SCOTUS dismisses several Election Lawsuits, gives no explanation

[theHawk]

The fix is in folks. The three true patriots dissented.

Supreme Court Dismisses Slew of 2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits

www.theepochtimes.com

The excuse here is:

 

[theHawk]

Thomas:

In his dissent, Thomas expressed frustration, writing that the court “failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.”

 

[Moonglow]

The court, as is its custom, did not explain why it dismissed the emergency applications seeking to fast-track the lawsuits.

 

[theHawk]

SCOTUS rules state should just go to war instead of deciding things in court.

BREAKING: Supreme Court rules that states should go to war to settle differences • Genesius Times

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled today that if states in the Union...

genesiustimes.com

 

[Moonglow]

Trump and McConnel knew who to pick..

 

[theHawk]

Not surprised Roberts cucked out again. Bush uniparty shill:

 

[Moonglow]

Not surprised Roberts cucked out again. Bush uniparty shill:

You do know he voted for Joe?

 

[task0778]

A 'slew' of cases being thrown out does not mean ALL of them. Consider:

Brnovich (AZ Atty Gen) is taking on the DNC in a case before the Supreme Court that is going to determine whether states can take measures to combat election fraud. Oral arguments are scheduled for March 2. This will likely determine whether what we saw in the presidential race can continue or whether states will be able to stop it.

The litigation arose before the 2016 election and involves two laws Arizona implemented against election fraud. Two separate cases were consolidated, Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee and Arizona Republican Party v. Democratic National Committee. One law requires that a ballot be thrown out if it was cast in a precinct other than the one matching the voter’s home address. The other law bans ballot harvesting, where third parties (with a few obvious exceptions including close family, household members and caretakers) are allowed to turn in ballots. The DNC sued Arizona over the two laws, claiming racism (no surprise there). The federal district court judge and a three-judge panel in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Arizona, but the full Ninth Circuit panel overruled the smaller panel.

In order to prove racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, there must be proof of a substantial disparate impact. There is no evidence of this. The district court found that the out-of-precinct policy had no impact on 99.9% of non-minority voters and 99.8% of minority voters. So the DNC is attempting to get the court to ignore the word “substantial” to get around this. Brnovich said in his brief that doing so would lead to chaos. For example, one slight change in voting laws could increase Hispanic voter turnout by 2% while decreasing black turnout by 2%. As for the ballot harvesting ban, the DNC (and Arizona’s Democratic Secretary of State Katie Hobbs) failed to provide any purported evidence of racial discrimination.

Ten senators, led by Ted Cruz, filed a brief supporting Arizona. The Trump administration also filed a brief in support of Arizona, saying the laws do not promote racial discrimination in voting. Surprisingly, when Biden first took office his administration supported that position. Since then, Deputy Solicitor General Edwin Kneedler backtracked slightly and said in a letter to the court that the administration disagrees on a few points, but didn’t go any further than that. “The Biden administration basically agreed that our voting laws don’t violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act,” Brnovich told The Daily Signal.

If banning ballot harvesting is racist, then 19 other states must be racist too since they also ban the practice. Most states also require citizens to vote at their assigned precinct.

We saw plenty of evidence from the 2020 election where unscrupulous Democrat activists harvested ballots from voters, coerced them into filling them out or filled them out for them, and turned them in. Project Veritas caught activists taking advantage of elderly Somali immigrants in order to add votes for Rep. Ilhan Omar in Minneapolis. Project Veritas also caught the Biden campaign’s Texas Political Director Dallas Jones harvesting ballots from dead people, homeless people and nursing home residents. There are countless more stories like this. It is a real problem.

This is a key decision because if laws like this can be struck down for being racist, you could make the argument that a lot of election integrity laws could be struck down as racist. Let’s say common-sense precautions, such as requiring extra poll watchers from both parties, results in 1% fewer minority votes. That is so small it is statistically insignificant. But under the Democrats’ standard, that tiny difference would constitute racism.

The Guy Who Could Save Our Republic: Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich

During a time when many Republican officials have been unwilling to do anything to battle election f

townhall.com

Far as I know the above cases are still on the docket. Is there enough evidence? Must be, else they wouldn't be hearing the case, right?

 

[bodecea]

The fix is in folks. The three true patriots dissented.

Supreme Court Dismisses Slew of 2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits

www.theepochtimes.com

The excuse here is:

Poor trump. Poor trump Qultists.

 

[pknopp]

The three dissented on ONE case. All that means also is that they were willing to hear it.

 

[Flash]

We can't trust the Judicial branch of government to protect our Liberty any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Penelope]

Tramp lost, get over it and he'll be in prison soon.

 

[BlindBoo]

The fix is in folks

As expected. The election is over. You still lost. Move on.

 

[BlindBoo]

We can't trust the Judicial branch of government to protect our Liberty any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

No they didn't. We were besieged by emeries on all sides. Every man had to be ready to fight for his family and community at a moments notice. Not to fight the government of the people.

You still lost. Move on.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The fix is in folks. The three true patriots dissented.

Supreme Court Dismisses Slew of 2020 Presidential Election Lawsuits

www.theepochtimes.com

The excuse here is:

“SCOTUS dismisses several Election Lawsuits, gives no explanation”

And appropriately so.

The lawsuits were completely devoid of merit – devoid of facts, devoid of evidence, devoid of the truth.

 

[Flash]

We can't trust the Judicial branch of government to protect our Liberty any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

No they didn't. We were besieged by emeries on all sides. Every man had to be ready to fight for his family and community at a moments notice. Not to fight the government of the people.

You still lost. Move on.

You are confused Moon Bat.

They knew that the government would fail the people in the US just like it did in other countries. Lots of discussion about that. Lots of stuff written about that.

Don't make me have to educate you.

 

[Ben Thomson]

We can't trust the Judicial branch of government to protect our Liberty any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

The Founders didn't trust the branches of government they created?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

We can't trust the Judicial branch of government to protect our Liberty any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

No they didn't. We were besieged by emeries on all sides. Every man had to be ready to fight for his family and community at a moments notice. Not to fight the government of the people.

You still lost. Move on.

You are confused Moon Bat.

They knew that the government would fail the people in the US just like it did in other countries. Lots of discussion about that. Lots of stuff written about that.

Don't make me have to educate you.

There was no need to give an explanation because everyone knows the suits are meritless.

 

[Lastamender]

Everyone knows?

Nolte: Only 17% of Trump Supporters Believe Joe Biden Legitimately Elected

A USA Today/Suffolk University poll found that only 17 percent of Trump voters believe His Fraudulency Joe Biden was legitimately elected.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Flash]

We can't trust the Judicial branch of government to protect our Liberty any more than we can trust the Legislative or Executive branches.

Our Founding Fathers knew this and that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

The Founders didn't trust the branches of government they created?

They didn't trust the people that they knew would corrupt the government that they had created.

It is not the government structure. A Constitutional Republic is as good a model for government as anything. It is the people in the government that will corrupt it.