Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Any day now the courts are going to overturn the election. You just watch.
Why wasn't Maine allowed to have a say in how Kentucky ran its elections??Find yourself a safe spot already. Trump lost.
This is about the sanctity of our federal elections.
JWK
Our socialist/fascist revolutionaries, which now control the Democrat Party Leadership, are known for accusing others of what they themselves are guilty of.
Why wasn't Maine allowed to have a say in how Kentucky ran its elections??
Why!!!!!!
This is how goofy and delusional you Trumpers have become -- which is of no shock because Republicanism has been nothing but a sliding scale of goofy and delusional...
Then you folks wonder why you are mocked
C-19: “They transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.”
Ironic as you're throwing outAll that says is that the case should have been heard. They did not suggest vthey would graqnt any relief. What that says is at least 7 of the justices would not support this ridiculous case. You are the one who is spitting on the Constitution. You want to throw out the votes of millions of people.
the votes of even more citizens by letting Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. illegally make their own
election law so to harvest more democrat votes.
You presumption is no evidence was presented. You have no proof at all of what you claim.You had ample opportunity to present evidence and you could not provide any evidence. The Supreme Court is not a evidentiary court. They resolve constitutional issues.
The Supreme Court still needs evidence when a case comes to them, regardless of what you claim.
Lord John Roberts dismissed the Texas suit on the basis of complete bullshit (the Supreme Court is not the proper venue for one state to sue other states? Ridiculous! That's precisely the place where such cases
are resolved). Roberts is a liar and not even a good one.
Bush sure knew what he was doing when he put this globalist watch dog on the court.
Roberts knew better
than to even consider the case...the die was cast for over sixty law suits brought by Trump.
NOT A SINGLE ONE was taken up by any court on the merits of the case. Crooks in robes covered up
democrat crimes.
Give fair minded people a reason to believe that judges in over sixty cases brought by Trump lawyers did not address the evidence, which was abundant and pervasive, and in some cases suits were dismissedThey did not make anything up. Everything that was done was legal.
They did not make anything up. Everything that was done was legal.
C-19: “They transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain.”
That's what a former member of our Supreme Court said eighty years ago with regard to corrupt practices in a federal electoral process.
As succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
Unfortunately, our current Supreme Court neglected its duty and refused to hear the Texas Bill of Complaint, address the particular charges made, examine evidence and listen to sworn witnesses, and in so doing, made a mockery of the right found in our Constitution, to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
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.
In a presidential election every state has reason to see to it that five or six crucial swing statesYeah, you are either completely ignorant of the PA Supreme Court ruling, which interfered with the PA Legislatures' plenary power over the electors.
do not violate their own laws so voters in Texas, and those twenty-two other states that signed onto
the Texas suit, don't become disenfranchised and have their Constitutional rights nullified (which is precisely what happened thanks to Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.).
If Texas has no standing when it's citizens are being legally raped then who does have standing
in any crime?
Judge Kevin Burke is frankly either completely unfamiliar with what actually happened in Pennsylvania
or is cynically and criminally giving cover to those that stole the 2020 presidential election.
Texas had good reason to sue and the Supreme Court became an accomplice in the theft of the election.
Co-conspirators in robes made the theft of the election a possibility.
Is this opposite day for you? Because everything you've claimed is exactly backwards.I would suspect it would be people who reside in the states in question who have standing. None of the states violated any laws. You are the one who has no clue what you are talking about.
You are the ones trying to steal the election. You are co-conspirators. The people in robes refused to go along with your dirty scheme to steal the election.
Give fair minded people a reason to believe that judges in over sixty cases brought by Trump lawyers did not address the evidence, which was abundant and pervasive, and in some cases suits were dismissedThey did not make anything up. Everything that was done was legal.
without comment and out of hand. Because evidence indicates that's just what they did.
There's nothing legal about blackballing Donald Trump though it pleases fascists like you.
You're a nut job. Not even all democrats believe your idiocy.You are the fascists. Fascists try to steal a election. You tried to steal the election. They addressed everything that was in Trump's briefs. They were dismissed because Trump's lawyers provided no evidence.
Ironic as you're throwing outAll that says is that the case should have been heard. They did not suggest vthey would graqnt any relief. What that says is at least 7 of the justices would not support this ridiculous case. You are the one who is spitting on the Constitution. You want to throw out the votes of millions of people.
the votes of even more citizens by letting Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc. illegally make their own
election law so to harvest more democrat votes.
You presumption is no evidence was presented. You have no proof at all of what you claim.You had ample opportunity to present evidence and you could not provide any evidence. The Supreme Court is not a evidentiary court. They resolve constitutional issues.
The Supreme Court still needs evidence when a case comes to them, regardless of what you claim.
Lord John Roberts dismissed the Texas suit on the basis of complete bullshit (the Supreme Court is not the proper venue for one state to sue other states? Ridiculous! That's precisely the place where such cases
are resolved). Roberts is a liar and not even a good one.
Bush sure knew what he was doing when he put this globalist watch dog on the court.
Roberts knew better
than to even consider the case...the die was cast for over sixty law suits brought by Trump.
NOT A SINGLE ONE was taken up by any court on the merits of the case. Crooks in robes covered up
democrat crimes.
The federal courts found no evidence that any fraud occurred in any state. End of your argument.
The Supreme Court never gave a hearing to the Texas Bill of Complaint, reviewed evidence, nor listened to sworn witnesses who experienced fraud and corruption taking place.
The charges of fraud and corruption in the election will remain until they are refuted.
Did you know the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania all but confirmed the illegality of no-excuse mail in voting which took place in Pennsylvania?
Read the Justices' CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT [LINK] which indicates The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77. is un-constitutional.
CHIEF JUSTICE SAYLOR
Filed: November 28, 2020
"I agree with the majority that injunctive relief restraining certification of the votes of Pennsylvanians cast in the 2020 general election should not have been granted and is unavailable in the present circumstances. As the majority relates, there has been too much good-faith reliance, by the electorate, on the no-excuse mail-in voting regime created by Act 77 to warrant judicial consideration of the extreme and untenable remedies proposed by Appellees.1 Accordingly, I join the per curiam Order to the extent that it vacates the preliminary injunction implemented by the Commonwealth Court.2
That said, there is a component of Appellees’ original complaint, filed in the Commonwealth Court, which seeks declaratory relief and is unresolved by the above remedial assessment. Additionally, I find that the relevant substantive challenge raised by Appellees presents troublesome questions about the constitutional validity of the new mail-in voting scheme." 3
One of Appellants’ main responses is that the citizenry, and perhaps future generations, are forever bound by the Legislature’s decision to insert, into Act 77 itself, a 180-day time restriction curtailing challenges to the substantive import of the enactment. See Act of Oct. 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77, §13(3). However, I find this assessment to be substantially problematic.4 Further, as Appellees observe, ongoing amendments to an unconstitutional enactment so insulated from judicial review may have a compounding effect by exacerbating the disparity between what the Constitution requires and the law as it is being enforced. Thus, Appellees raise a colorable challenge to the viability of this sort of limitation, which can result in effectively amending the Constitution via means other those which the charter itself sanctions. See PA. CONST., art. XI (Amendments).
To the degree that Appellees wish to pursue this challenge in the ordinary course, upon the realization that their proposed injunctive remedies will be considered no further, I would allow them to do so in the Commonwealth Court upon a remand. In this regard, relative to the declaratory component of the request for relief, I also would not invoke the doctrine of laches, since the present challenge arises in the first election cycle in which no-excuse mail-in voting has been utilized. Moreover, “laches and prejudice can never be permitted to amend the Constitution.” Sprague v. Casey, 520 Pa. 38, 47, 550 A.2d 184, 188 (1988).
Consistent with my position throughout this election cycle, I believe that, to the extent possible, we should apply more ordinary and orderly methods of judicial consideration, since far too much nuance is lost by treating every election matter as exigent and worthy of this Court’s immediate resolution. In this respect, I would honor the Commonwealth Court’s traditional role as the court of original and original appellate jurisdiction for most election matters. Finally, I am decidedly against yet another award of extraordinary jurisdiction at the Secretary’s behest.
Justice Mundy joins this Concurring and Dissenting Statement."
View attachment 446040
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 family.
You're a nut job. Not even all democrats believe your idiocy.You are the fascists. Fascists try to steal a election. You tried to steal the election. They addressed everything that was in Trump's briefs. They were dismissed because Trump's lawyers provided no evidence.
They did not make anything up. Everything that was done was legal.
View attachment 448476
What you fail to mention is that members on our Supreme Court lied!
.
Texas did submit a BILL OF COMPLAINT to the Supreme Court of the United States, and instead of giving it a hearing, examine evidence and listen to sworn witnesses, members on the Court lied and RULED that Texas did not provide a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.”
But, the irrefutable fact is, elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people, not only in a state doing so, but in other states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in the offending state, and therefore, states so offended by illegal voting practices in a federal electoral process do have a “judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.” [1]
If, after counting the PA election results a particular candidate would win, and election officials in PA do not like that candidate and add a million illegal ballots to the count so their candidate of choice wins, such action not only is an infringement upon the right to vote for PA’s voters, but likewise negatively affects voters in other States. The fact is, the collective vote of voters within each State, for their chosen candidate who is not liked by PA election officials, is diminished by the illegal ballots added to PA’s election results which not only illegally tilts the election results in the State of PA, but also awards PAs Electoral College vote to a candidate who had really lost in the State of PA…[2]
So, once again, as succinctly stated by Justice Douglas eighty years ago, who you and others apparently disagree with, and without a legitimately expressed reason, when acts of corruption infect a federal electoral process in one state "they transcend mere local concern and extend a contaminating influence into the national domain" ___ Justice DOUGLAS in United States v. Classic (1941)".
[1] "The U.S. Supreme Court has addressed various circumstances concerning disenfranchisement of votes. For instance, it has held the right to vote is foundational to our Republic and this fundamental right “can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.” Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 555 (1964). Reynolds, which established the “one person, one vote” doctrine, is the seminal case on voter dilution. Under this concept, a mail-in voting process that would exceed the limits of absentee voting prescribed in Pa. Const. Article VII sec 14 could be construed as violating the “one person one vote.” In that event, the sheer magnitude of the number of mail-in ballots would not be a basis to disregard not only this provision of the Pennsylvania Constitution but also the “one person, one vote” doctrine established by Reynolds, one of the bedrock decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court." See Texas Bill of Complaint
[2] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.
View attachment 448478
JWK
“Until you realize how easy it is for your mind to be manipulated, you remain the puppet of someone else’s game.” ― Evita Ochel
Absolutely! Liberalizing voting laws in one state disenfranchises the votes of people in other states.
Elections are zero sum games and when votes in Arizona or Pennsylvania are created by registering people
who have been dead for decades or votes have been cast illegally, like in Michigan where the Secretary of State is a Soros supported puppet, that robs the votes of people (like in Texas, for instance)
OR the Dominion vote changing machine is illegally weighing Biden votes more heavily than Trump votes.
ALL that robs people of their right to a free and fair election and makes America a liar when some people's
votes count for less that the votes of others.
Lord John Roberts and his pals on the Supreme Court absolutely struck a blow against equal protection under the law when they allow some states to steal elections and prevent other states from doing
something about it.
And may he roast in Hell for what he has done. He's an enemy of America.
