musterion
Well-known member
You have no idea what that could entail.
SCOTUS just handed the left every national election from now on!
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
You have no idea what that could entail.
If you think the entire system is corrupt and evil from top to bottom, then you have to decide what to do. You can live with it, try to change it, protest it, start a civil war, move to another country...
To me it's clear that somebody is trying to steal the election- Donald Trump is- by misusing the court system. The courts aren't going along with this attempt by the incumbent to overturn US Democracy.
So you tell me how "sanctions" can change the election results. I assume you've read the entire Executive Order....
Indeed.
The difference is that there is, in fact, evidence.
Such as the evidence that has been presented already.
Means, motive, opportunity, and hard evidence that the dominion machines were counting votes strongly in favor of Biden.
And the courts are often wrong.
To keep fighting.
Agreed
I disagree with this.
The injustice was done and the victims of the injustice took their case to court and the court said to stuff it in your backside and get used to it.
It is very much the fault of the supreme court.
Those four states violated their own state constitutions. They don't even deny that they did so. The elections in those states are therefore illegal, by definition.
As for the evidence of fraud, there's tons of it. Turn off CNN and get your news from somewhere other than Facebook and you might actually figure out what the hell is happening to your country and your freedoms.
musterion
Well-known member
Disagree.
My understanding is that the SC said Texas had no standing only because (a) fraud or not, the election process isn't close to over yet so Texas can't say the election was stolen YET, and (b) Trump, if anyone, would be the aggrieved party so it is him who must bring it...and his cases are about to reach them.
Several legal authorities known to be firmly on the Right insist the decision - while disappointing - was the legally, constitutionally correct one.
Remember: they did not comment on the MERITS of the claims of fraud. The rejection was purely procedural. There is nothing keeping it from reaching the SC in a corrected manner.
In any event, remember Trump's 2018 executive order. It was implemented for precisely this situation. It comes into play if/when legal avenues have been exhausted.
Relax. This isn't the bottom of the 9th yet.
Last edited:
The states are the ones who were responsible to make sure the cheating didn't happen.
Three of these states elected insane demon governors and somehow two years later expected them to behave fairly in the election? The people people in these states literally chose to be taken advantage of. People warned them that they needed to be as enthusiastic about going out and voting two years ago as they were for Trump, but they didn't. Their non-involvement caused the later problems. The same goes for California.
It was because people were not paying attention to local elections and local politics that we all have to pay the price nationally.
And even now, these states have legislatures controlled by Republicans. And yes, they can constitutionally toss the presidential election results in their state if they want. I don't think they have the balls to do that, but they could if they wanted to. They don't need any court.
So yes, the states involved are at fault.
There was no fraud alleged in the Texas case. The case was about the voters of Texas (and 20 other states that joined the suit) were disenfranchised because these states conducted illegal elections based on facts that are not in dispute.
It would be nice if the Supreme Court had to explain the reasons for rejecting such a suit. They either didn't explain it or the explanation is never reported. Either way, it makes it look like the court just gave Texas and half the country the bird.
Then what's the point of any state ever going to court over what another state has done?
The point is that those states failed to make sure the cheating didn't happen and one state suing another before the supreme court is a perfectly legal and valid means of seeking a remedy.
When a court refuses to do justice, they are as guilty as the criminal and become criminals themselves. The Supreme Court is nothing other than an accomplice after the fact.
Clete
Where the state lines should be, interstate trade interference, state property lawsuits, and others.
Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan completely agree with you. They believe that the Supreme Court should do what they consider to be justice regardless of what the law and the Constitution actually allow.
I have told you who has the power now to make sure justice is done - the Republican state legislatures in these four states. Do you consider them to be criminals?
Justice does not always happen and this has been true from the beginning. Wake up and smell the horse poo.
musterion
Well-known member
This was sort of snotty thing to say. I don't think that the supreme court should do things that the constitution doesn't allow. Quite the contrary!
I don't see where the constitution allows the Supreme Court to not hear a case where they are the court of origination. A point that two the of the judges made about this very case.
This argument is identical to saying that we don't need any criminal court at all because the ones who have the power to make sure crime isn't committed are the criminals. If there were no criminals, we wouldn't need judges.
The point is that the legislators failed to do what is right and that the executive branch in those states did thing that they had no right to do. A fact that is no in dispute, by the way. As a result, the elections in those states are illegal, BY DEFINITION and if they are allowed to stand then every LEGAL vote cast in the whole rest of the country is disenfranchised.
If that isn't legal standing then there is no such thing!
"Criminal" is defined as one who breaks the law and so yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't I?
Said the Supreme Court told the whole damn country!
NO!
Not fraud but on the deliberate and in your face, changing of the actual rules of the election!
The legislature didn't pass any law allowing mail in ballots, ballot healing, ballot drop boxes, the ignoring of post marks on the ballot envelope, etc, etc. These changes (and others) were made by the either the Governor or the Secretary of State or some other government official most of whom are not elected at all and none of whom had the legal authority to make such changes according to their own state law!
The fraud happened in addition to and because of these things and in more places than just these four states. Th reason Arizona wasn't named in this lawsuit was because their legislature actually met and made the ridiculous changes to their voting laws.
If the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court has to hear the case, then the Constitution does not require them to.
Alito and Thomas didn't say that. They simply said that the bill of complaint should be allowed to be filed.
“In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that calls within our original jurisdiction.”
“I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”
So, 9-0, they would have denied relief. Even if the bill were filed, they still would not have needed to hold oral arguments.
That also brings about another point, Trump nominated all three Judges which voted against this. If the judges acted improperly, which I don't believe, Trump is at least partially responsible. Trump has made more errors in the people he hired than any president before. That's just the sad truth.
No. Not at all. This is the point of the electoral college. If California decides to select the next President through a coin flip, it doesn't affect the selection of electors in Texas. Each state has a right to choose the manner in which the President is elected. Politics is local - not national. The state legislatures have decided to stand back and not do anything. That's that state's choice.
And what law did they break?
Perhaps, but in so doing they leave injured parties with no legal recourse, which is precisely the reason why issues between states are allowed to originate the case at the Supreme Court in the first place.
From the court's order...
"Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue."
The EXACT point that I just made.
This is the way Communists think.
It is not Trump's fault that his rights are being ignored/violated.
Yes! Totally!
That's only the case if California made such a decision in accordance with ITS OWN LAWS! If the Governor of California decided he wanted all the votes for Republicans to count as half a vote and all the Democrat votes to count as two votes and then that's how the election was actually tabulated, it would be an ILLEGAL election! Such an illegal election would, in fact disenfranchise the whole rest of the country if the election was a national election.
If California's legislature changed the rules then I, as a Texan, would have no legal standing but the point is that the elections we're discussing are ADMITTEDLY illegal! No one in any one of the four states named in that suit deny having changed the election rules in violation of their own state laws. States didn't used to get to do that. Now they do!
NO IT IS NOT!
Each of these states have constitutions that give the legislature plenary power over elections in their states. IT IS NOT LEGAL for any other person or body within those states to make ANY alteration to election law - period. What those states did was illegal. The elections are therefore tainted beyond repair and it would also be illegal for them to be certified and they aught to be thrown out! If they are not, then the electoral votes from Texas are nullified and count for nothing because the opposition party was allowed to ignore the law.
The constitutions of their own states!
Jesus! Do you not even understand the most basic aspect of this case you're so vigorously defending! Have you bothered to read the complaint filed by the State of Texas?
Not only that but because different counties treated ballots differently than other counties within a particular state (a fact that is not in dispute), the Supreme Court has already made legal precedent that this is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.
So not only is there clear and undeniable ( undenied! ) violations of law but there is no possible way that anyone could make any legally justifiable argument that has as its conclusion that those election results should be allowed to stand. They were illegal elections, by those state's own admission!
Your standing as a citizen is being completely removed! Not undermined - removed! WAKE UP!