Posted on 03/13/2023 6:43:51 AM PDT by Rummyfan
In the movie The Untouchables, written by David Mamet and directed by Brian De Palma, a streetwise Irish cop named Malone tries to educate a starry-eyed fed named Eliot Ness in the ways of Chicago justice when up against an implacable, deadly opponent like Al Capone. The scene has become justly famous for this line: "“He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT'S the Chicago way! And that's how you get Capone."
But for our purposes here, what even more important is the exchange between Sean Connery and Kevin Costner that immediately precedes it:
Ness: I want to get Capone! I don't know how to get him.
Malone: [talking privately in a church] You said you wanted to know how to get Capone. Do you really wanna get him? You see what I'm saying, what are you prepared to do?
Ness: Everything within the law.
Malone: And *then* what are you prepared to do? If you open the ball on these people Mr. Ness you must be prepared to go all the way. Because they won't give up the fight, until one of you is dead.
....
Well, that's the question, isn't it? In a battle between good and evil, with the law having gone over to the side of evil—as it had in the gangland Chicago of the 1920s and '30s—what are the good guys prepared to do? With the country-as-founded now being shot out from underneath us on a near-daily basis, how do concerned citizens fight back?
The electoral system? Since the election of George W. Bush in 2000, there have been at least three presidential votes in which the losing side has contested the outcome; Bush's hanging chads, Hillary Clinton's baseless charge of "Russian collusion"...
(Excerpt) Read more at the-pipeline.org ...
Further, the suit was brought directly to the Supreme Court under Article III of the federal constitution which cites disputes between and among states as one of the Court's few "original jurisdiction" powers. This was the only one of the many suits launched by or on behalf of the Trump campaign that had a legitimate chance of winning, but of course the Roberts Court wanted nothing to do with it, and drop-kicked it through the goalposts of infamy. "Without standing"? If the citizens of the several states and the states themselves, whose initial compact resulted in the creation of the federal government in the first place, don't have standing, then who the hell does?
Bullet box. Not ballot box. It’s the only way to be sure.
The Judeo-Christian ethic of the sancrity of life precludes this option.....and the left plays that card very well.
sancrity..S/B ...sanctity
As the saying goes, when they take away the soap box, and the ballot box, that leaves only the ammo box.
Refresh my recollection - did one State sue another State over this issue and file in USSC for original jurisdiction under Article III?
Thanks
Yes. Several states filed against Pennsylvania and others but the court rejected it as they had ‘no standing’.
Do you know if it was the Legislature of any of those States that was/were the plaintiffs? And when you say “several States filed”, exactly what do you mean? The Attorneys General? The governors? By passed acts of the Legislature?
Thanks
If not the system (which as I noted here and here, IS the steal, having now effectively legalized voter fraud), then what? Certainly not the courts. Time after time, suits have been brought in response to this or that enormity, only to have the courts dismiss the plaintiffs as "without standing." Most egregious of the recent examples was Texas v. Pennsylvania in late 2020, in which Texas and other states sued Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—the states that handed Biden his "win"—for changing their election laws (owing in large part to the Covid hoax) by means other than legislative, in clear violation of the Constitution.
Further, the suit was brought directly to the Supreme Court under Article III of the federal constitution which cites disputes between and among states as one of the Court's few "original jurisdiction" powers. This was the only one of the many suits launched by or on behalf of the Trump campaign that had a legitimate chance of winning, but of course the Roberts Court wanted nothing to do with it, and drop-kicked it through the goalposts of infamy. "Without standing"? If the citizens of the several states and the states themselves, whose initial compact resulted in the creation of the federal government in the first place, don't have standing, then who the hell does?
Suit filed by Texas AG on behalf of the State.
Declined by USSC because “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”
I actually agree with that. There was not one election, there were 51, 50 of which took place as sovereign acts of semi-sovereign States.
The only legitimate plaintiffs who could have been heard were the Legislatures of Arizona, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Georgia, and none of them acted to contest the appointment of their Biden Electors.
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.