Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.
Hahhahaha. SCOTUS refuses to hear PA election case.
-
But on March 4th he'll win in the REAL election. The one that will happen in his supporters' heads.
No one on the right actually discusses this. The leftists found a few people who must have joked about it and they convinced themselves it's a real thing.
A peaceful transition is coming. Trump will not be sworn in as the 45th President of the United States in January 20. Trump will take office as the 19th President of the United States on March 4 under the restored republic.
Let me explain. You believe you live in a nation called the United States of America. This nation hasn’t existed since 1871 when this country ceased to be a nation and became a corporation belonging to the City of London. Every time you see an American flag with a gold fringe attached to it, it represents the corporation, not the country.
This is the reason you can never make progress financially. This is why the law always seems to be against the average citizen while the rich and the elite literally get away with murder and worse things. If Biden, Harris, Pence, Pelosi, etc. are arrested for their crimes before January 20, there will be no one to assume the presidency. Since Trump has not been certified as the presidential winner by congress, he cannot remain president.
If there is no president on January 20, the corporation known as the United States of America will be dissolved. The military will then become the guardians of a nation during the transition. People will then have irrefutable proof that the election was stolen by foreign entities and that Trump was chosen by a landslide. Trump then assumes the presidency as the 19th President of the United States. The last president elected before American became a corporation as Ulysses S. Grant. Republic restored.
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.well, the constitution says the remedy for state-to-state internal process disagreements lies in the general congress. so there will need to be some kind of new consent standard written into law if the court is unwilling to pick the issue up.
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.Really? What was the large-scale cheating in this recent election?
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.
Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.Really? What was the large-scale cheating in this recent election?
Any ballots deviating from the norms established by the US constitution and state legislatures do not represent valid votes. Yet these were included in 2020 election tabulations.
As Justice Thomas wrote:
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.
well, the constitution says the remedy for state-to-state internal process disagreements lies in the general congress. so there will need to be some kind of new consent standard written into law if the court is unwilling to pick the issue up.
As I understand it, this is a US constitutional issue binding on all states (Article 2 Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...") and is in addition codified in state constitutions - that state legislatures are the sole entities charged with establishing the rules for elections. Moreover, the law would appear to be sufficiently unambiguous on this issue and consequently the issue ought to be addressed (and summarily) by the courts.
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.
Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.
well, the constitution says the remedy for state-to-state internal process disagreements lies in the general congress. so there will need to be some kind of new consent standard written into law if the court is unwilling to pick the issue up.As I understand it, this is a US constitutional issue binding on all states (Article 2 Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...") and is in addition codified in state constitutions - that state legislatures are the sole entities charged with establishing the rules for elections. Moreover, the law would appear to be sufficiently unambiguous on this issue and consequently the issue ought to be addressed (and summarily) by the courts.
your quote refers to the election of electoral college reps not which branch of the state government can or can't change rules and regulations.
Article 4, Section 1 is what I'd assume to be at play when, say, Texas says Pennsylvannia didn't follow their own law.
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.
Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.well, the constitution says the remedy for state-to-state internal process disagreements lies in the general congress. so there will need to be some kind of new consent standard written into law if the court is unwilling to pick the issue up.
As I understand it, this is a US constitutional issue binding on all states (Article 2 Section 1: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...") and is in addition codified in state constitutions - that state legislatures are the sole entities charged with establishing the rules for elections. Moreover, the law would appear to be sufficiently unambiguous on this issue and consequently the issue ought to be addressed (and summarily) by the courts.
your quote refers to the election of electoral college reps not which branch of the state government can or can't change rules and regulations.
Article 4, Section 1 is what I'd assume to be at play when, say, Texas says Pennsylvannia didn't follow their own law.Actually my quote refers to both: "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is specific as to which branch of state government addresses the election of presidential elector slates.
Also, of the two PA cases, one was brought by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, and the other was brought by PA Senate President Jake Corman, and are therefore not 'state-to-state internal process disagreements' but rather intra-state issues.
-
"Actually my quote refers to both: "in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct" is specific as to which branch of state government addresses the election of presidential elector slates."
But what it's referring to isn't the election, but the election of delegates to the electoral college. That's the difference, and which invalidates your argument. you can't assume that refers to anything but the electoral college. the more you cut out of that sentence the more out of context you can render it...
"Also, of the two PA cases, one was brought by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania, and the other was brought by PA Senate President Jake Corman, and are therefore not 'state-to-state internal process disagreements' but rather intra-state issues."
Ok. I haven't been paying attention. Yeah, the state legislature conflicting with the state supreme court and the state executive is quite an issue...
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.
Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.
Really? What was the large-scale cheating in this recent election?Any ballots deviating from the norms established by the US constitution and state legislatures do not represent valid votes. Yet these were included in 2020 election tabulations.
As Justice Thomas wrote:
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."So large scale that it wouldn’t have changed the outcome.
-
your quote refers to the election of electoral college reps not which branch of the state government can or can't change rules and regulations.
Article 4, Section 1 is what I'd assume to be at play when, say, Texas says Pennsylvannia didn't follow their own law.Yeah, these kids do not understand the regulatory process. They seem unaware that it even exists. It’s seems they failed 101.
-
Yet. Another. Loss for the best legal minds ever assembled!!!
Kraken silently weeping somewhere.
Actually the SC decided in a 6-3 vote not to hear two PA election cases, and neither of them were 'Kraken' lawsuits - on the basis that the matter was moot.
Justice Thomas is quite right to point out that this was a missed opportunity to strengthen election law, prevent similar problems from arising in the future, and restore confidence in US elections. Now we will have violations of the US and state constitutions and large-scale cheating in every federal election going forward.
Really? What was the large-scale cheating in this recent election?Any ballots deviating from the norms established by the US constitution and state legislatures do not represent valid votes. Yet these were included in 2020 election tabulations.
As Justice Thomas wrote:
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evidence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."So there was no large-scale cheating in this past election. Thanks for confirming.