SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT

[Concart]

why do you not read the news if you want to post on a politics board?.......

I do. You don't. The lawsuit seeks to throw out EVERY SINGLE VOTE in those four states. Read a fucking book. I can find you a picture book if it will help.

"This Court should first administratively stay or temporarily restrain the Defendant States from voting in the electoral college until further order of this Court and then issue a preliminary injunction or
stay against their doing so until the conclusion of this case on the merits. Alternatively, the Court should reach the merits, vacate the Defendant States’ elector certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election results, and remand to the Defendant States’ legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint electors."

Can you comprehend this, or do I need to draw you a fucking picture, you ignorant twit. EVERY. SINGLE. VOTE.

 

[Concart]

The Supreme Court did not take the Pa. case because they deemed that it would not change the outcome (the Electoral Votes).

The Texas case will change the outcome (four states).

Galactically stupid. That is not how courts rule on cases.

 

[Concart]

Perhaps if I break it down in smaller sentences..."Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations" (Article I, section 4).”

My God Earl, your stupidity is breathtaking. Which elections are we talking about? The Senate or the House?

ROTLFMFAO. God you are stupid.

 

[Concart]

You are losing, Concarty...your cool and the debate.

I don't suffer fools. And this is not a debate. It's a kindergarten class. You know absolutely nothing.

 

[Concart]

I'll come back tonight and serve you all your steaming plate of crow. This is going to be fun.

 

[Earl]

"..."This Court should first administratively stay or temporarily restrain the Defendant States from voting in the electoral college..."

This is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes, not the popular votes.

The illegal extension of the cutoff to count votes was ILLEGAL. It was ruled legal by the state court, not the state legislature.

Two different issues, Concarty.

 

[Concart]

"..."This Court should first administratively stay or temporarily restrain the Defendant States from voting in the electoral college..."

This is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes, not the popular votes.

The illegal extension of the cutoff to count votes was ILLEGAL. It was ruled legal by the sate court, not the state legislature.

Two different issues, Concarty.

Now, it is the same issue. The voters choose the electors. Come on, be serious. There is not a single word in the lawsuit about the an illegal extension. It is not mentioned. Read it. It's only 39 pages. I know you can do it Earl!!!

 

[martin]

The claim, repeated ad nauseum, that liberalized mail-in voting in some states led to "massive" fraud, or any fraud for that matter, has been effectively disproved. In Georgia, for example, signatures on mail in ballots were compared to the signatures on the applications that had been submitted for those ballots. The complaint, loudly heard from Lindsey Graham and others, is that many applications were fraudulent so of course the signatures would match. Well, Georgia voters whose signatures initially appeared not to match were given the opportunity to correct their ballots. Those voters were individually contacted. In every case, the voter turned out to be authentic. No forgers among them, as certainly would have been the case had there been a substantial number of faked ballots. Perhaps more to the point, such fraud would have surfaced when the registrar received a valid application either after or before having received a fake one, and it would have surfaced when a voter for whom a fraudulent mail in ballot application had been received showed up on voting day to cast an in person vote. None of this happened.

 

[Earl]

"...vacate the Defendant States’ elector certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election results, and remand to the Defendant States’ legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint electors."

Note the word "unconstitutional."

 

[Earl]

Now, it is the same issue. The voters choose the electors. Come on, be serious. There is not a single word in the lawsuit about the an illegal extension. It is not mentioned. Read it. It's only 39 pages. I know you can do it Earl!!!

I just posted the salient part of the lawsuit, Concarty.

Have the nanny explain it.

 

[Concart]

"..."This Court should first administratively stay or temporarily restrain the Defendant States from voting in the electoral college..."

This is the ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes, not the popular votes.

The illegal extension of the cutoff to count votes was ILLEGAL. It was ruled legal by the state court, not the state legislature.

Two different issues, Concarty.

You are aware that the role of the court is to interpret the state law. You get that, right? This is the one lawsuit that Trump won. And as a result, those votes were not counted.

 

[Concart]

"...vacate the Defendant States’ elector certifications from the unconstitutional 2020 election results, and remand to the Defendant States’ legislatures pursuant to 3 U.S.C. § 2 to appoint electors."

Note the word "unconstitutional."

Yes, that's the claim they are making. Duh. What's your point? MY point, one that seems to completely escape your pea brain, is that they are seeking to toss out the entire election. Not just some votes, ALL the votes.

 

[BartenderElite]

It's a real stretch to try to make hay out of a technicality like votes arriving a day or 2 late.

Especially from Trump supporters who support discarding MILLIONS of votes to let state legislators appoint faithless electors. Spare me the "rule of law" hypocrisy.

More people voted for Biden. Deal w/ it.

 

[Earl]

You are aware that the role of the court is to interpret the state law. You get that, right? This is the one lawsuit that Trump won. And as a result, those votes were not counted.

Concentrate, Concarty, the thread is this:

"SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT"

If you want to refute this is happening, go right ahead.

 

[BartenderElite]

If Trump did pull this off - it would be the end of democratic elections. It would be the biggest steal, of anything, in American history.

The country would never be the same. That's what's at stake w/ this decision.

 

[Earl]

Yes, that's the claim they are making. Duh. What's your point? MY point, one that seems to completely escape your pea brain, is that they are seeking to toss out the entire election. Not just some votes, ALL the votes.

"ELECTORAL VOTES," not all the millions of popular votes.

 

[Earl]

It's a real stretch to try to make hay out of a technicality like votes arriving a day or 2 late.

Especially from Trump supporters who support discarding MILLIONS of votes to let state legislators appoint faithless electors. Spare me the "rule of law" hypocrisy.

More people voted for Biden. Deal w/ it.

State voting laws are not technicalities, BE.

Not by a long shot.

 

[Earl]

If Trump did pull this off - it would be the end of democratic elections. It would be the biggest steal, of anything, in American history.

The country would never be the same. That's what's at stake w/ this decision.

The mail in voter fraud by the Democrats would be the biggest steal, of anything, in American history.

 

[Concart]

It's a real stretch to try to make hay out of a technicality like votes arriving a day or 2 late.

Especially from Trump supporters who support discarding MILLIONS of votes to let state legislators appoint faithless electors. Spare me the "rule of law" hypocrisy.

More people voted for Biden. Deal w/ it.

What's amazing is the total misunderstanding of the meaning 'unconstitutional' and the simple basic understanding of the supremacy clause. That clause applies ONLY to what is enshrined in the Constitution, or any law passed SPECIFICALLY TO REGULATE SOMETHING IN THE CONSITUTION. So, for example, a state cannot override something in the Civil Rights Act, since that act is specifically designed to enforce a constitutional right. Trying to explain that to the Trumptards is like trying to teach physics to a yapping chihuahua. Pretty much pointless. They don't even get the basics, so that nuance is WAY beyond them. I have no words.

 

[Concart]

The main in voter fraud by the Democrats would be the biggest steal, of anything, in American history.

Show your work Earl. Show us the evidence. Not speculation. Not a nutty drunk lady who signed an after david. Show us evidence. Oh, you can't? Okay, then STFU.