Posted on 12/08/2020 5:50:24 PM PST by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
Edited on 12/08/2020 6:03:18 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Its already on the docket. They are hearing it.
“ Its already on the docket. They are hearing it.”
All submissions are on the docket. That does not mean they are going to hear the case, it means they will either accept it for arguments or that they will reject it.
I seriously doubt they will be ruling on this or any other election case.
Their number one concern is the fate of the Court, including how far left Harris and Schumer will go on future appointments.
Because the TX suit is not about fraud but violations of Equal Protection and Article 2. The 4 states mentioned illegally imposed new laws to allow mass mail in ballots. That was illegal. Their illegality disenfranchised legal votes cast in the other 46 states.
The Manchester Union Leader under the Loebs was consistently Republican, endorsing both Goldwater and Reagan. Also, as I recall, backing Pat Buchanan's failed run against Bush in 1992 and again as an independent in '96.
Times have changed.
This year, New Hampshire's statewide newspaper went with the tide in the northeast and the west coast and gave Biden their blessing.
The voters followed obediently off the precipice. (How's that for a mixed metaphor?)
“Because the TX suit is not about fraud but violations of Equal Protection and Article 2. The 4 states mentioned illegally imposed new laws to allow mass mail in ballots.”
Thanks. Makes sense. I hadn’t been following closely enough to realize that AZ and NV didn’t also illegally impose new laws for mail in ballots. I’m surprised they didn’t—especially NV! Guess they knew they didn’t need to do that with all the CA voters who moved there in their RVs to escape CA shutdowns.
Neah.
Most likely it is strategery.
If he’s on the winning side he might be able to steer it into a ditch.
I want to believe this is true. I will reserve my excitement until I read the order from the Court.
I read the brief filed by Texas, and it looks like they have quite a strong case against those four states. But I don’t understand why Texas requested a special election to appoint presidential electors in those states. If they held special elections, those states would most likely run into all the same problems with fraud and lawbreaking that happened in the original election. The only real relief from these problems is to direct the State Legislatures to appoint presidential electors, and throw out the results from the rigged elections in those four states. Texas appears to ask for that relief if the states have already appointed electors.
I’m not sure why their brief asks for different kinds of relief depending on whether the states have already appointed electors. That may be determined by timing to some extent, and if they’ve already appointed electors there may not be enough time for a special election. Just some thoughts there, and I’m not sure why Texas asks for different kinds of relief in different situations.
Who knows if the SCOTUS will hear this case, but they should because it’s a strong case. This kind of rigged election is how nations being a descent into tyranny and corrupt one-party systems.
Correction to my last post (it’s very late here in AZ)—I intended to type the following:
This kind of rigged election is how nations begin a descent into tyranny and corrupt one-party systems.
Fake tweet. The SCOTUS has already declined the case
Which they have already refused to do.
How did that 6-3 vote work out for you?
More fake news
Wouldn't it be fun if one of the justices who knows some Roberts secrets is forcing him to vote on our side? Ha, ha, ha!
If you highlight your link, then right click on it, and then select “Open Link in New Tab” to see if it is going to open when posted.
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.