-1
thxpk -1 points ago +1 / -2

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

2
thxpk 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

2
thxpk 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

3
thxpk 3 points ago +3 / -0

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

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

0
thxpk 0 points ago +1 / -1

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.

4
thxpk 4 points ago +4 / -0

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.

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

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.

-6
thxpk -6 points ago +11 / -17

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

2
thxpk 2 points ago +2 / -0

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

2
thxpk 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

2
thxpk 2 points ago +2 / -0

?

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?

3
thxpk 3 points ago +3 / -0

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...

2
thxpk 2 points ago +2 / -0

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.

3
thxpk 3 points ago +3 / -0

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.

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

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

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

Likely he could rule the PA election was so bad, so much fraud that he throws the lot out so no electors at all.

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

If we win they may exclude pa completely so noone gets the pa electoral votes or they make some kind of ruling against mail ballots which may or may not be enough to win - depending on how they define it

1
thxpk 1 point ago +1 / -0

lol indeed, I do hope he's not cucking out. I have trust issues with anyone not named Trump.

-4
thxpk -4 points ago +4 / -8

He's started a couple of good legal cases but overall he's a q tard making us look bad, I don't think Powell is too good either, they really need to shut up with the conspiracy shit and just keep hammering them legally with proper cases.

view more: ‹ Prev Next ›