It's Not Just The Teachers Mulling Over Whether They Feel Like Doing Their Job

[PoliticalChic]

1. Guess who else is considering whether they feel like proving whether or not they are even necessary......it's also the poorly named 'Supreme' Court.
In full disclosure,....I have often posited that they have no real job.....at least not according to the United States Constitution.

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

3. Now, maybe because they see what a mistake Biden is, they're ready to say "maybe."

"Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February


4.The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.

5. As election litigation continues to play out in the courts, many Republican state legislators have begun introducing bills to curb mail-in voting through law.

If the Supreme Court accepts any of the election lawsuits, it is likely that they won't be heard until October."

Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February

The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Wonderful.


They should turn the Supreme Court Building into a Sam's Club, so it might be useful.

 

[AFrench2]

Dude, you really really need to work on the formatting of your topics. It's really hard to read and keep up with the information when one sentence is bolded, then the next sentence is 3 lines down, etc...just saying @_@

 

[PoliticalChic]

Dude, you really really need to work on the formatting of your topics. It's really hard to read and keep up with the information when one sentence is bolded, then the next sentence is 3 lines down, etc...just saying @_@

Drop back after you complete elementary school.

 

[d0gbreath]

2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

Ken Paxton (R) Texas attorney general, did not have standing to file suit against election commissions in other states, no matter how many fools jumped onto that ship. The Supremes knew it, I knew it, and now you know it too. It simply wasn't possible. They did what they had to do by law.

 

[Moonglow]

1. Guess who else is considering whether they feel like proving whether or not they are even necessary......it's also the poorly named 'Supreme' Court.
In full disclosure,....I have often posited that they have no real job.....at least not according to the United States Constitution.

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

3. Now, maybe because they see what a mistake Biden is, they're ready to say "maybe."

"Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February


4.The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.

5. As election litigation continues to play out in the courts, many Republican state legislators have begun introducing bills to curb mail-in voting through law.

If the Supreme Court accepts any of the election lawsuits, it is likely that they won't be heard until October."

Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February

The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Wonderful.


They should turn the Supreme Court Building into a Sam's Club, so it might be useful.

The will of the people must be refused and they shall wait in lines two miles long to vote because it is safer that way.

 

[Moonglow]

2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

Ken Paxton (R) Texas attorney general, did not have standing to file suit against election commissions in other states, no matter how many fools jumped onto that ship. The Supremes knew it, I knew it, and now you know it too. It simply wasn't possible. They did what they had to do by law.

Trump people have no ability to recognize Constitutional law much less understand it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

Ken Paxton (R) Texas attorney general, did not have standing to file suit against election commissions in other states, no matter how many fools jumped onto that ship. The Supremes knew it, I knew it, and now you know it too. It simply wasn't possible. They did what they had to do by law.

"Standing" is the sort of weasel word that the cowards use when they are afraid to do their job.



"The report said the nine justices went into a closed room to discuss cases, and when the Texas case was brought up, the staffer said, in Patrick's words, he "heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up."

Patrick said Roberts reacted to Justices Alito and Thomas bringing up the Bush v. Gore 2000 election case, yelling "I don't give a *** about that case, arguing "at that time, we didn't have riots."

"So what he was saying was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing," Patrick said. "And I'm sorry, but that is moral cowardice."

FACT CHECK: Did chief justice really scream at colleagues about Texas election case?

A claim repeated by a Texas elector that Chief Justice John Roberts was heard from an adjacent room at the Supreme Court building screaming at colleagues for considering the Texas election-fraud case has a fundamental flaw. The justices have been meeting remotely for the past two months during...

www.wnd.com

I bet you are familiar with 'moral cowardice'.....you wrote this:
Did you vote for the Chinese Communist asset, Biden?

“You go Joe! I'm in favor of every one of the trump policy reversals.” "a lie, from beginning to end’"

 

[Moonglow]

Did you notice she posted "NOTHING" that supported her claim in the Constitution?

 

[Moonglow]

2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

Ken Paxton (R) Texas attorney general, did not have standing to file suit against election commissions in other states, no matter how many fools jumped onto that ship. The Supremes knew it, I knew it, and now you know it too. It simply wasn't possible. They did what they had to do by law.

"Standing" is the sort of weasel word that the cowards use when they are afraid to do their job.



"The report said the nine justices went into a closed room to discuss cases, and when the Texas case was brought up, the staffer said, in Patrick's words, he "heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up."

Patrick said Roberts reacted to Justices Alito and Thomas bringing up the Bush v. Gore 2000 election case, yelling "I don't give a *** about that case, arguing "at that time, we didn't have riots."

"So what he was saying was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing," Patrick said. "And I'm sorry, but that is moral cowardice."

FACT CHECK: Did chief justice really scream at colleagues about Texas election case?

A claim repeated by a Texas elector that Chief Justice John Roberts was heard from an adjacent room at the Supreme Court building screaming at colleagues for considering the Texas election-fraud case has a fundamental flaw. The justices have been meeting remotely for the past two months during...

www.wnd.com

I bet you are familiar with 'moral cowardice'.....you wrote this:
Did you vote for the Chinese Communist asset, Biden?

“You go Joe! I'm in favor of every one of the trump policy reversals.” "a lie, from beginning to end’"

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Notice it doesn't say that another state can choose how another state holds elections?

 

[progressive hunter]

2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

Ken Paxton (R) Texas attorney general, did not have standing to file suit against election commissions in other states, no matter how many fools jumped onto that ship. The Supremes knew it, I knew it, and now you know it too. It simply wasn't possible. They did what they had to do by law.

"Standing" is the sort of weasel word that the cowards use when they are afraid to do their job.



"The report said the nine justices went into a closed room to discuss cases, and when the Texas case was brought up, the staffer said, in Patrick's words, he "heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up."

Patrick said Roberts reacted to Justices Alito and Thomas bringing up the Bush v. Gore 2000 election case, yelling "I don't give a *** about that case, arguing "at that time, we didn't have riots."

"So what he was saying was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing," Patrick said. "And I'm sorry, but that is moral cowardice."

FACT CHECK: Did chief justice really scream at colleagues about Texas election case?

A claim repeated by a Texas elector that Chief Justice John Roberts was heard from an adjacent room at the Supreme Court building screaming at colleagues for considering the Texas election-fraud case has a fundamental flaw. The justices have been meeting remotely for the past two months during...

www.wnd.com

I bet you are familiar with 'moral cowardice'.....you wrote this:
Did you vote for the Chinese Communist asset, Biden?

“You go Joe! I'm in favor of every one of the trump policy reversals.” "a lie, from beginning to end’"

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Notice it doesn't say that another state can choose how another state holds elections?

so youre admitting that entities not the state legislators unlawfully changed their rules which effected other states ,,,

you should read your own words sometimes

 

[d0gbreath]

"The report said the nine justices went into a closed room to discuss cases, and when the Texas case was brought up, the staffer said, in Patrick's words, he "heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up."

This account can be dismissed for one simple reason: The Supreme Court did not meet in a “closed and sealed room, as is standard” to discuss this case. The Supreme Court had not met in person for months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

From:

Did Supreme Court Erupt in a Shouting Match Over Texas Voter Fraud Case?

Fake news is fake news, no matter who repeats it.

www.snopes.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

"The report said the nine justices went into a closed room to discuss cases, and when the Texas case was brought up, the staffer said, in Patrick's words, he "heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up."

This account can be dismissed for one simple reason: The Supreme Court did not meet in a “closed and sealed room, as is standard” to discuss this case. The Supreme Court had not met in person for months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

From:

Did Supreme Court Erupt in a Shouting Match Over Texas Voter Fraud Case?

Fake news is fake news, no matter who repeats it.

www.snopes.com

Snopes wasn't there, and Snopes is a spin-off of the DNC.

It may or may not have happened, but the claim of 'no standing' proves the concept.

 

[d0gbreath]

Snopes wasn't there, and Snopes is a spin-off of the DNC.

It may or may not have happened, but the claim of 'no standing' proves the concept.

December 10, 2020
When will we hear from the court?
The Supreme Court is going through standard procedural protocols, placing the case on its docket. Each of the four states responded Thursday afternoon. Pennsylvania's reply was blistering, accusing Texas of using a "cacophony of bogus claims" to support a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."
The court could act after those filings arrive or wait until Texas files a brief replying to the arguments made by the battleground states. The justices acted quickly in rejecting the Pennsylvania lawsuit on Tuesday, but they could bide their time as they have in other election-related cases.
They do "meet" Friday for their regular conference, now held over the phone.
Unlike a traditional cert petition (request for the court to hear a case), it will take five justices to agree to allow Paxton to file his suit.

They discussed the case by telephone conference, due to the pandemic. Matt Paxton did not hear yelling through the walls and is in fact a liar.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Dude, you really really need to work on the formatting of your topics. It's really hard to read and keep up with the information when one sentence is bolded, then the next sentence is 3 lines down, etc...just saying @_@

Translation: Me and my third grade reading comprehension can't keep up with these OP's!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

Ken Paxton (R) Texas attorney general, did not have standing to file suit against election commissions in other states, no matter how many fools jumped onto that ship. The Supremes knew it, I knew it, and now you know it too. It simply wasn't possible. They did what they had to do by law.

"Standing" is the sort of weasel word that the cowards use when they are afraid to do their job.



"The report said the nine justices went into a closed room to discuss cases, and when the Texas case was brought up, the staffer said, in Patrick's words, he "heard screaming through the walls as Justice Roberts and the other liberal justices were insisting that this case not be taken up."

Patrick said Roberts reacted to Justices Alito and Thomas bringing up the Bush v. Gore 2000 election case, yelling "I don't give a *** about that case, arguing "at that time, we didn't have riots."

"So what he was saying was that he was afraid of what would happen if they did the right thing," Patrick said. "And I'm sorry, but that is moral cowardice."

FACT CHECK: Did chief justice really scream at colleagues about Texas election case?

A claim repeated by a Texas elector that Chief Justice John Roberts was heard from an adjacent room at the Supreme Court building screaming at colleagues for considering the Texas election-fraud case has a fundamental flaw. The justices have been meeting remotely for the past two months during...

www.wnd.com

I bet you are familiar with 'moral cowardice'.....you wrote this:
Did you vote for the Chinese Communist asset, Biden?

“You go Joe! I'm in favor of every one of the trump policy reversals.” "a lie, from beginning to end’"

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

Notice it doesn't say that another state can choose how another state holds elections?

So one State can outlaw left handed voters?

Interesting

 

[alang1216]

1. Guess who else is considering whether they feel like proving whether or not they are even necessary......it's also the poorly named 'Supreme' Court.
In full disclosure,....I have often posited that they have no real job.....at least not according to the United States Constitution.

“If the framers—the authors and, most important, the ratifiers of the Constitution—had decided to grant the power, one would expect to see it, like the analogous presidential veto power, not only plainly stated but limited by giving conditions for its exercise and by making clear provision for Congress to have the last word. It appears that the framers mistakenly envisioned the power as involving merely the application of clear rules to disallow clear violations, something that in fact rarely occurs.” Professor Lino Graglia, https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf



2. When they had a chance to prove their worth, and toss the election results.....instead, they hid behind the bogus claim of 'no standing,' and proved they are worthless.

3. Now, maybe because they see what a mistake Biden is, they're ready to say "maybe."

"Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February


4.The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.
The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states.
The decision came after the court declined to fast-track all election-related litigation in early January.

5. As election litigation continues to play out in the courts, many Republican state legislators have begun introducing bills to curb mail-in voting through law.

If the Supreme Court accepts any of the election lawsuits, it is likely that they won't be heard until October."

Supreme Court to consider election lawsuits in February

The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Wonderful.


They should turn the Supreme Court Building into a Sam's Club, so it might be useful.

Maybe we should bring back the poll tax? If it is too easy to vote everyone will do it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Snopes wasn't there, and Snopes is a spin-off of the DNC.

It may or may not have happened, but the claim of 'no standing' proves the concept.

December 10, 2020
When will we hear from the court?
The Supreme Court is going through standard procedural protocols, placing the case on its docket. Each of the four states responded Thursday afternoon. Pennsylvania's reply was blistering, accusing Texas of using a "cacophony of bogus claims" to support a "seditious abuse of the judicial process."
The court could act after those filings arrive or wait until Texas files a brief replying to the arguments made by the battleground states. The justices acted quickly in rejecting the Pennsylvania lawsuit on Tuesday, but they could bide their time as they have in other election-related cases.
They do "meet" Friday for their regular conference, now held over the phone.
Unlike a traditional cert petition (request for the court to hear a case), it will take five justices to agree to allow Paxton to file his suit.

They discussed the case by telephone conference, due to the pandemic. Matt Paxton did not hear yelling through the walls and is in fact a liar.

Why are you so concerned as to whether Roberts yelled it or not.....when he clearly believed in dodging hearing the cases?

 

[d0gbreath]

Why are you so concerned as to whether Roberts yelled it or not.....when he clearly believed in dodging hearing the cases?

I was just happy proving how wrong your source was concerning the lie from Matt Paxton (supposedly a court clerk), which in your source, he's only referred to as "Paxton", making people think that it was the Texas attorney general.

Supposedly, according to your reicht-wing piece, Roberts was yelling that they couldn't hear the case because there were riots going on. You called him cowardly.

We now know that none of that happened. It was all a big lie.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why are you so concerned as to whether Roberts yelled it or not.....when he clearly believed in dodging hearing the cases?

I was just happy proving how wrong your source was concerning the lie from Matt Paxton (supposedly a court clerk), which in your source, he's only referred to as "Paxton", making people think that it was the Texas attorney general.

Supposedly, according to your reicht-wing piece, Roberts was yelling that they couldn't hear the case because there were riots going on. You called him cowardly.

We now know that none of that happened. It was all a big lie.

"We now know that none of that happened. It was all a big lie."


Really???


The court did its job????


It heard the cases?????



No, it didn't.
Whether Roberts and the other cowards yelled......or simply acted as they did.......


.....it is the shame of the court.


Of course, folks like you don't understand shame:


You explained who and what you are.....here:

"Principles are like morals; completely unnecessary."

The Benefits Of Having No Principles

You never have think.....you simply nod. 1.There really is no basis for every having a meeting of the mind with folks who have no principles…..and no minds. That would describe the Democrats. Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[d0gbreath]

Why are you so concerned as to whether Roberts yelled it or not.....when he clearly believed in dodging hearing the cases?

I was just happy proving how wrong your source was concerning the lie from Matt Paxton (supposedly a court clerk), which in your source, he's only referred to as "Paxton", making people think that it was the Texas attorney general.

Supposedly, according to your reicht-wing piece, Roberts was yelling that they couldn't hear the case because there were riots going on. You called him cowardly.

We now know that none of that happened. It was all a big lie.

"We now know that none of that happened. It was all a big lie."


Really???


The court did its job????


It heard the cases?????



No, it didn't.
Whether Roberts and the other cowards yelled......or simply acted as they did.......


.....it is the shame of the court.


Of course, folks like you don't understand shame:


You explained who and what you are.....here:

"Principles are like morals; completely unnecessary."

The Benefits Of Having No Principles

You never have think.....you simply nod. 1.There really is no basis for every having a meeting of the mind with folks who have no principles…..and no minds. That would describe the Democrats. Principle: a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or...

www.usmessageboard.com

So let's premise upon your shaming of the court, shall we? Let's.
The court is not ashamed, and neither am I.
One of the things that you supposed, was that the SCOTUS Judges were afraid to overturn the vote, for fear of being attacked by the left-wing army.

They didn't get there by being dumb.