Trump's Election Claims Rejected By New Republican-Led Review in Arizona

PostmodernProphet said:
your ignorance of the law is not an excuse for an illegitimate president in the Oval Office.......this argument was not used before and was accepted, not thrown out, by the court.......I realize you don't like it......but go teach your granny to suck eggs........
Click to expand...

The argument was accepted for future elections. Not for past elections. The doctrine of laches applies to the previous elections.
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
bitchslaps the ignorant cunt with the decision of the court in PA......



https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/244MD21_1-28-22.pdf?cb=1
Click to expand...

Pennsylvania isn't Wisconsin.

But while the court ruled that it violated the PA Constitution it did not rule that it invalidated the 2020 election. Once again, the doctrine of laches would apply for elections that had already occurred. The court ruling makes it clear that the objection wasn't filed until long after the November 2020 election and no one requested the court invalidated the 2020 election. The ruling applies to future elections. Your bitchslap seems have hit you rather hard.
The court is pretty clear in its ruling that it can't apply to the 2020 election since it was filed long after the 2020 election.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the basis of laches. It
held that the petitioners were dilatory because they waited until days before the
county boards of elections were required to certify the election results to the
Secretary of the Commonwealth to file their action. Moreover, they did not file their
action until the election results were “seemingly apparent.” Id. at 1256-57. The
Supreme Court held that the “disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania
voters” established “substantial prejudice.” Id. at 1257. It further held that to
disenfranchise citizens whose only error was relying on the Commonwealth’s
instructions was fundamentally unfair, and the request to void an election was
42
declared “a drastic if not staggering remedy” that was quickly dismissed. Id. at 1259
(Wecht, J., concurring) (citations omitted).
McLinko filed his petition in July of 2021, between elections, and
sought expedited relief “in sufficient advance” of the November 2021 General
Election so that electors would not have their votes disqualified. Application for
Expedited Briefing and Summary Relief, ¶6.33 There is no risk of
disenfranchisement of one vote, let alone millions, as was the case in Kelly. The
critical difference between Kelly and this case is that McLinko is seeking prospective
relief, i.e., a determination as to the constitutionality of Act 77 for future elections.
Click to expand...

So good luck trying to get any court to agree that this ruling invalidates the 2020 election.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Pennsylvania isn't Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

yet they were both decided on the same basis.....violation of the constitution......

Poor Richard Saunders said:
The argument was accepted for future elections. Not for past elections. The doctrine of laches applies to the previous elections.
Click to expand...

???....lol.....you obviously have no clue......if the act was unconstitutional for future elections, it has always been unconstitutional.......who gives a fuck if the election isn't going to be turned around......the simple fact is we will always know Biden was put into office by the unconstitutional acts of demmycunts........invalid, illegitimate, incompetent and unloved.......the pedo-pseudo-president's legacy.....
 
Who thinks Trump won? Ginni Thomas, Clarence, and 59 percent of Trumpian Repubs. It is a crew of misfits and idiots who have replaced the facts of the world with their puerile beliefs. You cannot convince people who are deep into a conman's con that they can be wrong. Facts and absolute proof have been given and they reject them. How many Repubs are embarrassed by these stupid claims that trump was robbed?
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Pennsylvania isn't Wisconsin.

But while the court ruled that it violated the PA Constitution it did not rule that it invalidated the 2020 election. Once again, the doctrine of laches would apply for elections that had already occurred. The court ruling makes it clear that the objection wasn't filed until long after the November 2020 election and no one requested the court invalidated the 2020 election. The ruling applies to future elections. Your bitchslap seems have hit you rather hard.
The court is pretty clear in its ruling that it can't apply to the 2020 election since it was filed long after the 2020 election.



So good luck trying to get any court to agree that this ruling invalidates the 2020 election.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats.
 
Nordberg said:
Who thinks Trump won? Ginni Thomas, Clarence, and 59 percent of Trumpian Repubs. It is a crew of misfits and idiots who have replaced the facts of the world with their puerile beliefs. You cannot convince people who are deep into a conman's con that they can be wrong. Facts and absolute proof have been given and they reject them. How many Repubs are embarrassed by these stupid claims that trump was robbed?
Click to expand...

You can't win what never took place.
 
All the facts and data in the world will not matter to the lunatic fringe. ITs never been about reality to them.

Belief in a God is not about evidence.
 
Into the Night said:
Irrelevant. There was no election in 2020. The election faulted due to election fraud by Democrats.
Click to expand...

There was no election fraud. It was proven by over 60 courts and many recounts. When a person makes that claim. it tells me all I need to know about them. It isn't good. Trump was given every opportunity to prove the claims and failed. Much like your posts. We have an extremely good system that makes our elections extremely fair and honest. The elections are always checked. Your stupid claim cannot survive any scrutiny. You believe because you want to.
 
Jarod said:
All the facts and data in the world will not matter to the lunatic fringe. ITs never been about reality to them.

Belief in a God is not about evidence.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is.

No matter the religion, or whether it has a god or gods, or even none at all, they are all based on an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. ALL of them are based on some kind of evidence, and all try to explain that they evidence is relevant.

That said, the evidence of election fraud is not going to go away just because you want to label it a religion.
 
Nordberg said:
There was no election fraud. It was proven by over 60 courts and many recounts. When a person makes that claim. it tells me all I need to know about them. It isn't good. Trump was given every opportunity to prove the claims and failed. Much like your posts. We have an extremely good system that makes our elections extremely fair and honest. The elections are always checked. Your stupid claim cannot survive any scrutiny. You believe because you want to.
Click to expand...

Argument by repetition fallacy. You are chanting. You can't make the evidence disappear by chanting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top