What’s needed is a campaign or rally or set of weekly rallys to publically shame the three Trump appointees to the court, who had and still have the opportunity, the ability and THEIR SWORN DUTY to uphold and defend the Constitution.
************************************************************
I understand why they did it, but isn’t that a fine way to stand behind YOUR PRESIDENT after taking crap for 4 years to make this a better Country and get the rotten filth out of our government: RAT ROMNEY; PELOUSY; SCHUMER and all the RINOS and rotten, stinking, lying, thieving DEMOCRATS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thank You drdirt for the backbone to say it!!!!!!!!!!!!
————————————-
I believe they did uphold the constitution. The denial was not on merit, it was on standing. A constitutionalist will do this whereas a political shill will not.
I’m thinking it took backbone to deny Texas as it was presented...and it will take backbone to constitutionally judge all of the other lawsuits before them.
Remember. Texas is retooling this lawsuit.
I believe they did uphold the constitution. The denial was not on merit, it was on standing. A constitutionalist will do this whereas a political shill will not.
I’m thinking it took backbone to deny Texas as it was presented...and it will take backbone to constitutionally judge all of the other lawsuits before them.
Remember. Texas is retooling this lawsuit.
Powell Asks Supreme Court to Immediately Order States Decertify Election Results
-Epoch Times
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I agree.
Texas was a great case for exhibiting a nationwide coalition of states (which it succeeded in doing!) ... but the WRONG CASE for the SCOTUS to consider.
The precedent would have been AWFUL.
PLEASE CONSIDER: If this precedent were set, RAT states would go to SCOTUS to stop other states from allowing fracking, allowing cars, selling guns & ammo.
Anything their poor little RAT hearts thought was bothering them.
Texas is not retooling the lawsuit. They were turned down due to lack of standing.
Other parties could potentially use some of the same arguments that Texas made, but SCOTUS will have the discretion to hear them (or not).
IMO, SCOTUS will most likely use every procedural tool at their disposal to not get involved, because they don’t want to be accused of “selecting” the President.
I understand and appreciate your position, I happen to disagree. Justice Thomas laid out the precedent that gave the court the ability to hear the case. Their duty was clear, in my opinion, consideration of other cases that may or mmay not materialize is certainly no justification for the choice they made.
In any event, demonstrations of we the people would have multiple positive effects. Maybe most important is that we’re watching closely and we’re not going to take this anymore.
Remember. Texas is retooling this lawsuit.
Posted December 13, 2020
Mark
Well said.