S.C., in rejecting Texas lawsuit, perpetuates a “depravation of rights under color of law”

[Dana7360]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.

They basically said they would hear the case but that they would not rule in trump's favor.

So it was basically an unanimous ruling.

 

[Dana7360]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a deprivation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

I don't think 'irrefutable' or 'fact' mean what you think it means.

I suggest those interested in the connection between a “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the 2020 election see: State Action and “Under Color” of State Law

For example:

In United States v. Classic (1941), the federal government prosecuted county election officials under § 242 for depriving African-American voters of the right to vote by failing to count their votes, altering ballots to show votes for different candidates, and falsely certifying election results— all contrary to the officials’ state-law obligations to accurately count votes and properly certify the results. The officials’ conduct violated the voters’ federal constitutional rights to be free from race discrimination in voting, but also violated state election law. A 4–3 majority held that the federal prosecution could proceed. The election officials acted under color of state law because “[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken ‘under color’ of state law.” Public officials acted under color of state law whenever their conduct deprived an individual of her constitutional rights, even when officials did so in disregard of express legal obligations in the course of performing their state duties.*

JWK


"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"___ Justice Story

Or...you could show us the connection of your accusations about “deprivation of rights under color of law” and the assessment that that has occurred by any relevant State legislature, State Court, Federal Court or the SCOTUS.

As the only one that you're citing for your “deprivation of rights under color of law” claims having actually occurred.....is yourself.

And John....you're nobody.

I will add that what the OP wants will open the door to states suing other states because of laws that state doesn't like.

So my state could sue Texas or any state that has weapons laws we don't like. We could also sue Texas or any state that has laws against abortion we don't like.

The stupid far right doesn't look down the road to the consequences of their actions. All they know is what they want right now and if they don't get it, they threaten to leave the union.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I will add that what the OP wants will open the door to states suing other states because of laws that state doesn't like.

So my state could sue Texas or any state that has weapons laws we don't like. We could also sue Texas or any state that has laws against abortion we don't like.

The stupid far right doesn't look down the road to the consequences of their actions. All they know is what they want right now and if they don't get it, they threaten to leave the union.

That's looking at things through stupid colored glasses.
But who is surprised?
Texas sued the Gang of Four states because they disenfranchised every single republican voter in Texas, and indeed the nation, by stealing the election and the thieves still continue the cover up.

It's not a case of "not liking" this law or that. It's a matter of losing liberties and rights guaranteed by the
Constitution because of what this cabal of thieves did.

Your ironic talk about not looking down the road applies to the left. They've made a short term gain
through their thievery but have torn a permanent rift in the nation because they let Donald Trump into their
sick childish heads and couldn't get rid of him legally.

And once they've stolen the election don't think they will ever want to give their illegitimate power back.
The left really fucked up and have guaranteed that civil war is coming at some point!

I hope it was worth all the death and destruction to you idiots to steal the presidency so you could put
this doddering, corrupt, lying old fool Joe Biden in office.
It's sedition and I wonder if Trump has the balls to declare a temporary state of martial law while
there is still time to put down this coup, by traitors like you?

 

[busybee01]

7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.

Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.

You definitely are a broken record.

Stop lying, vermin.

You qare the garbage that is lying.

 

[busybee01]

7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.

Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.

Provide that quote, Psycho.

Well, I see Psycho, busybee01, has yet to provide that quote.

JWK

Our government once of the people, by the people and for the people, has been transformed into a government of politicians, by politicians and for politicians . . . witness the latest influence peddling fortune being made by the Biden criminal enterprise.

Try reading their opinion. Or is reading beyond your capacity?

 

[miketx]

7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.

Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.

You definitely are a broken record.

Stop lying, vermin.

You qare the garbage that is lying.

Gibberish.

 

[johnwk]

7 justices disagreed. Just because Thomas and Alito agree with you on 1 aspect does not make you right and it does not make them right.. Also worth noting that Alito and Thomas stated they would not provide any injunctive relief. That means they deide not see a path to victory for Trump.

Alito and Thomas literally did not claim what you said they did. Stop substituting your imagination for facts.

They did say they would not provide any relief other than hearing the case. That is fact. You are the one who lives in a imaginary world.

Provide that quote, Psycho.

Well, I see Psycho, busybee01, has yet to provide that quote.

JWK

Our government once of the people, by the people and for the people, has been transformed into a government of politicians, by politicians and for politicians . . . witness the latest influence peddling fortune being made by the Biden criminal enterprise.

Try reading their opinion. Or is reading beyond your capacity?

So, instead of providing the quote, you decide to personally attack me for asking you the question.

JWK


When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.

 

[Skylar]

I will add that what the OP wants will open the door to states suing other states because of laws that state doesn't like.

So my state could sue Texas or any state that has weapons laws we don't like. We could also sue Texas or any state that has laws against abortion we don't like.

The stupid far right doesn't look down the road to the consequences of their actions. All they know is what they want right now and if they don't get it, they threaten to leave the union.

That's looking at things through stupid colored glasses.
But who is surprised?
Texas sued the Gang of Four states because they disenfranchised every single republican voter in Texas, and indeed the nation, by stealing the election and the thieves still continue the cover up.

It's not a case of "not liking" this law or that. It's a matter of losing liberties and rights guaranteed by the
Constitution because of what this cabal of thieves did.

Your ironic talk about not looking down the road applies to the left. They've made a short term gain
through their thievery but have torn a permanent rift in the nation because they let Donald Trump into their
sick childish heads and couldn't get rid of him legally.

And once they've stolen the election don't think they will ever want to give their illegitimate power back.
The left really fucked up and have guaranteed that civil war is coming at some point!

I hope it was worth all the death and destruction to you idiots to steal the presidency so you could put
this doddering, corrupt, lying old fool Joe Biden in office.
It's sedition and I wonder if Trump has the balls to declare a temporary state of martial law while
there is still time to put down this coup, by traitors like you?

There's no 'gang of four' states. A state doesn't become part of a gang because it doesn't vote for Trump.

And the loss of liberties are imagined. The issues raised have been adjudicated.....and no such losses have been found.

You're still stuck at square one.

 

[Skylar]

"but would not grant other relief" is intended to mean the court is not going to give Trump the presidency
but it will condone some other equitable fair reworking of the election.

Says you, citing you.

'But would not grant other relief' means exactly what it says.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I will add that what the OP wants will open the door to states suing other states because of laws that state doesn't like.

So my state could sue Texas or any state that has weapons laws we don't like. We could also sue Texas or any state that has laws against abortion we don't like.

The stupid far right doesn't look down the road to the consequences of their actions. All they know is what they want right now and if they don't get it, they threaten to leave the union.

That's looking at things through stupid colored glasses.
But who is surprised?
Texas sued the Gang of Four states because they disenfranchised every single republican voter in Texas, and indeed the nation, by stealing the election and the thieves still continue the cover up.

It's not a case of "not liking" this law or that. It's a matter of losing liberties and rights guaranteed by the
Constitution because of what this cabal of thieves did.

Your ironic talk about not looking down the road applies to the left. They've made a short term gain
through their thievery but have torn a permanent rift in the nation because they let Donald Trump into their
sick childish heads and couldn't get rid of him legally.

And once they've stolen the election don't think they will ever want to give their illegitimate power back.
The left really fucked up and have guaranteed that civil war is coming at some point!

I hope it was worth all the death and destruction to you idiots to steal the presidency so you could put
this doddering, corrupt, lying old fool Joe Biden in office.
It's sedition and I wonder if Trump has the balls to declare a temporary state of martial law while
there is still time to put down this coup, by traitors like you?

There's no 'gang of four' states. A state doesn't become part of a gang because it doesn't vote for Trump.

It does if it deliberately and criminally engages in election fraud.

And the loss of liberties are imagined. The issues raised have been adjudicated.....and no such losses have been found.

You're still stuck at square one.

The so called "adjudication" is corrupt too.
And the cabal knows the heat is on. That's why whistle blowers are being punished and removed for telling what they've witnessed and Big Tech is starting to censor evidence of Biden criminality.
Images of the impossible Biden vote spikes are being removed.

And yet you've stubbornly lied about the corruption coming from the Biden campaign claiming there is none. You obviously aren't very bright or truthful.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Says you, citing you.

'But would not grant other relief' means exactly what it says.

"Relief" meaning awarding Trump the states caught lying and cheating. Do some background study, stooge.

 

[Skylar]

I will add that what the OP wants will open the door to states suing other states because of laws that state doesn't like.

So my state could sue Texas or any state that has weapons laws we don't like. We could also sue Texas or any state that has laws against abortion we don't like.

The stupid far right doesn't look down the road to the consequences of their actions. All they know is what they want right now and if they don't get it, they threaten to leave the union.

That's looking at things through stupid colored glasses.
But who is surprised?
Texas sued the Gang of Four states because they disenfranchised every single republican voter in Texas, and indeed the nation, by stealing the election and the thieves still continue the cover up.

It's not a case of "not liking" this law or that. It's a matter of losing liberties and rights guaranteed by the
Constitution because of what this cabal of thieves did.

Your ironic talk about not looking down the road applies to the left. They've made a short term gain
through their thievery but have torn a permanent rift in the nation because they let Donald Trump into their
sick childish heads and couldn't get rid of him legally.

And once they've stolen the election don't think they will ever want to give their illegitimate power back.
The left really fucked up and have guaranteed that civil war is coming at some point!

I hope it was worth all the death and destruction to you idiots to steal the presidency so you could put
this doddering, corrupt, lying old fool Joe Biden in office.
It's sedition and I wonder if Trump has the balls to declare a temporary state of martial law while
there is still time to put down this coup, by traitors like you?

There's no 'gang of four' states. A state doesn't become part of a gang because it doesn't vote for Trump.

It does if it deliberately and criminally engages in election fraud.

And who, pray tell, came to that conclusion?

No state legislature, no court, no ruling has ever found that to be the case.

There's you. And you. Citing.....you.

Your source is utterly insuffecient to carry your argument.

The so called "adjudication" is corrupt too.

So you invented a new conspiracy to justify the failure of your old conspiracy?

That's original.

Here's a simpler explanation that matches the facts: Trump lost.

We'd see everything we saw, the courts would rule as they did, every count and recount would come down as it actually did, the states would certify as they did, the electors would vote as they did. And your insanely complicated international conspiracy would be completely unnecessary.

Occam's Razor.

 

[Skylar]

Says you, citing you.

'But would not grant other relief' means exactly what it says.

"Relief" meaning awarding Trump the states caught lying and cheating. Do some background study, stooge.

Relief would be postponing the electoral college vote. Or setting aside any election results. Or doing ANYTHING that the State of Texas asked for in its complaint.

The Supreme Court refused to grant any relief of any kind. 9 to 0.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. It tends to hamper your arguments.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Relief would be postponing the electoral college vote. Or setting aside any election results. Or doing ANYTHING that the State of Texas asked for in its complaint.

The Texas suit asked for no such thing. It wanted the crooks in the Gang of Four states to look for remedies to their cheating in those state legislators.
But of course you don't know this and were too stupid to find out.

The Supreme Court refused to grant any relief of any kind. 9 to 0.

Alito and Thomas
declined to endorse the Robert's court idiocy.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: You genuinely have no idea what you're talking about. It tends to hamper your arguments.

Great satire.

 

[otto105]

Please note, this thread is intended to open a discussion about an issue of law, a depravation of rights under color of law, as applied to the 2020 election.


On Friday, December 11, 2020, seven members on our Supreme Court engaged in and perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law” by refusing to hear a complaint filed by Texas which was joined in by seventeen other States, asserting Defendant States engaged in violations of state election law which ultimately resulted in millions of legally cast ballots being cancelled out by millions of illegally cast ballots, ending in an illegitimate election and that Joe Biden won the election nationwide.


In perpetuating, and actually engaging in, a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court issued the following ORDER which defies actual, and well established law.


FRIDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE

155, ORIG. TEXAS V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.

Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins:

In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___
(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.

CERTIORARI GRANTED

20-222 GOLDMAN SACHS GROUP, ET AL. V. AR TEACHER RETIREMENT, ET AL.

The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted.


To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.


Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.


In regard to “suffering an actual injury”, Texas, along with seventeen other States, meet this requirement by their stated allegations found in a BILL OF COMPLAINT


The irrefutable fact is, if the Petitioner’s allegations are correct and go unheard by the Supreme Court, then the majority on the Court have not only perpetuated a “depravation of rights under color of law”, but they have actually participated in this depravation of rights by not hearing the case.


In regard to the Plaintiff States not having a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections”, that certainly is true when electing a dog catcher or local board member, etc. But when the election involves the next President of the United States, rational thought concludes every citizen in the United States, as well as every State as a political body, most certainly has a minimum interest that all state election laws designed to produce a legitimate election results are followed, and not abridged in a manner producing an illegitimate result which obviously has occurred in this election.


Finally, if Plaintiffs allegations can be proven, can the Supreme Court resolve the matter? If the Plaintiff’s accusations are correct and provable, which would make countless voters in Defendant States willing accomplices along with their elected officials in a depravation of rights under color of law, the Supreme Court, as a remedy, could disallow the tabulation of election results of Defendant States as applied to the 2020 federal election. I’m sure there are various other remedies our Supreme Court could devise to right the wrong created by the Defendant States. But, for our Supreme Court to not do so, and issue an order which defies logical and legal thinking, is to embrace and perpetuate a depravation of rights under color of law.


JWK

" I believe that there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." ___ Madison Elliot`s Debates, vol. III, page 87

The lawsuit was ass and was crapped out.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

And who, pray tell, came to that conclusion?

No state legislature, no court, no ruling has ever found that to be the case.

There's you. And you. Citing.....you.

Your source is utterly insuffecient to carry your argument.

If I was the only person who identified and rejected your lunacy and criminal bullshit you might have a point.
I'm not. And you don't.

So you invented a new conspiracy to justify the failure of your old conspiracy?

That's original.

Here's a simpler explanation that matches the facts: Trump lost.

We'd see everything we saw, the courts would rule as they did, every count and recount would come down as it actually did, the states would certify as they did, the electors would vote as they did. And your insanely complicated international conspiracy would be completely unnecessary.

You just insist on recycling the same old lies. That's your "argument".
Not one single Trump legal brief has been denied on the merits of the plaintiff's briefs.
NOT ONE! Even an idiot like you has to take something from that fact.

 

[otto105]

And who, pray tell, came to that conclusion?

No state legislature, no court, no ruling has ever found that to be the case.

There's you. And you. Citing.....you.

Your source is utterly insuffecient to carry your argument.

If I was the only person who identified and rejected your lunacy and criminal bullshit you might have a point.
I'm not. And you don't.

So you invented a new conspiracy to justify the failure of your old conspiracy?

That's original.

Here's a simpler explanation that matches the facts: Trump lost.

We'd see everything we saw, the courts would rule as they did, every count and recount would come down as it actually did, the states would certify as they did, the electors would vote as they did. And your insanely complicated international conspiracy would be completely unnecessary.

You just insist on recycling the same old lies. That's your "argument".
Not one single Trump legal brief has been denied on the merits of the plaintiff's briefs.
NOT ONE! Even an idiot like you has to take something from that fact.

All have been laughed out of court for being stupid.

That is what you have.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

All have been laughed out of court for being stupid.

That is what you have.

You must thing Trump briefs are like your moronic posts.

As always, you are very wrong again.

 

[Skylar]

Relief would be postponing the electoral college vote. Or setting aside any election results. Or doing ANYTHING that the State of Texas asked for in its complaint.

The Texas suit asked for no such thing.

Ah, but remember my point about how you don't know what you're talking about and it tends to hamper your arguments? It just did again.

This Court is the only forum that can delay the deadline for the appointment of presidential electors under 3 U.S.C. §§ 5, 7. To safeguard public legitimacy at this unprecedented moment and restore public trust in the presidential election, this Court should extend the December 14, 2020 deadline for Defendant States’ certification of presidential electors to allow these investigations to be completed.

Postponing the December 14th electoral vote is EXACTLY the injunctive relief that Texas asked for.

You're an aggressively ignorant person talking about something you don't understand, making claims that are explicitly contradicted by the facts.

Shall we read the entire Prayer of Relief together, point by point to demonstrate just how wildly ignorant you are and how stupidly clear Texas was in their desire to do everything I attributed to them?

I have it right here. I'd be happy to demonstrate your ignorance further.

 

[otto105]

All have been laughed out of court for being stupid.

That is what you have.

You must thing Trump briefs are like your moronic posts.

As always, you are very wrong again.

1 for 65 is not a winning record trump dead-end sycophant.