to evaluate the rest of the legislative statute, if it lacks severability clauses, to determine if the unconstitutional clauses can be severed from the rest of statute without affecting the intent or execution of the statute, thus keeping as much of the passed statute as possible. Statutes are generally presumed to be severable. The judicial power to sever is not granted by the legislature but rather flows from powers inherent in the judiciary.
Seems pretty obvious. Trump is always prescient.
And Reversal, I might add?!!