Posted on 12/10/2020 7:14:12 PM PST by armyofprinciples
Tonight I filed an amicus brief in US Supreme Court in support of the State of Texas.
11/3 election in GA & other states was unlawful & unconstitutional.
Let justice be done.
The SCOTUS is asked to exercise original, not appellate jurisdiction. But I think SCOTUS will hear the case, and then hand down a stinging rebuke.
The lawsuit is frivolous, and every entity, person, or party that piled in on the lawsuit knows it. Every single one.
We are being played. Now, just sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.
But when my statements are later proven true, remember my words.
The lawsuit is now becoming a total joke.
An amicus brief was just filed, in SUPPORT of Texas, by two fictional entities named “New California State” and “New Nevada State.”
Anyone and everyone who has ever had a grievance against their local election officials, and was shot down politically and/or judicially, is now running to SCOTUS for a remedy.
Don’t shoot the messenger. Just remember my predictions.
Another silly comment. Nobody forces the Supreme Court to do anything. I’m watching the Jay Sekulow show right now, and they are repeatedly making the point the court already has everything it needs now, to rule however they want, without even any oral arguments if they don’t want them. And they may not because time is of the essence. Your analysis on this is simply and completely wrong.
That is exactly what I said.
SCOTUS is asked to exercise ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. So, rather than review the trial court record on appeal, SCOTUS looks at thousands of pages of briefs and declarations.
There will be no live testimony.
SCOTUS may or may not order oral arguments.
But SCOTUS is acting as a trial court here, not an appellate court.
forcing it to go through thousands of pages of evidence
Again, no one can force them to do anything, as they can reach a decision in any way they feel comfortable with. Second, there has not been “thousands of pages of evidence” even submitted to them to easily review if they wanted! You simply made another bad point, on multiple grounds. Dismissed.
He’s not hard on the eyes, either...
WUT?
He’s a handsome man.
As a woman ‘of a certain age’, I appreciate attractive older guys. Attractiveness comes in lots of forms; and brains definitely enhance whatever else you’ve got.
Ah so ... got it.
You’d never heard that expression before?
(I guess I’m of an even greater age than I thought...)
I am 75. I appear to be in my late fifties early sixties. I have heard the expression before and used in past occasions. Because I had pictured your name as a male (from the way you argue obstinately over Catholic issues), I had mistaken you for a male. I stand corrected.
When it comes to religion, I believe that the only thing I’ve personally argued *obstinately* has been ‘live and let live’. There is wisdom and good in just about every major religion - and in some not-so-major ones.
When I can’t personally believe in some point of a doctrine, I say so; and sometimes I suggest alternate exegesis. I think that’s just called ‘freedom of expression’.
Here’s to your own.
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.