Posted on 02/07/2021 5:57:08 PM PST by dontreadthis
... Of the 81 cases, 11 were withdrawn or consolidated and 23 were dismissed for lack of standing or on other grounds. Both the cohort of 11 and of 23 should not be considered “wins or losses for either side,” Droz says, because they “have nothing to do with the merits of the case.”
This leaves 47 cases. Of those 47, 22 have been finalized after the court heard arguments, considered evidence, and then issued a ruling.
Of those 22, Trump or Republicans won 15 and lost 7, according to the analysis.
This leaves 25 lawsuits that have yet to be finally disposed of. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
Send this story off to Senator Ben sASSeHole.
And Biden is still President.
Bump
This is the link that worked for me. https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-won-two-thirds-of-election-lawsuits-where-merits-considered_3688543.html
Let’s see a show of hands all who think if solid proof comes out that the election was fraudulent that Biden will resign and leave the Whitehouse.
ready... hup!
In my opinion, the misguided, institutionally indoctrinated Roberts Supreme Court wrongly denied Texas and the Trump Campaign due process when it refused to hear the Texas v. Pennsylvania case concerning alleged electoral vote counting fraud 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 following about the Constitution’s state v. state clause (3.2.1).
Based on the experience of the colonies, 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.
Corrections, insights welcome.
That unfortunately won't change regardless of how things play out favorable for Pres. Trump now.....an illegitimate counterfeit President has been installed and the Stronghold on our Governing bodies that brought him there will tighten fully in the next 4 years as they move this nation into place for World Governance.
Xiden is still in OUR White House, so those court “wins” don’t seem to account for much of anything.
TEXIT!
It’s time!
And if one runs afoul of Biden’s new mandates or laws can one bring a writ of quo warranto? This would allow Trump’s legal team to allow into evidence the person facing trial is not being lawfully tried as the signature of the executive branch is not valid; that is if the current president cannot prove he is in fact a duly elected official.
I know this is wishful thinking, but this is in our laws. It was used successfully in the Philippines recently, they have the same law. Basically it challenges the person who passed or enforced the law to prove he or she was legally entitled to do so.
No, Biden and his fellow traitors are USERPERS. There’s a big difference. He was NOT elected. It was stolen. Trump won. And that is TRUTH.
Bookmark
Later.
bkmk
bump
Later.
True.
Bump
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.