Posted on 02/06/2021 12:22:55 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.
In nearly every plea for expedition, lawyers backing former President Donald Trump told the court that if the cases were not heard before President Biden's inauguration, their success would be unlikely.
But after the court pushed them off, many lawyers said that the challenges were still important and could have long-term implications for election fairness. Trump lawyer John Eastman told the Washington Examiner that even with Trump out of office, it was important to settle the issues raised by expanded mail-in voting.
"Our legal issue," he said, referring to the way in which Pennsylvania conducted the 2020 election, "remains important and in need of the court’s review."
Similarly, Kelly's lawyer Greg Teufel, told the Washington Examiner after the court refused to hear his case before the inauguration that the 10-year congressman and major Trump ally had no intention of dropping the suit.
As election litigation continues to play out in the courts, many Republican state legislators have begun introducing bills to curb mail-in voting through law.
If the Supreme Court accepts any of the election lawsuits, it is likely that they won't be heard until October.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
I’ll bet that the 3 Trump appointed will join forces with the Media-Dem Party judges, including Roberts, and refuse to hear the cases.
Anyone expecting the Supreme Court to uphold its constitutional duties, is a fool. That includes the “conservative” justices appointed by Trump. Our government is at war with us.
No court ruling or any amount of evidence will change anything. The fraud deniers know there was fraud but will never admit it. They’re in way too deep at this point.
thanks Sidney and Lin and all the Mikes and Phil and Matt and Rudy and on and on..., you are all fearless patriots. may God protect and continue to bless you all for what you did and are still doing for us. and my God help, guide and comfort those innocents who are now being persecuted for our cause! may they quickly have their reward that you have promised, Lord. In Jesus Holy Name with thanksgiving, i pray. Amen
Senior Anti-Marjorie Greene Republican Staffer Arrested for Running Pedophile Ring
According to the Metropolitan Police Department, 27 year-old Ruben Verastigui,
of Northeast, DC, was arrested on Friday and charged with
Distribution of Child Pornography, which included sickening videos of babies being raped.
more here
a meme this morning asked
“So, you’re telling me that it only took one false whistleblower to impeach TRump, but 1000’s of sworn affidavits, video evidence, more voters than residents in certain counties, and fraudulent ballots arriving in trucks after voting stopped, and ballots not even making it to the counting etc, aren’t enough to even warrant an investigation?”
Another said:
“A Pillow Salesman just dropped far more proof of election fraud than the whole Justice Department did”
“Dismissed as now mute. A president was inaugurated 20 January 2021.”
Signed, The Supremes
“justice?”
are you kidding?
the FIB is supposed to VET Presidential families.
did they? was there a CHINA, CHINA, CHINA?
no.
the FIB spent one YEAR watching Hunter rape
babies (taped f’n down!) going through, what 200 pounds
of popcorn while smirking and attacking GEOTUS, and
covering up their selling of U1 for a SUMofALLfears.
What’s the win-loss count on these 2020 election fraud court rulings thus far? I’m sure this one will end real differently.
Interesting you should mention “war”. Apparently, a leftist loon on MSNBC recently suggested the government should make drone strikes on red states.
“Dismissed as now mute. A president was inaugurated 20 January 2021.”
I believe you mean MOOT.
But it’s not. The criminal and unconstitutional acts must be brought to light and justice served or it is the end of our Republic.
You may be right. And like with Nazi collaboratiors, that will not save them from the wraith of the left. It will only show that they will abandon their principles very easily when they think it will help them.
Our government is at war with us.
.
.
Sad but true.😕
The FBI is the police arm of the Deep State and their selected executive. They have no more credence than corrupted cops and deserve NO respect and no cooperation.
They undermined Trump and refused to seriously investigate Hunter Biden and the sphincter with feet, FUJoe. I recall folks saying, well the FBI has the laptop..things are gonna happen. Only thing that happened is that they buried it.
They need to be disbanded completely,,,,but we are stuck with their corrupt asses. And that includes the lower down agents.
The misguided, institutionally indoctrinated Roberts Supreme Court wrongly denied Texas and the Trump Campaign due process imo when it refused to hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania et al., case concerning alleged electoral vote counting fraud in December imo.
More specifically, regardless that the Supremes didn't invent the constitutionally undefined "no standing" excuse not to hear cases until Massachusetts v. Mellon, 1923, Justice Joseph Story had previously clarified the following about the state v. state clause.
Based on the experience of the colonies, the delegates to the Constitutional Convention had made the Constitution's state versus state clause (3.2.1) 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
Corrections, insights welcome.
Agreed on all points. But I expect the damned robes to do this anyway. They failed us by ducking the cases earlier evrn when they needed to be decided
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.