COURT REJECTED THE CASE
IT’S DENIED FOR LACK OF STANDING
bitt wrote:
“COURT REJECTED THE CASE”
What case got rejected, by what court?
Posted on 12/11/2020, 3:37:10 PM by jroehl
Edited on 12/11/2020, 3:41:42 PM by Admin Moderator. [history]
Fox news:
155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot. Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___ (Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.
~~~~~~~~
The grounds for martial law seem to be in place. The courts are unable to function as designed by the framers of our constitution.
I saw the posts downthread.
Who in the h3ll has standing in a case like this, where states have not followed their election laws, and the states’ executives and states’ judiciaries just made laws up regarding conducting elections?
This means laws can be broken and the ensuing election chaos can go on uncorrected.
No soap box
No ballot box.
No jury box.
What’s left is the cartridge box.