Posted on 12/19/2020 6:39:58 PM PST by White Lives Matter
Wrong, but he appreciates swampers giving him cover. The Constitution gives it to legislatures. But a state clearly violated that rule. Texas and 20 other states clearly had standing when Pennsylvania broke the mutual contract.
He might have ruled differently after a case, but its indefensible to say Texas and the others had no standing.
All states are parties to a contract. When Four members violate that contract, the remedy is clear. Other parties may sue to force compliance. Compliance could be as simple as the defendant state legislatures confirming that it was their process.
But Roberts is an amateur searching for a sophistry solution, just as he did in the Obamacare case. He is an advocate for the Bush wing, and a closet homo. He is not a dispassionate jurist.
The state legislatures are already required by the Constitution to fix it!
Also the Congress!
So the SC couldn’t do jack!
It’s already indisputable that the say on the elections is up to the legislatures.
With proof the state and fed legislatures will reject, without it they’ll accept the count.
Only the proof matters. Trump still has time to get that proof to them.
Wish evidentiary cases were further along in the courts. That produces “proof”.
There you go again...
Why don’t you link ALL your research to support your claims?
I read the headline and no more.
Apparently Roberts was not a Davos. They cheered him in absentia.
Anyway, being cheered by Soros and that crawd is not exactly a badge of honor.
Sorry about my rant.
Twice In 2008
Remember the secret second swearing
Supposedly a do- over for a technicality
No press, no witnesses, no explanation
Or why Dan Crenshaw was there at the World Economic forum in Davos. They are scrubbing pages as quickly as they can, but he is one of Claus Schwab’s “young leaders”.
What could Judge Roberts ‘threaten’ the three new judges with that would convince them to deny the Texas case?
Oh and btw, I already LINKED TO YOU how to look at SCOTUS arguments. YOu can even listen to oral arguments throughout the years.
Why do you continue to pretend that I am lying about Oral Arguments on 3/22/2010 and 3/23/2010.
Actually I’m with Alito on this:
they should have heard the case, said that that it was unlawful for the states not to follow their laws, and said that there was nothing they could do.
Would have done the country good- even though it cost the court some prestige.
States are in a contract together. It is called the constitution. Four violated the contract. The remedy cannot be, and is not for them to be left fix their own problems...if they please. That leaves open the predicable result that a violator will not do so. That failure violates the constitutional rights of the states that followed the constitution.
Twenty states agreed.
The Supreme court is the original jurisdiction when a state sues another state. They clearly had standing. Roberts is a closet butt pirate and did what he did because it fit’s his politics. Just like the Obamacare decision. Just like his free work for the homo cause in Colorado before he was a judge.
If the Rats were in our position there would be thousands camped out on his lawn. Why aren’t we?
Actually, he didnt say they would allow oral arguments.
He indicated they should be allowed to file as SCOTUS has originial jurisdiction. This is consistent with a previous case which Red State had discovered prior to the ruling.
You are such a fraud.
Go ahead ... let’s see all you research, with supporting links.
Twice in 2009 and twice in 2013, once public and once again in private, both times, hmmmmmm.
“...What could Judge Roberts ‘threaten’ the three new judges with that would convince them to deny the Texas case?....”
Good question...dunno, but it would be nice to know.
Maybe a severe pounding around the head and shoulders?
IF all the screaming and hollering that took place is for real, maybe they’re scared spitless of him...maybe insane?
He made threats against the POTUS being preventing his reelection IF the phone conversation is true.
Sounds like the POS is a real nut case.
My view is that the offered “standing” basis for rejection was sleight-of-hand to avoid the scenario of not providing relief.
I would think the three kooks didn’t want for the reason of protecting the Dem P{arty, and three others didn’t want it because it would bring disrepute on the court since couldn’t DO anything about it.
You a nut job.
I gave you the link to the oral arguments on 3/22 and 3/23 of 2010
I have hand fed you a link were you can look at the ownership history of the tail number
Sheesh, you are psycho
LMAO!
Drink up, girl.
“The remedy cannot be, and is not for them to be left fix their own problems...if they please.”
There is also Congress.
I see a lot in the Constitution about legislatures and the Presidential elections.
Nothing about the Supreme, or any, Court though.
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.