User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:31:34 PM EDT
[#1]
Fuck em
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:32:44 PM EDT
[#2]
They are probably scared shitless because they want to do right by the law(the honest ones anyway), and are about to have face it, but know what they are up against.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:33:57 PM EDT
[#3]
What happened in Portland?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:35:40 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: The reported overheard closed door meeting where they avoided confronting the obvious fraud used the excuse of leftist rioting and violence to hide behind. Now, look at Portland. Lol, sold their souls for nothing. Reported by whom? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:35:42 PM EDT
[#5]
LOL do you think the SCOTUS really has a say in anything, anymore?
A presidential election was just stolen in front of everyone's eyes. They didn't do jack shit. They sat with their thumbs up their asses. Do you really think the SCOTUS has ANY power anymore? This has been the biggest proof of concept ever. Has everyone gone tone deaf? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:36:19 PM EDT
[#6]
That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:37:16 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:38:36 PM EDT
[#8]
I try not to pay any attention to any 'reported', 'anonymous' or other unsubstantiated claims. That's what the left does every day. Lefty potato heads suck that up, it's their foundation and their primary sustenance. It just isn't logical. You can't use logic to dissuade someone who didn't use logic to reach their viewpoint in the first place. That's the problem with potato heads.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:38:55 PM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:39:21 PM EDT
[#10]
fuck scotus, they are owned like everyone else. John Roberts is not a conservative, and he holds the reigns. The rest of them? Probably got a letter that said go along or we'll kill everyone in your family.
none of this matters anymore. none of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:43:47 PM EDT
[#11]
SCOTUS is just more swamp, IMO, and I hope people remember that when shit hits the fan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:44:15 PM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: The reported overheard closed door meeting where they avoided confronting the obvious fraud used the excuse of leftist rioting and violence to hide behind. Now, look at Portland. Lol, sold their souls for nothing. Anonymous, unarmed sources are usually a hint that it's made up |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:46:15 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....lazy? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:46:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....lazy? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? no, they rejected it because orangeman bad. they're part of the swamp as well |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:47:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....lazy? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? For not giving guidance, yes. They sent a strong message that they didn't want to deal with one state complaining about how another state handled their own affairs. Even though though there are plenty of previous cases, generally around interstate commerce, where they did rule on that type of case. The biggest hurdle was not a single state legislature objected to how their election was conducted. Had even one of them done so then TX and Trump could have joined those lawsuits and would have had standing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:50:45 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....lazy? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? Yep, the whole purpose of the Supreme Court was to hear disputes between states. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:51:11 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Yes they need to. Elections are sort of important unless you want the US to turn into Yugoslavia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:52:00 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Yes, that’s their job. To hear dispute between states. They need to do their fucking job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:55:20 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: The reported overheard closed door meeting where they avoided confronting the obvious fraud used the excuse of leftist rioting and violence to hide behind. Now, look at Portland. Lol, sold their souls for nothing. We live in a time that demands men and women of courage and character. But all we have are feckless, weak, and morally corrupt leadership and a system that keeps churning more of the same in preference to people that could dig us out of this mess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:58:07 PM EDT
[#20]
My money is on; They don't give a fuck.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 1:58:40 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yep, the whole purpose of the Supreme Court was to hear disputes between states. That is where the SCOTUS could have chosen to at least hear the case and then rule against it with guidance. The election results of one state do affect another but that is a very weak case as each state is given full control over how they handle their own election. If the Constitution said each state legislature can determine their own commerce regulations then the interstate commerce lawsuits decades ago never would have happened, Wickard v. Filburn. It doesn't it says the Federal Government can regulate commerce. Since states have authority over their own election, TX can't complain that PA did their election wrong, especially when the PA State Legislature did not object and certified the election. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:00:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: fuck scotus, they are owned like everyone else. John Roberts is not a conservative, and he holds the reigns. The rest of them? Probably got a letter that said go along or we'll kill everyone in your family. none of this matters anymore. none of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:01:12 PM EDT
[#23]
There's 9 of them.
There's over 70 million of us. Which group should be ashamed here? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:01:54 PM EDT
[#24]
My money is on, something is fishy with Roberts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:03:57 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Ah, yes? God forbid they do their job and hear cases during their short, short sessions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:06:29 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Roberts is probably compromised. Probably? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:06:34 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:13:47 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL do you think the SCOTUS really has a say in anything, anymore? A presidential election was just stolen in front of everyone's eyes. They didn't do jack shit. They sat with their thumbs up their asses. Do you really think the SCOTUS has ANY power anymore? This has been the biggest proof of concept ever. Has everyone gone tone deaf? Either the scotus is powerless or they are swampers. Considering you don't get a seat without getting approval from the swamp, I'm going with swamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:14:57 PM EDT
[#29]
Scotus proud now that's funny. They are not even relevant anymore to american's, they are puppets for the dem's.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:19:35 PM EDT
[#30]
Good. At this point... I don't give a *FUCK* if ANTIFA burns everything down.
Let the radical leftists destroy this country. I'd rather ANTIFA overthrow the government, than see another day of with Biden as President. Besides, as it stands... I've come to the realiziation that ANTIFA seems to mostly burn down businesses owned by other Democrat voters, based on the areas they tend to fuck up. So my give-a-shit meter has broken. Let Portland burn. These people are merely reaping what they've sown. I took great pleasure when I saw that video of some fucking Liberal piece of human shit begging ANTIFA to not burn their home... "We're on your SIDE!!!!" LOL. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:21:06 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Either the scotus is powerless or they are swampers. Considering you don't get a seat without getting approval from the swamp, I'm going with swamp. ^^^ This....... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:21:34 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Good. At this point... I don't give a *FUCK* if ANTIFA burns everything down. Let the radical leftists destroy this country. I'd rather ANTIFA overthrow the government, than see another day of with Biden as President. Besides, as it stands... I've come to the realiziation that ANTIFA seems to mostly burn down businesses owned by other Democrat voters, based on the areas they tend to fuck up. So my give-a-shit meter has broken. Let Portland burn. These people are merely reaping what they've sown. I took great pleasure when I saw that video of some fucking Liberal piece of human shit begging ANTIFA to not burn their home... "We're on your SIDE!!!!" LOL. ^^^^This.........
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:21:38 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryWhat does that have to do with the USSC? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:21:51 PM EDT
[#34]
FSCOTUS
They are a toothless tiger. The sooner Xiden packs that court, the sooner people will realize that the jury box is not a viable remedy anymore. Stop spreading false hope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:22:11 PM EDT
[#35]
PACK - THE - COURT!
PACK - THE - COURT! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:23:12 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: My money is on; They don't give a fuck. My money is on; they wanted the outcome of the elections as it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:24:45 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. No. They avoided it because it opens a huge can of worms about the legitimacy of many elections and subsequently laws. Plus the fear of riots. They certainly were not afraid to get in the weeds of state’s election procedures. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:26:53 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So....lazy? In a word...kinda. The State Legislatures in the 5 fucking retarded States including my own we’re supposed to fix it. They declined so we have Biden and a whore now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:27:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? Not opening a quagmire of legal issues is not laziness I'll guarantee you that every state broke some internal processes during this election. Every. Single. One. Do you want to have SCOTUS deal with multiple lawsuits for every state? Maybe they should have. Once the states start getting bitch slapped and publicly embarrassed for being lazy, stupid and or corrupt, maybe things will start to straighten. None of this is going to get fixed painlessly or easily. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:28:24 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistorySeattle too, just not as bad. And Salem Oregon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:29:46 PM EDT
[#41]
IMO, SCOTUS is a joke. Breyer, those two hags Kagan & Sotomayor and our closet lib chief justice are all left wing shills.
YMMV ... I have no faith in them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:30:16 PM EDT
[#42]
If true, they're worse than the people that perpetuated the fraud.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:30:29 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: fuck scotus, they are owned like everyone else. John Roberts is not a conservative, and he holds the reigns. The rest of them? Probably got a letter that said go along or we'll kill everyone in your family. none of this matters anymore. none of it. Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. w b yeats |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:33:39 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: For not giving guidance, yes. They sent a strong message that they didn't want to deal with one state complaining about how another state handled their own affairs. Even though though there are plenty of previous cases, generally around interstate commerce, where they did rule on that type of case. The biggest hurdle was not a single state legislature objected to how their election was conducted. Had even one of them done so then TX and Trump could have joined those lawsuits and would have had standing. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That reason was a BS internet rumor to begin with. They rejected the case because they didn't want to inundated with states complaining about other states not following their own internal rules/processes. It would have been nice if they agreed to hear the case and then at least give guidance on why they ruled against it. So....lazy? For not giving guidance, yes. They sent a strong message that they didn't want to deal with one state complaining about how another state handled their own affairs. Even though though there are plenty of previous cases, generally around interstate commerce, where they did rule on that type of case. The biggest hurdle was not a single state legislature objected to how their election was conducted. Had even one of them done so then TX and Trump could have joined those lawsuits and would have had standing. And the trouble there, was the accused of illegal behavior --the guvna-- was the same guy who had to call the legislature into session for redress. A just court would understand that clear conflict of interest and act to bypass it for the purposes of hearing the case. It's a dumb technicality of procedure that prevents an important topic from being heard, and would have little to no impact beyond this specific case. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:35:00 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Probably? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Roberts is probably compromised. Probably? Compromised, a liberal, what difference does it matter? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:35:55 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Either the scotus is powerless or they are swampers. Considering you don't get a seat without getting approval from the swamp, I'm going with swamp. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: LOL do you think the SCOTUS really has a say in anything, anymore? A presidential election was just stolen in front of everyone's eyes. They didn't do jack shit. They sat with their thumbs up their asses. Do you really think the SCOTUS has ANY power anymore? This has been the biggest proof of concept ever. Has everyone gone tone deaf? Either the scotus is powerless or they are swampers. Considering you don't get a seat without getting approval from the swamp, I'm going with swamp. The Obamacare case was SCOTUS showing that it cannot oppose a sufficiently costly injustice, somewhere around a trillion dollars at the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:36:32 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anonymous, unarmed sources are usually a hint that it's made up What about anonymous, armed sources?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:38:09 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is where the SCOTUS could have chosen to at least hear the case and then rule against it with guidance. The election results of one state do affect another but that is a very weak case as each state is given full control over how they handle their own election. If the Constitution said each state legislature can determine their own commerce regulations then the interstate commerce lawsuits decades ago never would have happened, Wickard v. Filburn. It doesn't it says the Federal Government can regulate commerce. Since states have authority over their own election, TX can't complain that PA did their election wrong, especially when the PA State Legislature did not object and certified the election. I wonder if they didn't issue guidance to remain impartial. If they said "We're denying it on standing but if the lawsuit was refiled by the PA Legislative branch we'd hear it," or how to meet their requirements seems like they're taking a side. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:38:17 PM EDT
[#49]
The courts were never intended to play a role on the outcome of elections.
The truth is, Americans would rather blame someone (scotus, media, democrats etc..). Than roll up their sleeves and deal with the problem themselves, because we’ve all become complacent. The scotus didn’t rule to defund the police, but it’s happening, because people demanded it. We would get what we wanted if we were willing to demand it, but we haven’t, we’re content waiting for someone else to do it, and bitching on the internet that someone should’ve done something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2021 2:38:48 PM EDT
[#50]
Without even touching the question of why SCOTUS didn't hear the case and the legitimacy of that decision, the states could have fixed this, should have fixed this, and they didn't. If you wanna trash SCOTUS that's fine by me, but if you live in a state where fuckery occurred your state legislatures should be getting so many emails and calls that they shit a little bit at night if they hear a bump outside their house.
|
|
|
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.
