Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit he worried about “rioting”

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself?
The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

 

[Mac1958]

This just gets bigger and better.

It certainly couldn't just be that the Trumpsters have been conned.

 

[shockedcanadian]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the Texas suit
for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency
stolen away in a bloodless coup and existential threat to America itself?

Concerned about rioting? LOL. He could scream that 1000 times and on precisely zero occassions would I believe him.

Even if it were true, what does that say about the state of Due Process and the Supreme Court in the U.S? Will they allow a serial killer to walk because people are unhappy and threaten to take to the streets?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

This just gets bigger and better.

It certainly couldn't just be that the Trumpsters have been conned.

Conned how? And by whom? An for what reason?

 

[miketx]

This just gets bigger and better.

It certainly couldn't just be that the Trumpsters have been conned.

Yeah, you keep spinning your bullshit Traitor.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Concerned about rioting? LOL. He could scream that 1000 times and on precisely zero occassions would I believe him.

Apparently John Roberts doesn't give a damn about rioting from the disenfranchised right.
Who cares about that...right Mr. In-Justice?

 

[Mac1958]

This just gets bigger and better. It certainly couldn't just be that the Trumpsters have been conned.

Conned how? And by whom? An for what reason?

Um, by people who have a vested professional interest in keeping you full of rage and paranoia.

Any guesses as to who that might be?

 

[Moonglow]

This just gets bigger and better.

It certainly couldn't just be that the Trumpsters have been conned.

Wait until they find out what is hidden in the freezer chest...

 

[Moonglow]

This just gets bigger and better.

It certainly couldn't just be that the Trumpsters have been conned.

Conned how? And by whom? An for what reason?

Can you spell money?

 

[konradv]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself? The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

How come an unconfirmed report isn't immediately called "fake news"? That's what you'd be saying about any CNN report that said something similar against Trump. Of course CNN is a real news source, unlike the one you cited, and would confirm before publishing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Um, by people who have a vested professional interest in keeping you full of rage and paranoia.

Any guesses as to who that might be?

Considering who stole the election and robbed the entire nation of it's constitutional heritage it could be
some demonic entity on the left.

 

[Mac1958]

Um, by people who have a vested professional interest in keeping you full of rage and paranoia.

Any guesses as to who that might be?

Considering who stole the election and robbed the entire nation of it's constitutional heritage it could be
some demonic entity on the left.

I have no doubt you'd believe that.

 

[BluesLegend]

IMO that's precisely the type of case the SCOTUS should hear. Dem states rigging an election with election fraud, disenfranchising voters in other states, for the purpose of cramming through a Dem state bail out forcing other states to pay off 100's of billions in Dem state debt??? Wow, just wow. Now tell me other states don't have standing.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

How come an unconfirmed report isn't immediately called "fake news"? That's what you'd be saying about any CNN report that said something similar against Trump. Of course CNN is a real news source, unlike the one you cited, and would confirm before publishing.

You are free to call this whatever you wish. I prefaced my thread by pointing out the overheard remarks of
In-Justice Roberts have not been confirmed. Have a rational honest day.

 

[Donald H]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself?
The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

There's already a good explanation for why the Scotus had to decide the way they did. There was no remedy! Periof!

But of course the 'no standing' excuse was bullshit, as you put it. But in reality there were two dissenting opinions, which almost certainly indicates that the outcome had to be suggestive of future revisiting of the question. It's pretty elementary logic suggesting that Texas would have standing on issues of malfeasance of other states when it would have a direct negative influence on Texas.

Bearing all that in mind, it's caused your supreme court to sweep a real issue under the carpet, all because the US Constitution had no way of dealing with the question.

The US Constitution is fatally flawed and will remain so until the issue is addressed.

And of more importance, the world looks on and sees the failure of the system!

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

I have no doubt you'd believe that.

Great. That was precisely the intent of my post.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

There's already a good explanation for why the Scotus had to decide the way they did. There was no remedy! Periof!

But of course the 'no standing' excuse was bullshit, as you put it. But in reality there were two dissenting opinions, which almost certainly indicates that the outcome had to be suggestive of future revisiting of the question. It's pretty elementary logic suggesting that Texas would have standing on issues of malfeasance of other states when it would have a direct negative influence on Texas.

Bearing all that in mind, it's caused your supreme court to sweep a real issue under the carpet, all because the US Constitution had no way of dealing with the question.

The US Constitution is fatally flawed and will remain so until the issue is addressed.

And of more importance, the world looks on and sees the failure of the system!

Actually the Supreme Court had every right to return to the legislator's Gang of Four states in question
a remedy coming from the states themselves.

Let them study the issue and extent of the corruption in question and then provide a remedy themselves.

The Supreme Court doesn't get their holy robes dirty and the problem is fixed on the level from
whence it came. Just like magic!

 

[g5000]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself?
The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

wow. You will drink any piss handed to you, eh?

 

[AntonToo]

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case

Misleading bs. Those two favor hearing ANY case involving state vs. state.

 

[bripat9643]

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

Unconfirmed report: John Roberts killed Texas voter fraud lawsuit because he worried about "rioting"

www.pacificpundit.com

This is an allegation but a credible one considering it's about John Roberts, a well known globalist sycophant.
Shouting was heard from the justices conference room and Roberts adamantly was against hearing the
Texas suit for fear of riots and it would likely return Donald Trump's stolen presidency to him.

Justices Thomas and Alito were both in favor of hearing that case. What is the rationale for not giving it a chance?

Texas and the twenty states that backed the suit, had no standing? How about a vital interest in not seeing the presidency stolen away in a bloodless coup making it an existential threat to America itself? The no standing excuse is bullshit and people see right through such a blatant lie.

How come an unconfirmed report isn't immediately called "fake news"? That's what you'd be saying about any CNN report that said something similar against Trump. Of course CNN is a real news source, unlike the one you cited, and would confirm before publishing.

CNN is notorious for using "anonymous sources" that later turn out to be discredited.