Posted on 12/12/2020 6:50:19 AM PST by bobbo666
According to 7 of the 9 SCOTUS judges, any number of states can brazenly violate the US constitution in order to achieve what political aims they favor – and no other state(s) can have leave to argue the issue before the premier federal court. Of course Texas has standing! If any state of a republic violates the laws (US constitution) that apply to all, any other state has standing to at least have a hearing – if not eventual justice.
Let’s say a neighbor does something obnoxious that not only violates local laws but impacts me – e.g., burning auto tires in his back yard – enveloping my house in smoke. What? Local “law enforcement” does nothing because he is politically connected? So, I can’t even go to ANY court for remedy?
What is the purpose of that court if not to hear disputes between states? If a state violates the US constitution where is that wrong redressed if not in SCOTUS?
Three presumably conservative judges; Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh apparently agreed with others that whatever happens in a state is only that state’s business, regardless of how it affects others. Apparently, they are no better at integrity than Roberts – with his re-writing of Obama care as a tax bill and then not returning it to the House in accordance with the constitution. Obviously, none of their oaths to uphold the constitution meant anything.
We are no longer a republic. We are now a single political entity with all orders issued by DC. And, we are expected/told to shut up.
Close. The Republic died on November 3, 2020. It is not the Supreme Court that killed the Republic. December 11, 2020 was only the funeral. Election Day is when the vote was stolen.
True... But that has been true since the 1960's or 1970's...
Didn't take long... From 1906 to 1966 was all it took for Marxism to complete the Republic's final destruction...
What we are seeing now is the Nation's final gasp as the United States of America disappears and the Soviet States of America rises permanently in it's place...
//Obviously, none of their oaths to uphold the constitution meant anything. //
Too thrilled with themselves for the honor of serving on the Court. Not thrilled enough with the idea behind the Court.
Disenfranchisement can mean more than just adding votes. It can also mean subtracting, adding illegal votes or changing existing or late votes.
“So if Trump won would you still want the suit brought?”
Absolutely. The destruction of a way of life that has been in existence for over 140 years, and prospered better than any country or form of government in history, requires protection from anyone wishing to take it over with other than ethical and honest means.
“Would you be saying that all the votes that came in late under the new rules should be thrown out?”
Yes. The cherished responsibility of voting was placed totally in the hands of the voter this year with the mail ins. All they had to do was drop it in the mail. If they were disabled, get someone to do it. Everyone that wanted to was warned for months through media on the deadline and what to do. And as I understand from a thread here that postal workers were stamping incorrect dates on ballots mailed after the correct time. Is that fair to the people that did it right?
“Of course you wouldn’t because that is not the issue. The issue is the fraud.”
No, the issue is the result of the fraud that very well could have changed a national election by the ways it was done. If Trump lost legitimately, so be it. That’s what our country was founded on, and one of the major reasons it has been such a success. I spent about half my life defending the system to see this wouldn’t happen like this. I want the equality I was promised. And that includes a fair and proper election.
To me, Barr is no different than any of them. I do have a problem with the GOP and its representatives for their failure in many ways, this one being another. But it’s more than just Barr as the SCOTUS has basically thrown out justice with their decision to toss the Texas challenge as it is defined in many places in the Constitution about what was done being illegal and destroying the sanctity of an election with intentional illegal acts, some not even surfacing yet, that cancels the votes throughout the country. And that’s my problem. Why not send me to the gallows before my trial if the trial is predestined and crooked. Why destroy me slower.
wy69
Maybe the suit should be brought by a state that lost narrowly to Biden.
I doubt the Supreme Court, government class captives all, understood this but they essentially told plaintiff states that the only recourse is secession.
That may not happen right away, but when the true economic devastation (likely from concerted action by both China and the lone political party left in the U.S.) is realized...that message from the Court might ring loudly. They said, essentially, that, yes, the Constitution IS a suicide pact.
Look at California.
Better get that ammo and AR15s before Deadbrain becomes dictator. We are going to need it. Put it in a nice dry, safe place.
“Maybe the suit should be brought by a state that lost narrowly to Biden.”
I don’t know if that would be the answer. Until the illegal actions are considered unconstitutional, the SCOTUS is going to push back the challenge. And if anyone thinks liberals at state level are going to openly challenge their own successes, honest or otherwise, they are certifiable. So what the SCOTUS is saying is that certain states, with no accountability, can decide a national election with no way to question or investigate as there are no grounds, and determine what other states have voted for pro or con for them. This time....con.
If that’s the case, then we no longer need to vote as the governors can set up their electoral college voters to vote the way they want, and the states with the most electoral votes will determine the election. But 538 electors are not involved as it takes 270 only. And if the right 11 states determine to vote that way, and there are a few combinations, with no accountability, then only 22% of the states control 51% of the determination of office. I see a problem with the math here.
wy69
They are the test case for collapsing the USA along with NY state, you could throw Illinois in that mix....
Anytime you have total democratic control you had total economic disaster and devastation...
“....the only recourse is secession.”
The Constitution does not directly discuss secession. The articles of confederation do. Funny thing here is that a Supreme Court case in 1859, Texas vs White, is the decision being used considering secession. This is the U.S. Supreme Court case in which it was held that the United States is “an indestructible union” from which no state can secede.
Now they could challenge the law, in the SCOTUS. And it could be changed since it was determined elections of national officers are not accountable to each other so why should states be? Therefore there is nothing in the law stopping making a union indestructible if it is not accountable to itself. So a state that doesn’t wish to be ruled without a say in illegal elections actions, is being governed without representation. I think I’ve heard that before. About 1770 it was said.
wy69
Yep, America has earned the coming chastisements.
Yep, America has earned the coming chastisements.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
Let The Joker Go Wild
https://accordingtohoyt.com/2020/11/06/let-the-joker-go-wild/
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
Follow the Sanctuaries for illegal aliens model. Anything liberals mandate, reject it as a city or state. No need to secede, but make it illegal to cooperate with liberals in power. For example, Second Amendment Sanctuaries already exist.
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.