You Can't Sue Over Election Fraud Before, During or After the Election

Going forward, a rule of thumb that makes judicial decisions easier to understand.

Anything that benefits the Left:

Anything that benefits the Right:

Good guy. Thanks again.

Merry Christmas to you too.

what we can do is pull the curtain back and realize that at least seven of the nine SC wizards including the Grand Wizard, lack hearts, lack brains, and lack fortitude. They are cucks.

And then we can drag them out into the sunlight and fresh air and burn down their sacred temple of meaninglessness.

"“Standing” is one of the most powerful judicial tools in existence."

Regarding state v. state in 3.2.1, Justice Joseph Story had clarified that the only standing that states need to be heard by the Supremes is that they are states. Story had explained that this practice got started in colonial times to try to prevent colonies from going to war.

§ 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.

The misguided, deep state Supreme Court cannot wash its hands of probable (imo) Democratic vote-stealing for a federal election.

Corrections, insights welcome.

*blushing*...

It is obvious that our congress, state governors, supreme court and FBI/DOJ would not allow us to vote if it changed anything.

Looking back, that has been true for 6 decades of voting life!