- Jan 13, 2016
- Reaction score
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next timeNot for you. You fail repeatedly.Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baselessRead the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullibleMillions of people are more credible than the FBI.You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
Then it could be you that is the fool.You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
No. You lose!You lose.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.
Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.
Our government is replete with liars.
Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to reject the review of two 2020 Pennsylvania presidential election cases Monday, but Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas believe they should havetownhall.com
Justice Clarence Thomas says the U.S. Supreme Court has missed an "ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules."cnsnews.com
Supreme Court declines to hear Trump-supported Texas case over election results in four other statesThe Supreme Court has denied a Texas effort Friday that would have essentially nullified the presidential elections in Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia and Wisconsin.www.foxnews.com
The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.
Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
Try again, Clarence!
In throwing out the Republican legal challenge, the judge criticised it for containing "strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations".