If 50 states all sign up to a contract (The Constitution) then some States choose to ignore parts of this contract and if your contract is not enforced (SCOTUS) than what is the point of the contract in the first place? You no longer have a Union.

This is not just about Trump. I think this is about the very future of the country. If scotus punts on this, it's the beginning of the end.

Does anyone not believe the DOJ/FBI are corrupt to the core? There's no "good" agents, there's no honor, they exist solely to serve themselves. There is nothing left to save of them.

Additional Counsel

Steve Marshall, Attorney General STATE OF ALABAMA

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General STATE OF NEBRASKA

Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General STATE OF ARKANSAS

Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Ashley Moody, Attorney General STATE OF FLORIDA

Mike Hunter, Attorney General STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General STATE OF INDIANA

Alan Wilson, Attorney General STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Derek Schmidt, Attorney General STATE OF KANSAS

Jason R. Ravnsborg, Attorney General STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Jeff Landry, Attorney General STATE OF LOUISIANA

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General STATE OF TENNESSEE

Lynn Fitch, Attorney General STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General STATE OF UTAH

Tim Fox, Attorney General STATE OF MONTANA

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Steve Marshall, Attorney General STATE OF ALABAMA

Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General STATE OF NEBRASKA

Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General STATE OF ARKANSAS

Wayne Stenehjem, Attorney General STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

Ashley Moody, Attorney General STATE OF FLORIDA

Mike Hunter, Attorney General STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Curtis T. Hill, Jr., Attorney General STATE OF INDIANA

Alan Wilson, Attorney General STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

Derek Schmidt, Attorney General STATE OF KANSAS

Jason R. Ravnsborg, Attorney General STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

Jeff Landry, Attorney General STATE OF LOUISIANA

Herbert H. Slatery III, Attorney General STATE OF TENNESSEE

Lynn Fitch, Attorney General STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

Sean D. Reyes, Attorney General STATE OF UTAH

Tim Fox, Attorney General STATE OF MONTANA

Patrick Morrisey, Attorney General STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

Yeh far too many cucks here who downvote because they can't have a rational discussion about what is going on, our chances, our strategy etc, facing reality doesn't mean you give up fighting, but you can't start a new attack if you're too stupid or arrogant to admit some attacks are failing.

PA was our best case so it could a strong hint cuck scotus don’t want to touch this at all

I think the tweet by Cruz confirms the pa case is dead.

so why the fuck is everyone across twitter and the news saying they rejected the case

wtf is going on, one minute they say they only reject relief, the next they say they rejected it completely. ffs it would be nice to get some real information

I don't think this is true, he's deleted the tweet

Stop posting this, it is not true. Only Louisiana has joined.

The relief sought was not sending the certification to DC.

We were betting all on this case till Texas came along so I'm pissed that it seems even scotus are cucking out

Well Mark Levin is not hopeful, he just said this

Mark R. Levin @marklevinshow · 11m

Sadly, SCOTUS could not or would not cobble together 4 members to stop the lawlessness that took place by PA officials. It was a very solid case with clear federal ramifications but they denied relief. I’ll discuss at length on my radio show this evening.

yes I know but the belief was they moved the date to not fall on the 9th so they could issue injunctive relief, the fact they denied it immediately is not a good sign. Means they'll consider the case but don't expect relief that fixes anything.

But the injunctive relief is why they moved the date, if they weren't going to grant it they didn't need to move the date. scotus is cucked.

The PA case was as plain unconstitutional as you can get, the fact they just rejected it out of hand without even looking at it is not good, scotus is cucked

The case covers the same ground as the Texas case so I'm not optimistic now, fucking cuck scotus

Source?

I don't think that's true at all, that's why scotus exists to deal with legal issues between states and between states and the feds all as they pertain to the Constitution and this case is all about the Constitution.

?

It is written in the Constitution:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.

Those states violated the Constitution when they made laws outside of their legislatures

Where does the article say not?

I'm trying to follow your post but your posts are rather scattershot, sorry if I misunderstand.

I don't think that's the angle they are using, they are saying if these states don't abide by the Constitution, then it becomes meaningless. How they didn't abide by it isn't the point because yeh Texas has no say in how PA runs their elections, but if PA ignores the Constitution itself, then those states that don't have a right to ask scotus to enforce the Constitution for it they don't, then what's the point of the union in the first place...

Isn't it right here?

casting and counting of ballots in violation of state law, which, in turn, violated the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

and make the same point I did

but their actions have also debased the votes of citizens in Plaintiff State and other States that remained loyal to the Constitution.

Not sure I agree, the suit is not attacking the jurisdiction each state has over how they run elections, it's pointing out they violated the Constitution (which all States abide by) which if allowed to stand overturns the Constitution itself for all states. If each state can literally ignore the Constitution when they wish, then we're no longer a union.

Explain?

tecnically maybe but cutting PA completely might set the ball rolling on the others