User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 7:12:23 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted: President Trump joined the TX lawsuit. Afaik, he's still an American? Oops, my mistake. I thought he had filed as amicus, not as a plaintiff. Did he actually join the case or petition to join it and that petition was never answered? I'm not a lawyer, but I think joining a lawsuit in that manner attaches to the existing lawsuit, it doesn't modify it. The decision from SCOTUS is just "et al" so that doesn't help. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 7:29:19 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Oops, my mistake. I thought he had filed as amicus, not as a plaintiff. Did he actually join the case or petition to join it and that petition was never answered? I'm not a lawyer, but I think joining a lawsuit in that manner attaches to the existing lawsuit, it doesn't modify it. The decision from SCOTUS is just "et al" so that doesn't help. I believe "intervention," is stronger than amicus brief. In the Supreme Court of the United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201209155327055_No Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, respectfully seeks leave to intervene in the pending original jurisdiction matter of State of Texas v. Com-monwealth of Pennsylvania, et al., No. 22O155 (filed Dec. 7, 2020). Plaintiff in Intervention seeks leave to file the ac-companying Bill of Complaint in Intervention against |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 7:37:18 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I can't speak for anybody else, but I'm not happy at all about Biden "winning", I'm just not surprised. For some time now my sense of the whole narrative on the right has been that it requires throwing too many people under too short a bus. In this case the conservative majority Supreme Court, after the other 58 courts before it, along with virtually everyone else in and out of government. I honestly don't understand why anybody is surprised there's nobody left to carry on the narrative. If you have read my comments you are aware of my opinion re the "conservative court." Namely, I believe they have been intentionally cowed and intimidated. We have watched as a highly militarized Antifa/BLM doxx, attack and terrorize anyone who takes a stand against the leftist narrative. The media backs this lawless behavior 100%--as do the Democrats. The Uniparty hides under their desks or rejoice at Trump's discomfiture. No, I have no illusions about any court deciding based on the law. They decide based on the terror of their houses being surrounded by masked terrorists. The Republic had a good run but it's over now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 7:39:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they didn't specifically mention that legislatures could sue if they feel they've been wronged. Thats such a basic, obvious concept that no one would ever need to mention it. What was reaffirmed is that a random third party cannot sue on their behalf. You've got real reading comprehension issues, which goes a long way towards explaining the q thing. Well that's just objectively untrue. There are many Americans who had standing to challenge what they considered to be fraud. So every case brought against election fraud represented non-Americans? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 7:50:15 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So every case brought against election fraud represented non-Americans? I have absolutely no idea how you could conclude I thought that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/14/2021 9:08:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You may want to live in a world where stare decisis doesn't exist and every case is decided in a vacuum based solely on reading the constitution and watching the Mark Levin Show, but you don't, and that's nothing new. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 6:52:59 AM EDT
[#7]
 A Message from President Donald J. Trump At 4:20, Trump signals the letter Q in Morse Code. Dash Dash Dot Dash. This is it folks, the message you've been waiting for. It's all going according to plan. Imagine Biden's surprise on January 20 when he thinks he's getting inaugurated and he actually gets arrested and then Trump strolls in and gets inaugurated. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 7:02:09 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNiNdsPHNAAt 4:20, Trump signals the letter Q in Morse Code. Dash Dash Dot Dash. This is it folks, the message you've been waiting for. It's all going according to plan. Imagine Biden's surprise on January 20 when he thinks he's getting inaugurated and he actually gets arrested and then Trump strolls in and gets inaugurated. Shit bro, do you even red six?  DeclaSSSSS brings down the house!!1!!!  BREAKING: POTUS Trump declassified large number of documents related to Trump-Russia Collusion hoax For the smoothies, that is what'cha call sarcasm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 7:47:55 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shit bro, do you even red six? https://i.imgflip.com/4tx9qd.jpg DeclaSSSSS brings down the house!!1!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VzkGuc74cFor the smoothies, that is what'cha call sarcasm. I've been thinking. Between Trump launching Space Force and the coming declassification of UFO intel, there has to be a connection. Will we see actual ALIENS (space, not illegal) at the Inauguration? Is this what Q has really been working on? Preparing us to find out we're not alone? Gives a whole new meaning to the "probes" we've been hearing about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 7:49:56 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I've been thinking. Between Trump launching Space Force and the coming declassification of UFO intel, there has to be a connection. Will we see actual ALIENS (space, not illegal) at the Inauguration? Is this what Q has really been working on? Preparing us to find out we're not alone? Gives a whole new meaning to the "probes" we've been hearing about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Shit bro, do you even red six? https://i.imgflip.com/4tx9qd.jpg DeclaSSSSS brings down the house!!1!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VzkGuc74cFor the smoothies, that is what'cha call sarcasm. I've been thinking. Between Trump launching Space Force and the coming declassification of UFO intel, there has to be a connection. Will we see actual ALIENS (space, not illegal) at the Inauguration? Is this what Q has really been working on? Preparing us to find out we're not alone? Gives a whole new meaning to the "probes" we've been hearing about. Pretty sure Joe Biden is an alien. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 7:53:05 AM EDT
[#11]
Where’s my over the counter, no stamp suppressor?
Don jr promised... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 7:56:51 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Where’s my over the counter, no stamp suppressor? Don jr promised... Wish.com next to the glock auto blocks and the DIAS? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 8:04:47 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Shit bro, do you even red six? https://i.imgflip.com/4tx9qd.jpg DeclaSSSSS brings down the house!!1!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VzkGuc74cFor the smoothies, that is what'cha call sarcasm. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDNiNdsPHNAAt 4:20, Trump signals the letter Q in Morse Code. Dash Dash Dot Dash. This is it folks, the message you've been waiting for. It's all going according to plan. Imagine Biden's surprise on January 20 when he thinks he's getting inaugurated and he actually gets arrested and then Trump strolls in and gets inaugurated. Shit bro, do you even red six? https://i.imgflip.com/4tx9qd.jpg DeclaSSSSS brings down the house!!1!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8VzkGuc74cFor the smoothies, that is what'cha call sarcasm. Qthies: “gOt eM rIgHt wHeRe We wAnT Em... vIctOreeee iS cErTaIn” |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 10:01:52 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wish.com next to the glock auto blocks and the DIAS? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Where's my over the counter, no stamp suppressor? Don jr promised... Wish.com next to the glock auto blocks and the DIAS? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 10:07:49 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The amount of not-suppressor suppressors and knockoff braces and other shit getting advertised to me on facebook now is ridiculous. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Where's my over the counter, no stamp suppressor? Don jr promised... Wish.com next to the glock auto blocks and the DIAS? Yup. Blew my mind when I saw it all. Been that way for years now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 10:32:16 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The argument against standing is that Texas's suffrage (and by extension, that of its citizens) is limited to its 38 electoral college votes. Nothing the swing states did prevented Texas from casting its electoral votes, nor did the swing states dilute Texas's electoral votes by casting more electoral votes than they were supposed to. Texas may not like the results after all the EC votes were counted, but it still doesn't have any say over EC votes outside its own. Pretending each state is a person: I have a case against my neighbor if he prevents me from casting a vote, or if he dilutes my vote by casting 10 votes. But if he casts his vote and I cast mine, it's none of my business what method he used to choose which side to vote for, even though the outcome of the election as a whole does affect me. It's his vote, not mine. That is a similar argument to what I was telling people and they got really pissed at me for it. Lots of name calling was sent my way just for pointing it out. Each state legislature can decide to do whatever they want to pick electors. Since no state legislature sued other state officials for usurping their power, there is nothing for any other state sue over. An outside entity cannot sue another entity for not following follow their own internal process. If the PA state legislature had sued their state officials then TX could have joined that lawsuit. The state legislatures not objecting is what caused the lack of standing the cases. On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. That is a question I would like to know the answer to as well. They could have at least heard the case and then denied with guidance to explain their position. Then everyone would have an idea of how to proceed for all future elections. The message they seemed to send is "each state can handle their election however they want and no other state is allowed to complain about it". But then in one of the follow up cases the SCOTUS ruled the opposite. I think it was related to requiring an ID or something like that. Those were contradictory outcomes as the SCOTUS has just told TX they didn't care how PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, and NV handled their elections...but then told the one of those state how they couldn't handle their own election. Either the SCOTUS has an opinion on it or they don't, it isn't right that they take both sides. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 11:25:30 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is a question I would like to know the answer to as well. They could have at least heard the case and then denied with guidance to explain their position. Then everyone would have an idea of how to proceed for all future elections. The message they seemed to send is "each state can handle their election however they want and no other state is allowed to complain about it". But then in one of the follow up cases the SCOTUS ruled the opposite. I think it was related to requiring an ID or something like that. Those were contradictory outcomes as the SCOTUS has just told TX they didn't care how PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, and NV handled their elections...but then told the one of those state how they couldn't handle their own election. Either the SCOTUS has an opinion on it or they don't, it isn't right that they take both sides. SCOTUS told Texas that Texas isn't allowed to care how other states handle their elections. When someone who is allowed to care brings them a case they rule on it's merits (at least theoretically). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 11:29:10 AM EDT
[#18]
Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 11:32:31 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses! Trust the plan! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 12:09:09 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses! Once Trump goes bankrupt and and is sent to prison, the real trap will be set! TRUST THE PLAN! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 12:39:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses! You forgot to mention T levels and stamina |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:02:58 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: SCOTUS told Texas that Texas isn't allowed to care how other states handle their elections. When someone who is allowed to care brings them a case they rule on it's merits (at least theoretically). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That is a question I would like to know the answer to as well. They could have at least heard the case and then denied with guidance to explain their position. Then everyone would have an idea of how to proceed for all future elections. The message they seemed to send is "each state can handle their election however they want and no other state is allowed to complain about it". But then in one of the follow up cases the SCOTUS ruled the opposite. I think it was related to requiring an ID or something like that. Those were contradictory outcomes as the SCOTUS has just told TX they didn't care how PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, and NV handled their elections...but then told the one of those state how they couldn't handle their own election. Either the SCOTUS has an opinion on it or they don't, it isn't right that they take both sides. SCOTUS told Texas that Texas isn't allowed to care how other states handle their elections. When someone who is allowed to care brings them a case they rule on it's merits (at least theoretically). Lol...no one is allowed to care about fraud in elections except for those people that SCOTUS explicitly allows but won't tell you who they are. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:07:04 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is a question I would like to know the answer to as well. They could have at least heard the case and then denied with guidance to explain their position. Then everyone would have an idea of how to proceed for all future elections. The message they seemed to send is "each state can handle their election however they want and no other state is allowed to complain about it". But then in one of the follow up cases the SCOTUS ruled the opposite. I think it was related to requiring an ID or something like that. Those were contradictory outcomes as the SCOTUS has just told TX they didn't care how PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, and NV handled their elections...but then told the one of those state how they couldn't handle their own election. Either the SCOTUS has an opinion on it or they don't, it isn't right that they take both sides. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The argument against standing is that Texas's suffrage (and by extension, that of its citizens) is limited to its 38 electoral college votes. Nothing the swing states did prevented Texas from casting its electoral votes, nor did the swing states dilute Texas's electoral votes by casting more electoral votes than they were supposed to. Texas may not like the results after all the EC votes were counted, but it still doesn't have any say over EC votes outside its own. Pretending each state is a person: I have a case against my neighbor if he prevents me from casting a vote, or if he dilutes my vote by casting 10 votes. But if he casts his vote and I cast mine, it's none of my business what method he used to choose which side to vote for, even though the outcome of the election as a whole does affect me. It's his vote, not mine. That is a similar argument to what I was telling people and they got really pissed at me for it. Lots of name calling was sent my way just for pointing it out. Each state legislature can decide to do whatever they want to pick electors. Since no state legislature sued other state officials for usurping their power, there is nothing for any other state sue over. An outside entity cannot sue another entity for not following follow their own internal process. If the PA state legislature had sued their state officials then TX could have joined that lawsuit. The state legislatures not objecting is what caused the lack of standing the cases. On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. That is a question I would like to know the answer to as well. They could have at least heard the case and then denied with guidance to explain their position. Then everyone would have an idea of how to proceed for all future elections. The message they seemed to send is "each state can handle their election however they want and no other state is allowed to complain about it". But then in one of the follow up cases the SCOTUS ruled the opposite. I think it was related to requiring an ID or something like that. Those were contradictory outcomes as the SCOTUS has just told TX they didn't care how PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, and NV handled their elections...but then told the one of those state how they couldn't handle their own election. Either the SCOTUS has an opinion on it or they don't, it isn't right that they take both sides. As evident by the post here from the "standing means states can't sue other states based on how they conduct their elections" crowd, the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with fraudulent elections but wants everything to do with limiting the detection of fraud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:09:04 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses! They are claiming it’s a “head fake” just before Q and Trumps knockout blow! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:09:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:12:52 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It was Massachusetts v. EPA. I call BS on the second paragraph. They are the venue to bring disputes about the Constitutional role of the state legislature to select their electors. If the defendent states being sued and plaintiffs were unclear and unsure about the way in which the legislatures chose electors then the USSC has the ability to set them straight. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. Standing is a threshhold issue, and a person must have standing before the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) can decide the merits of the case. Without knowing the specific cases you are referring to, I am going to guess in those previous cases where standing was an issue, the Supreme Court ultimately found that there was standing or that the opinion issued by the court was limited to the question of standing. The Supreme Court cannot issue advisory opinions, it can only issue opinions on actual cases and controversies properly in front of them. Without proper standing, there was no controversy in front of them and the prohibition against advisory opinions prohibited them from weighing in on constitutional remedies for the elector selection process. It was Massachusetts v. EPA. I call BS on the second paragraph. They are the venue to bring disputes about the Constitutional role of the state legislature to select their electors. If the defendent states being sued and plaintiffs were unclear and unsure about the way in which the legislatures chose electors then the USSC has the ability to set them straight. No. Since Washington's first term, SCOTUS has refused to issue advisory opinions. There must be a justiciable case in front of them or they have no power to act. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:16:22 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Miraculously found standing...the lower courts questioned standing but the USSC took the case. Its a bogus argument. Standing is not a constitutional standard. It's an arbitrary court rule. Sometimes you agree with it because the lawsuit is so frivolous but other times the court is just dodging, which is what happened here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:17:00 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Factor in ego and recalculate. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Insufficient evidence wasn't the reason they gave us. Lack of standing was the reason. They were afraid of the left is the only plausible theory. As a q believer your ability to determine what is or is not plausible is highly questionable. I'm not a Q believer. I believe Q was an asset, not a liability. That is all I believe. That is not helping your case. No, it doesn't help your case. You do not understand how Q helped Trump and the movement. Thats ok. I'm just going to point to the fact that Trump never told them to stop or go away so he thought Q helped. Is that why literally every time it rose to his level it was either equivocated or nuked with prejudice? Take the clown shoes off. He never forcefully condemned them or said anything to expose Q as an imposter. Why would he directly alienate a voting bloc that was otherwise solidly behind him? Because he would want to build a coalition of MODERATE voters and the Q followers were everything but moderate.  Factor in ego and recalculate. Exactly. Q fed his personality cult, which fed his ego. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:19:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Miraculously found standing...the lower courts questioned standing but the USSC took the case. Its a bogus argument. Standing is not a constitutional standard. It's an arbitrary court rule. Sometimes you agree with it because the lawsuit is so frivolous but other times the court is just dodging, which is what happened here. Welcome to ARFCOM ... where nerds who play flight sims literally lecture actual fighter pilots on how to fly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:19:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Trump getting another term ain't happening.
Its a fucking shame. I'm tired of hearing all the conspiracy theories that are nonsense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:19:44 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Once Trump goes bankrupt and and is sent to prison, the real trap will be set! TRUST THE PLAN! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses! Once Trump goes bankrupt and and is sent to prison, the real trap will be set! TRUST THE PLAN!  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:20:50 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It's not that I don't "approve" of your observations; they're plain out wrong and laughable. Nobody here is happy about Biden winning. YOU are merely trying to characterize it that way. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:22:10 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is a question I would like to know the answer to as well. They could have at least heard the case and then denied with guidance to explain their position. Then everyone would have an idea of how to proceed for all future elections. The message they seemed to send is "each state can handle their election however they want and no other state is allowed to complain about it". But then in one of the follow up cases the SCOTUS ruled the opposite. I think it was related to requiring an ID or something like that. Those were contradictory outcomes as the SCOTUS has just told TX they didn't care how PA, GA, MI, WI, AZ, and NV handled their elections...but then told the one of those state how they couldn't handle their own election. Either the SCOTUS has an opinion on it or they don't, it isn't right that they take both sides. Well.....no shit!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 1:33:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Welcome to ARFCOM ... where nerds who play flight sims literally lecture actual fighter pilots on how to fly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 2:08:24 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You're inferring your belief of standing onto Thomas and Alito. They didnt mention it. Its not there. Stop reading more into it. If they wanted to dismiss it because of standing, they would have voted with the majority. Period. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Standing was dismissed outright by Thomas and Alito. It didn't even cross their minds. It was an excuse made up by the majority. What Alito wrote and Thomas joined with: 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. Saying "we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint" doesn't mean "the plaintiff has standing". It means they would have let the case proceed further as a matter of principle before dismissing it (most likely for the same reason of standing cited by the other justices). Why do I say "before dismissing it"? Because Alito went out of his way to clarify "but would not grant other relief". While he doesn't explicitly say why he would not grant relief, the standing problem noted by the other 7 justices it is by far the most plausible reason. If it was for another reason than standing, he likely would have noted it in his dissent -- or even more likely, simply declined to say whether he would have granted relief or not. Standing is one of the few reasons that Alito could have told you right out of the gate, without hearing arguments, that he wouldn't grant relief. You're inferring your belief of standing onto Thomas and Alito. They didnt mention it. Its not there. Stop reading more into it. If they wanted to dismiss it because of standing, they would have voted with the majority. Period. Majority: Denies the filing of a bill of complaint. Alito/Thomas: We do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint. Where in those two positions is there room for Alito and Thomas to vote with the majority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 3:15:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Jet fuel doesn't melt Q predictions.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 3:27:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Have you guys noticed how Trump is acting like he won't be President anymore after next week? Fucking beta cuck commie. Just wait until Trump hears about this. He'll ram his donkey schlong up the nonbeliever's collective asses! But the Donkey is the symbol of the Dems... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 3:54:04 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Jet fuel doesn't melt Q predictions. In true Q fashion we need to come up with a keyword so that we can talk about it here on the forums without any mod knowing. What's your recommendation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 5:22:19 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. Since Washington's first term, SCOTUS has refused to issue advisory opinions. There must be a justiciable case in front of them or they have no power to act. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: On such a hot button issue like this, why didn't the Supreme Court take the case to offer guidance on what would be a constitutional remedy for states to undergo to correct their elector selection process? This would have been a great time for the court to redeem itself after decades of unconstitutional rulings.... The USSC has involved themselves with state vs. State disputes before where standing was an issue. They issued a ruling anyhow. Standing is a threshhold issue, and a person must have standing before the Supreme Court (and other federal courts) can decide the merits of the case. Without knowing the specific cases you are referring to, I am going to guess in those previous cases where standing was an issue, the Supreme Court ultimately found that there was standing or that the opinion issued by the court was limited to the question of standing. The Supreme Court cannot issue advisory opinions, it can only issue opinions on actual cases and controversies properly in front of them. Without proper standing, there was no controversy in front of them and the prohibition against advisory opinions prohibited them from weighing in on constitutional remedies for the elector selection process. It was Massachusetts v. EPA. I call BS on the second paragraph. They are the venue to bring disputes about the Constitutional role of the state legislature to select their electors. If the defendent states being sued and plaintiffs were unclear and unsure about the way in which the legislatures chose electors then the USSC has the ability to set them straight. No. Since Washington's first term, SCOTUS has refused to issue advisory opinions. There must be a justiciable case in front of them or they have no power to act. Yes. They could have heard the case and voted against relief with the Constitutional reasons why relief cannot be given. This decision was an absolute disgrace. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 5:51:18 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Lol...no one is allowed to care about fraud in elections except for those people that SCOTUS explicitly allows but won't tell you who they are. I don't think you know how to use the word explicitly properly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/15/2021 8:22:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Welcome to ARFCOM ... where nerds who play flight sims literally lecture actual fighter pilots on how to fly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 2:46:00 PM EDT
[#42]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 6:28:00 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes. They could have heard the case and voted against relief with the Constitutional reasons why relief cannot be given. This decision was an absolute disgrace. I wonder if you know that BushBoar is an actual attorney... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 7:38:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I wonder if you know that BushBoar is an actual attorney... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Yes. They could have heard the case and voted against relief with the Constitutional reasons why relief cannot be given. This decision was an absolute disgrace. I wonder if you know that BushBoar is an actual attorney... Pffft. Fancy lernin don’t mean nothin to Q. They’re all constitutional scholars educated on YouTube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 8:20:01 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pffft. Fancy lernin don’t mean nothin to Q. They’re all constitutional scholars educated on YouTube.  Attached File |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 10:39:53 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Pffft. Fancy lernin don’t mean nothin to Q. They’re all constitutional scholars educated on YouTube.  Que "this one video will get Trump elected".... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 10:41:28 PM EDT
[#47]
“Trust the plan” translated to any day now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 11:25:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: “Trust the plan” translated to any day now. Well, they have managed to divine a justification for kicking the can 30+ days past inauguration. Can’t wait to see what kind of bullshit they come up with next. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/17/2021 11:26:21 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Exactly. Interrupted a session of congress ratifying the election by a guy that worships at the alter of Q dressed like a Flintones member of the fraternal order of the water buffalo flanked by white supremacists and a dude trompsing around the capitol building with a confederate flag. Oh yeah a cop got beat to death. One woman who was praying at the alter of the lord maga Q god trump and gets blasted in the face, two others die from heart attacks (THESE COLORS DON'T RUN BUT MAYBE YOU SHOULD HAVE BEFORE YOU DECIDED TO F0!), and some broad gets trampled holding a Don't Tread On Me Gadsden flag. The guy arrested in Pelosi's office was estranged from his family for being a deep state conspiracy 'tard too. The left got EVERYTHING they could possibly have wanted from this. It's like christmas, new years, birthday, and a promotion to CEO while getting a blowjob from tranny santa jesusclaus to them all wrapped up in a big fucking rainbow flag. The GOP/conservative party has pretty much been nuked from orbit for years because of some fucking cockgobblers too stupid to realize they've been getting trolled for over 4 god damn years. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Those "crazies" were the only ones willing to stick their necks out and fight the swamp. You'd be an idiot to get rid of them. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for telling conservatives to stay home in GA turning a possible win into a sure loss, giving the Ds the senate Thank you for being brave enough to show up in "Camp Aushwitz" shirts and Confederated flags at the Capitol and trashing it, giving the left piles of political capital to fuck us in the ass, and proving Trump's critics true to huge swaths of the country. Thank you for the inevitable AWB 2.0 and Patriot Act 2.0 And when AWS shuts down Arfcom, thank you for that too. The GOP/conservative party has pretty much been nuked from orbit for years because of some fucking cockgobblers too stupid to realize they've been getting trolled for over 4 god damn years. I agree with both of you. I’m sure Lindsay Graham and Mitt Romney have a great plan to right the ship and provide actual direction and leadership. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/18/2021 12:44:26 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Welcome to ARFCOM ... where nerds who play flight sims literally lecture actual fighter pilots on how to fly.  Attached File |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
Attached File