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

BartenderElite said:
No - that simply isn't true.

If it was, it would have been proven. Evidence would have been provided.

There was no fraud. Biden won.
Click to expand...
The lawsuit by Texas will determine if votes were illegal.The votes in Pa. that came in after the cutoff have been retained by order of the court.
 
Earl said:
Lest we forget:

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

The states must justify why their unconstitutional cheat-by-mail-in ballots that were not passed through their respective legislatures did not disenfranchise the states like Texas, et al. where voters did everything according to the Constitution.

Per volsrock
Click to expand...

There was nothing unconstitutional, and there was no cheating. Next?
 
Earl said:
The lawsuit by Texas will determine if votes were illegal.The votes in Pa. that came in after the cutoff have been retained by order of the court.
Click to expand...

Every single state has certified. You lost. There are no outstanding controversies other than this one. When it is dismissed tonight, will you accept the result of the election? Yes or no?
 
Concart said:
There was nothing unconstitutional, and there was no cheating. Next?
Click to expand...

You don't get to determine that, Concarty.

The Supreme Court does.

Have you regained your composure?

You lost your self-control. Concarty.

That's why you lost.
 
Concart said:
Every single state has certified. You lost. There are no outstanding controversies other than this one. When it is dismissed tonight, will you accept the result of the election? Yes or no?
Click to expand...

Not one Electoral Vote has been given to anyone.
 
Earl said:
You don't get to determine that, Concarty.

The Supreme Court does.

Have you regained your composure?

You lost your self-control. Concarty.

That's why you lost.
Click to expand...

Trust me, I will be laughing at you in less than 24 hours. And I won't be kind.
 
Earl said:
Indeed.

Concarty should stop lying.

Only the state legislators can change the voting rules, not the state courts.

That is per the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, it's not in the Constitution that only the legislature can change voting rules. The courts have ruled that the wording of the Constitution is such that the term legislatures does not simply mean an elected body but rather the duties can be assigned to any other body such as a bipartisan commission for creating district boundaries or an election commission for creating the election rules. If the rules are created by an election commission or a Secretary of State then that would be Constitutional under all previous court rulings. If the rules were created by a court ruling in which the Secretary of State or other rules creating body was a party to would be Constitutional.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and alleges correctly....a state's executive branch or judicial branch cannot change the election rules set by a state's legislative branch.......Bush v Gore decided that WAS unconstitutional.......anything that is thrown out will not be a vote.......and seriously, you know absolutely nothing about the law......stop pretending you do and stfu........



you should have thought about that before you started messing around with the rules of the election........its not like you weren't warned........
Click to expand...

Concarty owes you and me a tutorial fee.

I won’t hold my breath though...lol
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
No, it's not in the Constitution that only the legislature can change voting rules. The courts have ruled that the wording of the Constitution is such that the term legislatures does not simply mean an elected body but rather the duties can be assigned to any other body such as a bipartisan commission for creating district boundaries or an election commission for creating the election rules. If the rules are created by an election commission or a Secretary of State then that would be Constitutional under all previous court rulings. If the rules were created by a court ruling in which the Secretary of State or other rules creating body was a party to would be Constitutional.
Click to expand...

Cite it.

You are wrong.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
No, it's not in the Constitution that only the legislature can change voting rules. The courts have ruled that the wording of the Constitution is such that the term legislatures does not simply mean an elected body but rather the duties can be assigned to any other body such as a bipartisan commission for creating district boundaries or an election commission for creating the election rules. If the rules are created by an election commission or a Secretary of State then that would be Constitutional under all previous court rulings. If the rules were created by a court ruling in which the Secretary of State or other rules creating body was a party to would be Constitutional.
Click to expand...
not at all.
an election commission is obviously a creation of the legislature and would have authority
a sec of state is an EXECUTIVE position and would not have Constitutional authority to change intent.

In PA's case the Republican legislature specifically did NOT extend the dead line for absentee voter ballots
received past election day. It did extend the deadline TO election day

The courts and sec of state had NO AUTHORITY to extend it past election day
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/pennsylvania/pa-election-reform-deal-20191023.html
 
Concart said:
Lol at you. That’s not what the lawsuit alleges. It alleges that the rules they created are unconstitutional. Let’s sum up what the lawsuit is asking the Supreme Court to do. It is asking the court to literally undo the election that was held in four states, thereby disenfranchising millions of voters. Their votes will just not count. Gone. Goodbye. And why? They claim that the rules put in place by state legislatures violated state constitutions and therefore those voters have no say. And then they ask that THESE EXACT SAME LEGISLATURES should now select the electors. In other words they are asking the court to green light the single largest voter fraud scheme ever perpetrated. And it would be legal in perpetuity. They could pull this again and again and again every single time ONE STATE didn’t like the election results. Every fucking state is going to sue every other state and the Supreme Court will decide every single election going forward. It is so patently absurd that a five year old would reject it. And that’s what you want for this country. It’s absurd and unamerican and the Supreme Court will toss it in the trash where it belongs. And you will all have been exposed as the traitors that you are. Have a nice day.
Click to expand...

:hand: :hand:
 
Concart said:
Once again, read the fucking lawsuit you fucking imbecile. Seriously. It's like teaching a five year old. The lawsuit alleges that the STATE LAW ITSELF is unconstitutional. The one that was PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE Jesus Christ, how are you all so fucking stupid.
Click to expand...

tell you what.....why don't we wait until the SC decides the case, then you can take their word for it instead of mine....I remember when you made the same claims about a PA case that the judge decided exactly the way I predicted......I see no purpose in just repeating the fact you don't know what the fuck you are talking about...
 
BartenderElite said:
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.
Click to expand...

Biden's election is already a steal........the only issue is whether there will consequences for the theft........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top