I’m sorry. I’m stuck behind a firewall and can’t get to Twitter. Can you give some context? Who ordered this?
The President is showing he has been playing chess while Democrats are getting caught cheating at craps.
At most they will give the states a few slaps on the wrist.
The last thing they want to do is pick the next President
Does anyone think that POTUS has been laying in wait for them...waiting for them to spring the trap?
Other than murder - which likely has happened - ism’t this the worst of their crimes?
bookmark.
What does this mean??
California has already LOST in Fed Court over the Governor “creating” election Law regarding mail in Ballots. Pennsylvania was also given a partial loss by Justice Alito and he Ordered them to Secure and Segregate all ballots received after 8 pm on election day. In Alitos opinion he cited Article2 of the US Constitution eluding he thought it was proposterous that The Governor, SOS, Court of any State had the Authority to “create” election LAW that the US Constitution clearly grants sole authority to the State Legislature, and NOBODY ELSE.
With four solid constitutionalist’s covering the fraud ridden states that had their Election LAWS Changed and Created by people other than the State Legislature, I doubt the USSC will let it stand. They will be Striking down as Invalid Millions of Votes, including 1 million mail in votes here in Crazy California.
it surely does not appear to be a coincidence at all.
what are the odds?
4*3*2*1/9*8*7*6 ~= 0.008 ?
(very very rusty, sorry)
not to mention the imho precision timing??
anyways if it is very low, then it would appear to be one of two things—
* a trap for the democrats
* a funeral for the republicans
(everyone, place your bets now...)
notice roberts is absent
kavanuagh is an iffy though, but so far less so than roberts
“That’s a nice win Joe. Be a shame if someone cancel’s it.”
-Amy Barrett (Probably)
As I explained on the other thread, people are reading too much into this. Reassignment was bound to happen soon after ACB was put on the Court. IOW, timing is likely a coincidence.
Also, it is pretty common when significant cases are involved for the justice to refer the matter to the full Court. This is common practice because if a justice denies it, the court’s rules allow petitioner to move on to other justices, and if a justice grants a stay, the loser can ask the full Court to vacate that stay. Since this would waste lots of time and create undue tension among the justices (no one wants to technically overrule his colleague), it makes sense to treat major cases a bit differently and have the full the Court consider the application.
Bottom line: Don’t take this as a sign that the Court is itching to get involved in the election. And in the end, we still need either Kavanaugh or Roberts to be “solid” in order to win, because it’s unlikely that the four more conservative justices will just go off and do their own thing with requests that come from their circuits. At most, they may grant temporary stays until the full court considers or request a response from the other party or something of that nature. They aren’t going to do much on their own.
Prepping the Field of Battle? bump for later...
