musterion
Well-known member
That executive order can impose sanctions.
You have no idea what that could entail.
That executive order can impose sanctions.
If you think the entire system is corrupt and evil from top to bottom, then you have to decide what to do. You can live with it, try to change it, protest it, start a civil war, move to another country...The courts say it is okay to kill your baby
So you tell me how "sanctions" can change the election results. I assume you've read the entire Executive Order....You have no idea what that could entail.
That's correct. Nor does saying there was evidence for massive fraud mean that there was.
We have courts, and so far the courts haven't seen any solid content in those fraud claims.
So what's left? To decide the issue in social media or on the streets? Or to accept what the courts say?
AgreedNot yet it isn't.
That's why the result isn't the same. We do not know what all team Trump knows.
Mmmmm...no. Not quite yet. By the end of January, we'll know.
If the trump card needs played but isn't, you won't have to abstain from voting. The Left will do it for you.
I disagree with this.The fault is with these States Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin - not the Supreme Court.
Those four states violated their own state constitutions. They don't even deny that they did so. The elections in those states are therefore illegal, by definition.What actually happens is that each State gets to decide how to choose the electors. They can set up elections any way they want, or the State legislature can choose them. As far as the Constitution is concerned, the governor of a state can flip a coin to decide. This is a States Rights issue, which is one of the reasons why the Supreme Court won't even look at the cases. The other reason is that there isn't any solid evidence for the claims of massive fraud.
Disagree.I disagree with this.
The injustice was done and the victims of the injustice took their case to court and the court said to stuff it in your backside and get used to it.
It is very much the fault of the supreme court.
The states are the ones who were responsible to make sure the cheating didn't happen.I disagree with this.
The injustice was done and the victims of the injustice took their case to court and the court said to stuff it in your backside and get used to it.
It is very much the fault of the supreme court.
There was no fraud alleged in the Texas case. The case was about the voters of Texas (and 20 other states that joined the suit) were disenfranchised because these states conducted illegal elections based on facts that are not in dispute.Disagree.
My understanding is that the SC said Texas had no standing only because (a) fraud or not, the election process isn't close to over yet so Texas can't say the election was stolen YET, and (b) Trump, if anyone, would be the aggrieved party so it is him who must bring it...and his cases are about to reach them.
Several legal authorities known to be firmly on the Right insist the decision - while disappointing - was the legally, constitutionally correct one.
Remember: they did not comment on the MERITS of the claims of fraud. The rejection was purely procedural. There is nothing keeping it from reaching the SC in a corrected manner.
In any event, remember Trump's 2018 executive order. It was implemented for precisely this situation. It comes into play if/when legal avenues have been exhausted.
Relax. This isn't the bottom of the 9th yet.
Then what's the point of any state ever going to court over what another state has done?The states are the ones who were responsible to make sure the cheating didn't happen.
When a court refuses to do justice, they are as guilty as the criminal and become criminals themselves. The Supreme Court is nothing other than an accomplice after the fact.Three of these states elected insane demon governors and somehow two years later expected them to behave fairly in the election? The people people in these states literally chose to be taken advantage of. People warned them that they needed to be as enthusiastic about going out and voting two years ago as they were for Trump, but they didn't. Their non-involvement caused the later problems. The same goes for California.
It was because people were not paying attention to local elections and local politics that we all have to pay the price nationally.
And even now, these states have legislatures controlled by Republicans. And yes, they can constitutionally toss the presidential election results in their state if they want. I don't think they have the balls to do that, but they could if they wanted to. They don't need any court.
So yes, the states involved are at fault.
Where the state lines should be, interstate trade interference, state property lawsuits, and others.Then what's the point of any state ever going to court over what another state has done?
When a court refuses to do justice, they are as guilty as the criminal and become criminals themselves.
Oh.There was no fraud alleged in the Texas case.
...fraud.The case was about the voters of Texas (and 20 other states that joined the suit) were disenfranchised because these states conducted illegal elections based on...
This was sort of snotty thing to say. I don't think that the supreme court should do things that the constitution doesn't allow. Quite the contrary!Where the state lines should be, interstate trade interference, state property lawsuits, and others.
Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan completely agree with you. They believe that the Supreme Court should do what they consider to be justice regardless of what the law and the Constitution actually allow.
This argument is identical to saying that we don't need any criminal court at all because the ones who have the power to make sure crime isn't committed are the criminals. If there were no criminals, we wouldn't need judges.I have told you who has the power now to make sure justice is done - the Republican state legislatures in these four states.
"Criminal" is defined as one who breaks the law and so yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't I?Do you consider them to be criminals?
Said the Supreme Court told the whole damn country!Justice does not always happen and this has been true from the beginning. Wake up and smell the horse poo.
NO!Oh.
...fraud.
If the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court has to hear the case, then the Constitution does not require them to.I don't see where the constitution allows the Supreme Court to not hear a case where they are the court of origination.
Alito and Thomas didn't say that. They simply said that the bill of complaint should be allowed to be filed.A point that two the of the judges made about this very case.
The point is that the legislators failed to do what is right and that the executive branch in those states did thing that they had no right to do. A fact that is no in dispute, by the way. As a result, the elections in those states are illegal, BY DEFINITION and if they are allowed to stand then every LEGAL vote cast in the whole rest of the country is disenfranchised.
And what law did they break?"Criminal" is defined as one who breaks the law and so yes, of course I do. Why wouldn't I?
Perhaps, but in so doing they leave injured parties with no legal recourse, which is precisely the reason why issues between states are allowed to originate the case at the Supreme Court in the first place.If the Constitution does not say that the Supreme Court has to hear the case, then the Constitution does not require them to.
From the court's order...Alito and Thomas didn't say that. They simply said that the bill of complaint should be allowed to be filed.
This is the way Communists think.That also brings about another point, Trump nominated all three Judges which voted against this. If the judges acted improperly, which I don't believe, Trump is at least partially responsible. Trump has made more errors in the people he hired than any president before. That's just the sad truth.
Yes! Totally!No. Not at all.
That's only the case if California made such a decision in accordance with ITS OWN LAWS! If the Governor of California decided he wanted all the votes for Republicans to count as half a vote and all the Democrat votes to count as two votes and then that's how the election was actually tabulated, it would be an ILLEGAL election! Such an illegal election would, in fact disenfranchise the whole rest of the country if the election was a national election.This is the point of the electoral college. If California decides to select the next President through a coin flip, it doesn't affect the selection of electors in Texas.
NO IT IS NOT!Each state has a right to choose the manner in which the President is elected. Politics is local - not national. The state legislatures have decided to stand back and not do anything. That's that state's choice.
The constitutions of their own states!And what law did they break?