Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Michael.SF.

The way I understand it one Party must prove they have been damaged by another party. So te SC must believe that there is no damage to any other state even if the offending state has advanced a candidate by fraud.


9 posted on 12/11/2020 5:40:30 PM PST by vigilence (Vigilence)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: vigilence
This reply, is not meant to flame anyone. It is meant to show that SCOTUS decision, is shall we say leave's a lot to be desired.

How many hundred's of time's have we heard, via the different courts (local county, state, up to the SCOTUS,) "Compelling Government Interest."

So, I'm guessing there is no "Compelling Government Interest."

I'm not a schooled lawyer, but do have 10 (Ten) years civil litigation experience (mostly at the appellate level, Washington state Court of Appeals & Washington state Supreme Court.)

The lawsuits were based around the forming of New Counties. So, it would be proper to say it was all political. Having learned, first hand, how corrupt the legal establishment is. Define corrupt, you say, issuing a ruling, on subject matter that was never "JOINED, ARGUED, or BRIEFTED," but hey we now have "Stare Decisis" {Precedent.} Personally I now refer to "Stare Decisis" as Stare @ the human excrement on the wall.

And in case your wondering, yes that Stare @ the human excrement on the wall, thank you SCOTUS, does STINK to HIGH HEAVEN!

96 posted on 12/11/2020 9:20:49 PM PST by Stanwood_Dave ("Testilying." Cop's lie, only while testifying, as taught in their respected Police Academy(s). )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


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