Replies

"With some notable exceptions, like the PA Commonwealth Court, U.S. Courts don't want to get involved in what they consider "politics", refereeing corrupt elections. It's simple nonfeasance of their oath of office."

No, I haven't read the "no standing" decision. Someone please tell me how some 17 States had no standing, and why did Bush vs Florida had standing when Florida ignored their State Constitution laws mid-election and the USSC said no go and stopped the countless counting of ballots? It was the same complaint/lawsuit and the USSC set precedence.

This is not going to end well. People are already forming face to face groups, since there are no secure electronic comms. Sporadic violence will be our future with certain oligarchs targeted in a clandestine manner. At 71, I hope I'm gone and don't see it.

To paraphrase one Freeper's tagline: I spent 11 years of my life defending the rights of others, only to see them take mine away. It will happen with the commies in charge. There is no doubt in a rational mind.

You make my point. I was astounded that the Texas lawsuit with some 16? States submitting amicus briefs was thrown out due to no standing. Texas and the other states had no standing when their citizen's votes were voided due to clear evidential fraud? Because the Supremes wouldn't be bothered with the merits of the case, this Nation is now on fire.

The concept of "standing" is best understood of a device that courts use when they don't want to hear a case, and the injury is somehow obscured or indirect. There is no clear test for it. Common law courts can and do make exceptions to their rules in an unintelligible manner. Our constitution is a very old document which needs to be updated so that its meaning isn't overly dependent on judges.

What the court is hiding behind is that the Twelfth Amendment reads that the state legislatures are to appoint presidential electors. That doesn't happen in modern practice. The practice has become that states have elections for the presidential electors. So even when the legislature provides by statute for an election, the courts have been saying that only the legislature has standing if the rules aren't followed. This is, of course, contrary to what the Rhenquist court did in Bush v. Gore. So now that is a worthless precedent, why? Was SCOTUS being political then, now, or in both instances? If there are tapes of Roberts saying he would make sure Trump didn't win the election as rumored, I would love to hear them.

To paraphrase one Freeper's tagline: I spent 11 years of my life defending the rights of others, only to see them take mine away. It will happen with the commies in charge. There is no doubt in a rational mind.

People here ask if the military will support Trump when the Insurrection Act is announced to reverse the corrupt election. Some in the top brass may not, but when the rank and file understands that their votes were stolen for a senile, illegitimate pretender POTUS, I think they will. I suspect that the delay in the announcement is securing communications so Trump can communicate to people directly and avoid the filters of the corporate media and Big Tech.