SCOTUS to Hear Election Fraud Cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan & Georgia

NN ^ | 02-14-21 | Jay Greenberg

[4Runner]

Remember Roberts yelling and screaming at the other justices in that so-called secure room meeting that they cannot hear any of the election fraud cases because of the rioting and destruction that would take place if they ever gave the election to Trump no matter if he won it fair and square?

Nothing's changed.

[rainee]

& whatever happened to Ruby Freeman & her daughter?
That story went away fast

[E. Pluribus Unum]

This is why they are so desperate for Trump to disavow his stolen election claim.

[BenLurkin]

More farce.

[Jim Robinson]

A tad late.

[glimmerman70]

Your likely correct. But no way they should be able to look at the evidence and say nothing to see here.

[dsrtsage]

Yeah, and if they actually hear them, then what? They ain’t gonna ‘peach president amazongooglefacebook

[volunbeer]

The plan all along was to run out the clock

[rktman]

To what end now? So they can say “Don’t do that from now on.” 🐂💩

[Diogenesis]

did Roberts get an Order from Malta?

or did he -—on his own, for fear of
150 millions Americans now wise to his scheme(s),—
decrease the number of babies that
had to be offered for blood sacrifice
and rape for SCOTUS to actually show up
and finally DO THE WORK they have been paid for?

[allendale]

Forget about it. The Supreme Court does not allow actual evidence or sworn testimony from witnesses as would a traditional trial. They only “hear arguments” from lawyers. The best they can do ( and they won’t) is order the judges who dismissed the cases before they were heard to hold some sort of now meaningless trial. The fix was and remains intact.Always amused when decent people expect justice from the institution that legalized abortion and gay marriage.

[tennmountainman]

Robert’s and his Klown Court will do nothing.

[crz]

You and me..

I am in the process of inventing new words of the nastiest kind for these..

[Sacajaweau]

They will likely be considered moot.

[joshua c]

That is my understanding. It is just a conference. They havent agreed to hear anything.

[antidemoncrat]

Day late and a dollar short..typical government response

[FlipWilson]

Likely you will read the following:

Yes, this was unconstitutional and should not have happened. Going forward, it cannot. But as for this election, it’s moot.

[NautiNurse]

Aren’t they only considering whether to hear them at this point?

This is my understanding. SCOTUS will discuss in conference Feb. 19.

[MileHi]

Why the rush?

[Pearls Before Swine]

“Considering” isn’t the same as “hearing.”

Also, the problem is evidentiary. The Supremes rarely function as a finder of fact; usually they are holding on matters of law and procedure.

It’s a long way from the Court considering these cases to expert, public testimony and weight of the fraud evidence. That won’t happen at the Supreme Court.