If blame is to be assigned for the Jan. 6th protest, our S.C. should be at the top of the list!

[Moonglow]

The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


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)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.

 

[Moonglow]

All legal votes were counted.

Along with illegal votes.

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.

Then show us the illegal ones.

 

[johnwk]

The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


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)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.

And what does that have to do with what I posted and you quoted above?


JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!

 

[busybee01]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

Worth noting that the complaint provided o evidence. Just accusations. There was no reason to hear the case. Also the accusations had been addressed in numerous court cases. Thomas and Alito supported hearing the case but they saw no reason to grant any relief. Nothing would have changed.

 

[busybee01]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

I agree. Great post. The SC sure didn't fulfill their duties and it was a slap in the face to the American people.

Unfortunately it appears that Justice Roberts has joined the cancel culture and told 18 states and 76 million citizens of the United States to go pound sand when it refused to give an evidentiary hearing to the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT

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.

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. There was no evidence provided that election fraud occurred. Also the judges appointed by Trump concurred. You want to tell 81 million voters to pound sand by throwing out their votes. That is what happens in banana republics.

Our written Constgitution gives fealty to states over elections. That is the supreme law oif the land. You are the ones engaging in treachery.

 

[busybee01]

One state can't sue another state to force them to change their laws on voting..

Oh, my dear, to the contrary! When a state adopts rules or laws which violate the provisions of our Constitution, you bet another state can sue, and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such cases.


Let me suggest you take a moment and read our Constitution, and specifically the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, in which all the States are commanded that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

This particular provision of our Constitution, and the protection afforded by the requirement, was ignored by defendant States mentioned in the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT

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

You are a liar. The legislature directed that electoral votes be awarded to the perason who gets the most votes. No one violated the Constitution.

 

[busybee01]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

This is as ignorant as it ridiculous and wrong.

Oh, to the contrary!


In answer to your post, members on our Supreme Court have aided domestic Revolutionaries in undermining the sanctity of our federal election process and our very system of government!

.

There is no question in the minds of honorable people, that our Supreme Court members not only spat upon our Constitution, but also spat upon 18 States and 76 million people when they refused to give an evidentiary hearing, listen to sworn witnesses, evaluate evidence, and provide a remedy for a redress of grievances they, and only they, have original jurisdiction over.

For members of our Supreme Court to allege that corruption of a federal election in one state, as distinguished from a local election in that state, does not cause an actual cognizable injury or threat to the remaining states, and to the people of those states, is to falsely assert that the corruption in one state is not a threat and direct assault upon, and injury to, our democratic system of government and its rule of law, and thus, a cognizable injury to the United States and the law abiding and freedom loving people thereof.

Indeed! The corruption of a federal election in one state is without question an assault and cognizable injury upon the entire United States, her citizens, and their very system of government.

As succinctly stated by a Justice of our Supreme Court, 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).

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.

You Trump terrorists attempted to attack our elecdtiopn system. Trump attempted to slow down the delivery of mail ballots by the Post Office.

Trump supporters are not honorable people. They are Nazis who want to overturn the votes of 81 mjillion people who voted for Biden. That is a attack on our country. The fact is that not one shred of evidence was provided by any state of election fraud. The Trump lawyers had ample opportunities to provide evidence and failed to do so. By your standard, the courts could have overturned Trump's election in 2016 and given Clinton the Presidency. You would have been screaming them.

Trump had ample opportunity to provide evidence to various courts at the state and federal level and could not provide that evidence. The states provided no evidence either. Provide evidence and then talk about evidentiary hearings. You throw around the word corruption but you have no clue what you are talking about.

 

[busybee01]

It's fun to be a Justice.

“It's good to be the King.”

We are getting to look more and more like Venezuela where elections are rigged and the opposition is canceled



JWK


First the President is cut off from twitter, then Sen. Hawley’s book is cancelled, then the WalkAway Facebook page is taken down. . . Is it not self-evident a dangerous and un-American pattern is developing to cancel conservative speech?

That is exactly what YOU are trying to do.

 

[busybee01]

The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state. [1]


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)".


[1] NOTE: Over 1 million illegal no-excuse mail in ballots were counted in PA’s election results.

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

No illegal votes were counted in Pennsylvania.

 

[johnwk]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

Worth noting that the complaint provided o evidence. Just accusations. There was no reason to hear the case. Also the accusations had been addressed in numerous court cases. Thomas and Alito supported hearing the case but they saw no reason to grant any relief. Nothing would have changed.

You apparently do not know how the judicial system works!

In original jurisdiction cases, such as the Texas lawsuit is, the Supreme Court usually appoints a “special master” who then hears the evidence, establishes facts, and then makes its recommendation to the Court. To the best of my knowledge a special “Master’ was never appointed. The Court refused to allow a hearing of the Bill of Complaint, review evidence, listen to sworn witnesses, and it ducked the case by falsely asserting Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections".

In fact, the charges made in the Texas Bill of Complain, if true, do establish a "judicially cognizable interest" in the defendant states, which are alleged to have engaged in illegal voters activities 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)".



JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!

 

[bodecea]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

Just like any other spouse abuser....blame others...."look what you made me do!"

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


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)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.

But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be legislated. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.

 

[johnwk]

One state can't sue another state to force them to change their laws on voting..

Oh, my dear, to the contrary! When a state adopts rules or laws which violate the provisions of our Constitution, you bet another state can sue, and the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over such cases.


Let me suggest you take a moment and read our Constitution, and specifically the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, in which all the States are commanded that “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.”

This particular provision of our Constitution, and the protection afforded by the requirement, was ignored by defendant States mentioned in the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT

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

You are a liar. The legislature directed that electoral votes be awarded to the perason who gets the most votes. No one violated the Constitution.

What is the lie you are accusing me of?

JWK
When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

 

[Moonglow]

The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


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)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.

But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be legislated. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.

That is not what the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said about the law.
The US Supreme Court refused to hear the case on the grounds that the issue was that Texas has no standing in the matter.
U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states
The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.

In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.

U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states

The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.

www.texastribune.org

 

[busybee01]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

Worth noting that the complaint provided o evidence. Just accusations. There was no reason to hear the case. Also the accusations had been addressed in numerous court cases. Thomas and Alito supported hearing the case but they saw no reason to grant any relief. Nothing would have changed.

You apparently do not know how the judicial system works!

In original jurisdiction cases, such as the Texas lawsuit is, the Supreme Court usually appoints a “special master” who then hears the evidence, establishes facts, and then makes its recommendation to the Court. To the best of my knowledge a special “Master’ was never appointed. The Court refused to allow a hearing of the Bill of Complaint, review evidence, listen to sworn witnesses, and it ducked the case by falsely asserting Texas had not demonstrated a "judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections".

In fact, the charges made in the Texas Bill of Complain, if true, do establish a "judicially cognizable interest" in the defendant states, which are alleged to have engaged in illegal voters activities 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)".



JWK

There can be no “unity” between socialist Leaders who lure voters with a piece of free government cheese, and Leaders who support and defend rights associated with property ownership, a meritocracy and a free market, free enterprise system!

There has to be evidence. The states provided no proof of this. There is also a judicial record as the charges were a rehash of previous Trump cases. The Supreme Court acted correctly.

 

[busybee01]

The federal govt. is not able to do anything concerning the election of a president that is all done by the state according to the Constitution. So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over. Only the states can make the rules for election of a president in their own state, they can't change how another state votes because there is no such law governing the ability to do as such.

Pennsylvania abridged the voting rights of citizens in other States and our Supreme Court ignored enforcing the rule of law!

Let us look at the facts.

Electors are chosen by a popular vote of the people.

If a state’s employees, e.g., in Pennsylvania, violate the State’s Constitution and corrupt the electoral process by introducing a million illegal ballots in a federal electoral process with the intention of favoring a particular candidate, not only has that State’s voters’ right to vote been abridged, but the illegal activity has corrupted the federal electoral process for voters across the nation who have cast ballots in accordance with the rule of law


Elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state.


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)".

JWK


When it comes to healthcare and helping the needy, our socialist Democrat Party Leadership has no moral compass whatsoever. They refuse to make the distinction between CHARITABLE GIVING and tax tyranny to support the health care needs of millions of illegal entrants and foreign aliens.

One state doesn't provide another state with voting rights. Each state may decide the laws on voting in each state.

But per the federal constitution, those voting laws must be legislated. PA did not do that. That would nullify all non-excused mail-in votes as illegal. Roberts stayed out of that when it was challenged months before the election. He obviously feared the threat of left wing violence.

No excuse voting was passed by the state legislature and signed by the Governor. Also the state Supreme Court has the right to interpret the state's constitution.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

When our Supreme Court refused to give the Texas BILL OF COMPLAINT an evidentiary hearing ___ a complaint which listed and detailed illegal election activities in four States ___ it effectively rejected that State’s right, and the people of the United States right, to a redress of grievances guaranteed by our Constitution.



Keep in mind the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in this matter, and refusing to take up the case and at the very least hear and rule on the arguments, our Supreme Court left 18 States, and 75 million citizens of the United States, with no one left to adjudicate the numerous election violations listed in the Bill of Complaint, and thus were denied a fundamental right to a redress of grievances.

I sincerely suspect had the Supreme Court did its job, and hear the Texas case and ruled upon its particulars, the vast majority of Trump’s 75 million voters would have accepted the court’s ruling and moved on.

Where, I ask, are the people to go, when the Supreme Court’s door is slammed in their face?

I think it’s time to at least put some blame, if not most of the blame, on the Supreme Court of the United States which I believe neglected its duty in a time of great need.



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.

If that is the case, then you can blame George W. Bush, establishment Republican for putting John Roberts as chief...

The vote, had their been one, would have likely been 7-2. There was nothing to be gained.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So the Supreme Court could not make judgement on an issue that they have no control over.

The truth is, federal elections laws within the various states are indeed subject to federal regulation! Let us look at some facts.

Our Constitution by its 14th Amendment provides for a penalty for any abridgement of the right to vote making any abridgement federally protected.

By our Constitution’s 15th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, making this right federally protected.

By the 19th Amendment the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex making any abridgement federally protected.

By the 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reasons of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

And by the 26th Amendment, the right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.

And, Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 declares “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors …” Keep in mind the Legislatures of the various States are bound by their state constitution and the Constitution of the United States.

An example in which a State Legislature has violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of our federal Constitution is the State of Pennsylvania, allowing no-excuse mail in ballots to be counted without the PA Constitution being amended to allow such ballots.


Yes. Insuring only legal votes are counted is a federal 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.

Uh, no.

 

[wamose]

McConnell misses the point again. When courts sweep allegations under the rug out of laziness or even worse, bias, then that is when we will never have another election accepted. Well that's exactly what the SC did and that is why we won't have confidence in any election going forward. The SCs refusal to hear the problem is definitely at the root of all this bullshit, regardless of what Mr. Turtle says. There's another reason for not trusting the Turtle. He has big monetary interests in China and Trump was on the verge of putting those assholes in their place. The turtle couldn't have that. Bad Turtle.

 

[Rambunctious]

When the court fails you in seeking justice.....when they refuse to view or hear evidence.....what's left?....