Dark day for SCOTUS

Darth Omar said:
But he went on to say, the Court has a responsibility to ensure states are staying within the constitutional lines in case future electoral outcomes *are* affected by state election law shenanigans.

Thomas was basically saying the Court was derelict in its duty and he’s right. Whether it affected the outcome is irrelevant. What’s relevant is *the point of law* that is at question.

But since the Court ruled it a moot question, this sends a clear signal to the states that they can play loose with their election ‘laws’ in the future. Democrats hear them loud and clear. Republicans would do well to get on board with it or just keep losing elections.

Our republic may be F*d but hey, the Court cleared the way for NY to take a peak at Trump’s tax returns. So they did accomplish something yesterday. The day wasn’t a total loss.

What a great day for our [banana] republic!
Click to expand...

I understand your point, but what could the court do other than make rules the states had to follow? I don't think federal rules governing all fifty states is what a conservative court should be doing. More usurping of the power of the states to determine their own laws.

Congress passes laws giving the president the power to make certain decisions over trade and other matters. The president also issues many executive orders making changes and modifications in legislation. These are powers the Constitution gives to Congress but the executive can alter (often for political reasons).

If the federal executive can alter congressional legislation it seems reasonable that state executives (or courts) can alter state legislation.
 
Flash said:
I understand your point, but what could the court do other than make rules the states had to follow? I don't think federal rules governing all fifty states is what a conservative court should be doing. More usurping of the power of the states to determine their own laws.

Congress passes laws giving the president the power to make certain decisions over trade and other matters. The president also issues many executive orders making changes and modifications in legislation. These are powers the Constitution gives to Congress but the executive can alter (often for political reasons).

If the federal executive can alter congressional legislation it seems reasonable that state executives (or courts) can alter state legislation.
Click to expand...

All 50 states are bound by the Constitution.

SCOTUS rules according to the Constitution. Well, in theory at least.
 
Darth Omar said:
All 50 states are bound by the Constitution.

SCOTUS rules according to the Constitution. Well, in theory at least.
Click to expand...

Yes, and the overwhelming majority of the Supreme Court refused to take this case.
Even if they had taken this case, Thomas himself admits Biden would still be President and Trump** would still have lost.

To pretend otherwise betrays your gullibility.
 
Son of the Revolution said:
ya, but the fraud would come out and not happen again
Click to expand...

Maybe, and I agree that would be a good thing, but I personally believe the Court refused this case because it would have stirred up the seditionists more, giving them false hope. If so many were not hell bent on the Big Lie it would have been a safer time for the S. Ct. to address this issue.
 
Jarod said:
Maybe, and I agree that would be a good thing, but I personally believe the Court refused this case because it would have stirred up the seditionists more, giving them false hope. If so many were not hell bent on the Big Lie it would have been a safer time for the S. Ct. to address this issue.
Click to expand...

THEY WERE NOT SEDITIONISTS... THEY WERE PROTESTERS LIKE BLM AND ANTIFA DID ALL SUMMER
 
Darth Omar said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1363859147129839620

This is a stain on the court.

They won’t even look at the evidence because the issue is ‘moot’? Moot to who? Even if there’s a scant possibility that illegal votes were cast in a national election the issue is not ‘moot’.

But apparently there ‘are more pressing concerns’ for the country, like clearing the road for a peak at Trump’s tax returns.

I’m literally embarrassed for this court.
Click to expand...

When a lower court dismisses a lawsuit because of the lack of evidence to support the claims in the lawsuit- THE SUPREME COURT WILL REFUSE TO LOOK AT THE CASE!

What part about that do you not understand?

WHAT AN IDIOT! BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
 
Geeko Sportivo said:
When a lower court dismisses a lawsuit because of the lack of evidence to support the claims in the lawsuit- THE SUPREME COURT WILL REFUSE TO LOOK AT THE CASE!

What part about that do you not understand?

WHAT AN IDIOT! BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Click to expand...

They would rather show themselves to be idiots than admit anything negative about Trump**.
 
Darth Omar said:
All 50 states are bound by the Constitution.

SCOTUS rules according to the Constitution. Well, in theory at least.
Click to expand...

True, but there are many variations in the states how they make rules and regulations. How could the Supreme Court make a law regulating all of them without excessive federal interference in the power of the states?

The Supreme Court usually only rules on the question(s) presented in the case. It asked for an injunction to stop the tabulation and certification of votes; however, since that had already occurred, it requested the court to nullify any such actions already taken. Since it is obviously too late to nullify that action it makes the case moot. Even if it threw out the PA vote Biden still wins the electoral college.

The PA court had thrown out the case based on laches (which I had to look up).


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top