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

PostmodernProphet said:
I've been wrong about nothing......
Click to expand...

Oh, don't sell yourself short little fella. Everything. You lost. Because that's what losers do. You were SO excited at the prospect of the Supreme Court overturning the election. It never had a chance. Sadly, I know more about your supposed profession than you do. That's really gotta suck, loser.

"the decisions the state legislatures made BEFORE the election......if the states violated their own rules the errors will have to be discarded......"

WRONG

"there were several states that counted votes received after the deadline set by the state legislature.........."

WRONG

"next the SC decides if it agrees with you......"

They did.

"yes, it wants the SC to determine if those four states violated the constitution......."

They didn't.

"because they are subject to the same constitution that Texas is and their voters (as well as the voters of the other twenty states that have now joined as plaintiffs) have a right to be equally treated under the law........."

WRONG.

But if it's any consolation, you aren't the stupidest poster in this thread, that distinction goes to Earl. You get the silver medal.
 
Concart said:
Oh, don't sell yourself short little fella. Everything. You lost. Because that's what losers do. You were SO excited at the prospect of the Supreme Court overturning the election. It never had a chance. Sadly, I know more about your supposed profession than you do. That's really gotta suck, loser.

"the decisions the state legislatures made BEFORE the election......if the states violated their own rules the errors will have to be discarded......"

WRONG

"there were several states that counted votes received after the deadline set by the state legislature.........."

WRONG

"next the SC decides if it agrees with you......"

They did.

"yes, it wants the SC to determine if those four states violated the constitution......."

They didn't.

"because they are subject to the same constitution that Texas is and their voters (as well as the voters of the other twenty states that have now joined as plaintiffs) have a right to be equally treated under the law........."

WRONG.

But if it's any consolation, you aren't the stupidest poster in this thread, that distinction goes to Earl. You get the silver medal.
Click to expand...

all of those statements were correct......the SC didn't say the states did not violate their own laws.......they merely said Texas lacked standing........now remember when some fucking idiot said the SC couldn't hear these cases?.......did you notice that one thing the court did NOT say was "why are you asking us?.....we can't look at what states do:.......I wish I could remember who that fucking idiot was......
 
volsrock said:
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.
Click to expand...

The SC has flushed this frivolous case down the crapper.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
it's only proof if you stop ignoring the evidence.......
Click to expand...

:laugh: ..............
giphy.gif
 
PostmodernProphet said:
all of those statements were correct......the SC didn't say the states did not violate their own laws.......they merely said Texas lacked standing........now remember when some fucking idiot said the SC couldn't hear these cases?.......did you notice that one thing the court did NOT say was "why are you asking us?.....we can't look at what states do:.......I wish I could remember who that fucking idiot was......
Click to expand...

It was NOT this case dumbfuck.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
it was your incorrect statement, dumbfuck......that is the point.....
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. I said that about the PENNSYLVANIA lawsuit. The Supreme Court agreed with me. The two suits were different in that the second suit had to go immediately to the Supreme Court. Who incidentally did not hear that case due to standing. So my statement was exactly correct, you conflated the two utterly failed lawsuits that the Supreme Court dismissed without hearing because you know absolutely nothing about the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top