Posted on 02/14/2021 8:18:43 AM PST by McQ444
The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is set to hear a number of high-profile election fraud cases. The SCOTUS is now scheduled to consider the voter fraud cases for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia on February 19, 2021.
(Excerpt) Read more at nnettle.com ...
Cowards.
Very brave at sending Joe Schlub to prison after a random road stop. So courageous when allowing to govt to send drones to spy in your windows.
Not so much when push comes to shove.
SCOTUS is only allowed to determine whether an election was UNLAWFUL or not by the standards of the state’s election laws, and affected federal laws.
President Trump might consider a quo warranto against Congress before then to recuse all members who certified Harris as a Natural Born Citizen. THAT is something SCOTUS might weigh in on, though. This includes the votes by then-Senator Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, McConnell, and the rest of the swamp insurrectionists. A political caucus promoting an ineligible candidate from an election is, well, election fraud. Worthy of having the FEC de-certify the Democrat National Committee for criminal activity.
In a quo warranto the defendants have to prove they have the authority to hold a given office. In this case, Harris would have to name her American citizen parents (at birth), like John McCain did as chronicled in Senate Resolution 511 (2007-8).
Oh good they will order a fair election
NEXT TIME
I have heard it said (no way to confirm) that this is what the military is waiting for.... any confirmation from the court that foreign interference was involved... even though they already have all the evidence they need... and even if SCOTUS is unable or unwilling to overturn the election, what they want is for SCOTUS to confirm publicly what they already know.
What they (the military) want is POLITICAL justification to move in because they don’t want the optics of Myanmar and a rogue military overthrowing the government.
From related thread concerning the Court’s misguided decision not to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania…
The Supreme Court wrongly denied Texas and the Trump Campaign due process when the Court decided not to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania in December imo.
More specifically, not only did the Supremes not invent the constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse not to hear cases until Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, but Justice Joseph Story had previously clarified the Constitution’s state v. state clause.
"Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States [emphasis added];—between a State and Citizens of another State; (See Note 10)-- between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."
Based on the experience of the colonies, Story had written that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made the state versus state clause to obligate (my word) the Supremes to consider evidence between conflicted states as a last effort try to avoid the worst possible outcome of such a conflict.
From the writings of Justice Joseph Story…
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press.
§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
For emphasis, from paragraph 1675 above…
"The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
Also, consider that the Civil War Union States ignored any electoral votes of the Confederate States for the presidential election of 1864.
"Because eleven Southern states had declared secession from the Union and formed the Confederate States of America, only twenty-five states participated in the election." —Presidential election of 1864.
Finally, as another freeper has suggested, consider that Trump as private citizen actually has more flexibility to deal with many of the nation's problems, including election fraud by desperate Democrats, than if he had remained in Oval Office.
In other words, if he needs the Oval Office he may just go back there.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Day late. Dollar short
A day late and justice short
Trump’s appointments stabbed him in the back when Texas was dismissed.
America’s eyes are wide open. The People will never forget the betrayals, the attacks, the threats, the treason committed against their nation.
Going forward the traitors will continue to revise history, calling witnesses names, labeling them ‘insurrectionists’, ‘domestic terrorists’, ‘conspiracy theorists’, ‘white supremacists’.
Meanwhile, they play hide and seek with the ballots, conduct fake audits, defy state legislature authority, threaten anyone bearing witness against them with ruinous legal action.
Enemies of America are maliciously expressing ill-will saying and thinking Americans deserve what was done to them, the stealing of their elections, the fake impeachments, all manner of wrongs falsely justified because Americans are to be shamed unless they submit.
The truth is in the physical paper ballots. By federal statute, if it means anything, the paper ballots must be preserved for 22 months. There are less than 19 months to get at the physical evidence of truth.
The one real substantive choice, the best chance at avoiding the corner Americans are being backed into, the last option to turn back a Marxist takedown is to get at the physical paper ballots.
Yep. Even though if they actually looked at it and heard the unconstitutional rule changes earlier it would have overturned the election and they knew it but decided to punt. They are a part of it. There is no division of justice that will right this. But the dems will make sure that it doesn’t happen to them. The Republican Party is weak and won’t fight. And it’s because they would be fighting for a President they didn’t want but we did.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Not always but ‘Justice deviated is definitely justice denied’. The SCOTUS is adept at circumventing rulings with often triangulation of opinions to fit the agenda usually beneficial to leftists.
Judge Releases Dominion Audit Report: System 'Designed' to 'Create Systemic Fraud'
Another decision that is too late. He should have done this immediately.
Yup, although the Right is WAY too obsessed with the Left and not focused enough on the Patriots' goals and objectives of restoring out Free Constitutional Republic and what it will take to do so.
Generally the Right knows more about what they hate about the left than what they love about freedom, the Constitution that protects their freedom, and how we will restore these things in America.
The patriotic Right MUST change their focus for us to win this cultural Civil War.
Dear Lord we declare your Justice to be served and the rightful return of the duly elected President Trump to the WH. Amen.
think the PA will go back to PA supreme as the SCOTUS will not allow both standing prior to election and latches after the election as reason for PA to dismiss the case. PA will simply rule standing for this case.
The court is abdicated it's duty completely.
Here's how it actually works:
Suits prior to the election - Speculative. The court does not accept or entertain speculative cases. The merits of the case are not considered.
Suits during the election - Ripeness. The suit is not ripe. The court will not accept or entertain cases that fail the 'ripeness' test. The merits of the case are not considered.
Suits after the election - Moot. The suit is moot as the election has been accepted by the political process. The court will not accept or entertail cases that are moot. The merits of the case are not considered. The court lets you have the illusion of justice.
We're in stage 3 now.
According to John Roberts whom was talking about Trump competence to do his job we have 100 days after integration to make our case.
Any bets they will reject the case? Imho the case still has no chance because the black robe cabal are still cowards.
Sadly won’t happen. They should declare PA violated the constitution, but I do not hold my breath on any sort of remedy that will result in the removal of Biden.
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.