Posted on 12/08/2020 2:39:43 PM PST by Kaslin
When there is no reasonable redress against the tyranny of fraud, the SCOTUS should expect very, very rough sailing ahead. The level of fraud in this election is obvious, it has been documented and proven, is intolerable and utterly unacceptable. Unless the Texas case receives reasonable review and an appropriate court response, SCOTUS will have lit the fuse to civil war. I see no other alternative when legitimate petition of citizens to remedy widespread fraud falls on deaf ears.
It was docketed. It wasn't removed.
"Docketed" in Supreme Court parlance just means the papers were filed. (All papers sent to the Supreme Court are first reviewed by the Clerk's Office to determine if they meet the Court's rules about size of paper, typeface, etc., and if the proper fees were paid. If the Clerk's office is satisfied, the case is "docketed.")
Even though a case is "docketed," it doesn't mean it will be heard on the merits; most are declined. But they're still listed as "docketed."
No - they are not. However - a lot of people here think they are. They are mistaken.
(The Court is not going to overturn the election)
They’ve got to fix this mess!
The SC will be forced to hear the argument that Pa unConstitutionally over rode it's own Constitution
No it doesn't. It's up to SCOTUS to decide whether or not to hear it. If you look at what Texas filed, it's a Petition for permission to file a Complaint.
I really hope the SC doesn’t actually want us to sort rhis out ourselves.
Alito seems to want to hear the matter aired.
73 million will NEVER CONCIDER BIDEN LEGITIMATE. He must always be called, His fraudency.
It’s fricken fraud. And no one will do anything. I’m sick and tired. Almost to the point of I’ve got nothing to lose. Pitchfork time.
“ The state of Texas has filed a suit against 4 states, Pa., Ga., Wis., and Mich. (I think) and according to a caller into Rush today, the fact that a STATE is suing OTHER STATES, it forces the Supeme Court to pick THAT one up.”
BINGO.
A technical question
Cruz tweeted Elias that Kelly asked in his pleading to treat the request for an injunction as a request for cert.
So since they denied the injunction does that also mean , in essence, they denied cert?
It is my understand the Kelly case is still active at the appellate level.
“No - they are not. However - a lot of people here think they are. They are mistaken.”
Of course they aren’t going to overturn the election. But why can’t they issue a ruling of something being unconstitutional and send it back to the state to deal with it? Didn’t they due that initially with Bush v Gore? I don’t remember.
Your next to last sentence is not a complete sentence and therefore, does not make sense. Please re-write.
Wasn’t this the case where we were hanging our hats on? I mean where does Trump goes from here? I just don’t see daylight. Unless y’all know something I don’t. Set me straight please....
Not literally, but denial of the injunction means Pennsylvania will certify within the safe harbor period. So a denial of cert. will follow at some point.
P
Do you think the Texas case that now has other States joining in has even a remote chance ?
Or maybe this is political grandstanding by people hoping to use it in the future in their run for office
“In issuing equitable relief, this Court rightly seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder.”
That Court has no idea what “social disorder” actually means, but if they refuse to do their jobs, they are certainly going to find out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.