Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: White Lives Matter

My questions are ....

Is SCOTUS saying that it has no jurisdiction over the way state’s run their elections, ergo the states have to settle it?

If so, then that would mean that NO federal court could hear a case involving state election laws or say, voter ID laws, right?

So, that would mean that Abrams’ sister never had and will never have authority to hear any case brought to her by her sister so they can defraud the people of Georgia and America anymore?

And that would mean that any other state that wants to strengthen their election laws, pass some form of voter ID if they don’t have it, restructure absentee ballots and get rid of mail in voting, can do so without having the Left run to the 9th circuit or the DC circuit so they can get one of their judges to rule for them, right?


14 posted on 03/08/2021 11:07:01 AM PST by qaz123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: qaz123
Is SCOTUS saying that it has no jurisdiction over the way state’s run their elections, ergo the states have to settle it?

SCOTUS is admitting that it's all a sham. The congress has no clothes and neither do the justices. Since the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction here, they have no jurisdiction over income taxes, identifications, licenses across state lines, etc. In other words, they're null and void.

31 posted on 03/08/2021 11:15:58 AM PST by T.B. Yoits
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: qaz123

That’s what I am wondering.
It seems bizarre but perhaps this refusal to hear cases will allow a broader win with State’s passing voter ID laws and tossing the month long voting, specifying the limited situations for mail in voting and establishing stringent conditions for those votes with ID. The Feds will then be unable to challenge those laws.


35 posted on 03/08/2021 11:21:09 AM PST by JayGalt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

To: qaz123

Is SCOTUS saying that it has no jurisdiction over the way state’s run their elections, ergo the states have to settle it?

If so, then that would mean that NO federal court could hear a case involving state election laws or say, voter ID laws, right?

So, that would mean that Abrams’ sister never had and will never have authority to hear any case brought to her by her sister so they can defraud the people of Georgia and America anymore?

And that would mean that any other state that wants to strengthen their election laws, pass some form of voter ID if they don’t have it, restructure absentee ballots and get rid of mail in voting, can do so without having the Left run to the 9th circuit or the DC circuit so they can get one of their judges to rule for them, right?

Oh how I wish you’re right.......but there’s rules for them and rules for us....gotta remember that!


36 posted on 03/08/2021 11:21:13 AM PST by Dawgreg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson