USSC head in the ground

[colfax_m]

from my understanding they did and were rejected because no harm had been done yet,,,

You sure?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com

And twice as many said otherwise.

Only Democrats deny the validity of the Constitution.

Democrats lie about everything.

Raise your paw.

 

[progressive hunter]

from my understanding they did and were rejected because no harm had been done yet,,,

You sure?

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

 

[colfax_m]

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

Lol. Right. And Trump won in a landslide.

Dope.

 

[colfax_m]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

 

[progressive hunter]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

 

[okfine]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com

And twice as many said otherwise.

Only Democrats deny the validity of the Constitution.

Democrats lie about everything.

Raise your paw.

Paste and cut something that makes you feel better. 6-3 and that's it. Talk about paws.

 

[colfax_m]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

 

[progressive hunter]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

heres avideo of one of the guys involved,, its well worth the watch cause it gives a first hand accounting of events



and regardless it doesnt change the fact the people that changed the rules didnt have authority to change them,,
that makes all those votes null an void,,,

 

[PoliticalChic]

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

Lol. Right. And Trump won in a landslide.

Dope.

Watch the thread I put up next.


Better get the antacids ready.

 

[colfax_m]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

heres avideo of one of the guys involved,, its well worth the watch cause it gives a first hand accounting of events



and regardless it doesnt change the fact the people that changed the rules didnt have authority to change them,,
that makes all those votes null an void,,,

I don’t have time to watch a two and a half hour video.

Cite the ruling.

 

[progressive hunter]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

heres avideo of one of the guys involved,, its well worth the watch cause it gives a first hand accounting of events



and regardless it doesnt change the fact the people that changed the rules didnt have authority to change them,,
that makes all those votes null an void,,,

I don’t have time to watch a two and a half hour video.

Cite the ruling.

refusing to hear the words of the people involved makes you unqualified to continue discussing this topic

 

[colfax_m]

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

Lol. Right. And Trump won in a landslide.

Dope.

Watch the thread I put up next.


Better get the antacids ready.

Lol, I can basically guarantee it’s going to be a rehash of the same internet garbage that has been around for months.

You guys must have skipped class the day they thought people not to believe every random claim from the internet.

 

[colfax_m]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

heres avideo of one of the guys involved,, its well worth the watch cause it gives a first hand accounting of events



and regardless it doesnt change the fact the people that changed the rules didnt have authority to change them,,
that makes all those votes null an void,,,

I don’t have time to watch a two and a half hour video.

Cite the ruling.

refusing to here the words of the people involved makes you unqualified to continue discussing this topic

I’ll read court cases, not a two and a half hour podcast.

Cite the case, or just admit you can’t.

 

[okfine]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com

And twice as many said otherwise.

Only Democrats deny the validity of the Constitution.

Democrats lie about everything.

Raise your paw.

1- So keep your head buried in the ground.
2- The case is on against Trump.
3- Here is a good "cut and paste" for you to absorb:

"Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Monday, Weissmann noted that Manhattan prosecutor Cy Vance, Jr. will get all financial documents from former President Donald Trump's accounting firm."

"It will be the taxes and all accounting records," he explained. "It will be whatever the Mazars have, which should be a wealth of information, internal emails, communications with the Trump Organization, accounting spreadsheets, all sorts of notations as to how they're valuing things. And mechanically what happens is the Manhattan D.A.'s office calls up and says, 'Okay, now that this has been decided, you need to turn them over by X date.'"

There is much more than Trumpâs tax returns that prosecutors will get: Top Mueller prosecutor

Andrew Weissmann, former senior prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller, explained that there is a lot more to the tax return documents than a simple PDF of the former president's income. Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Monday, Weissmann noted that Manhattan prosecutor Cy Vance, Jr...

www.rawstory.com

 

[progressive hunter]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

heres avideo of one of the guys involved,, its well worth the watch cause it gives a first hand accounting of events



and regardless it doesnt change the fact the people that changed the rules didnt have authority to change them,,
that makes all those votes null an void,,,

I don’t have time to watch a two and a half hour video.

Cite the ruling.

refusing to here the words of the people involved makes you unqualified to continue discussing this topic

I’ll read court cases, not a two and a half hour podcast.

Cite the case, or just admit you can’t.

I never said I could,,

best you not discuss this topic further due to your disadvantage of lack of knowledge,,,

 

[Lesh]

SCOTUS plays Catch 22 with challenges to Pennsylvania election - American Thinker


he Supreme has signaled that anything goes when it comes to jiggering election rules in favor of the Democrats. Challenge illegalities in the last election with a good case, you’re stuck in a classic catch-22 situation, as Ace pithily sums it up:

Before the inauguration: Not timely
After the certification: Moot

The two cases the Court declined to hear challenged the last minute changes to election law in Pennsylvania. Never mind that the US Constitution explicitly gives state legislatures the power to prescribe “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,” the Supreme Court just allowed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to change the rules for the November 2020 federal election by declaring the case moot..


Justices Thomas and Alito wrote dissenting opinions, with Justice Gorsuch concurring with Alito. Tyler O’Neil summarizes:

Thomas argued that the cases Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Veronica DeGraffenreid (2021) and Jake Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party (2021) presented “a clear example” of election law issues that the Supreme Court should put to rest. “The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days.”
“That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future,” Thomas argued. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”
Alito also wrote a dissent, which Justice Neil Gorsuch joined. Alito argued that these cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question: whether the Elections or Electors Clauses of the United States Constitution… are violated when a state court holds that a state constitutional provision overrides a state statute governing the manner in which a federal election is to be conducted. That question has divided the lower courts,* and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

This means that SCOTUS has deep sixed every election challenge, according to Julie Kelley:

@julie_kelly2
Looking at order list now. It looks like SCOTUS killed every election lawsuit filed by Trump and other parties. Only Thomas, Gorsuch, Alito dissented in rejecting PA GOP v PA SOS case. We have no institution to protect our elections. Thanks Barrett and Kavanaugh!

Take your cases to court before the election. You can't change the rules after people voted.

They did. And lost

Over and over

 

[PoliticalChic]

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

Lol. Right. And Trump won in a landslide.

Dope.

Watch the thread I put up next.


Better get the antacids ready.

Lol, I can basically guarantee it’s going to be a rehash of the same internet garbage that has been around for months.

You guys must have skipped class the day they thought people not to believe every random claim from the internet.

Take a look.....read it and weep.

Impossible To Justify A Biden Win

1. To me, the clearest indication of a stolen election is that none of the Biden serfs....voters.....can say what they voted for. Now......which of these parts of the Democrat Party's agenda brought in that 'landslide.'? The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism...

www.usmessageboard.com

Then you can apply the Democrat cry "is not, issssssss noooooottttttt!!!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Constitution trumps Democrat machinations.


Gads, you are a corrupt bunch.

Expanding dates to return ballots is not "corrupt" by any stretch of the word.

What should we call trying to change the rules after the election because you lost?

You can keep lying, but the Constitution, the law of the land, is quite specific.

Don't bother reading it.....your indoctrination will prevent comprehension of its import.

As I said before, the Pennsylvania determined their electors would be chosen by popular vote. No one changed that.

You’re confusing means and methods.

You lied before, and you've lied again.

Democrats lie about everything.

You should right a book on it.

"Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'
"The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the 'Manner' of federal elections...Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emer- gency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day," Thomas wrote. "Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi- dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec- tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."

Justice Thomas: SCOTUS Refusal to Hear Pennsylvania Election Cases Is 'Inexplicable'

townhall.com

And twice as many said otherwise.

Only Democrats deny the validity of the Constitution.

Democrats lie about everything.

Raise your paw.

1- So keep your head buried in the ground.
2- The case is on against Trump.
3- Here is a good "cut and paste" for you to absorb:

"Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Monday, Weissmann noted that Manhattan prosecutor Cy Vance, Jr. will get all financial documents from former President Donald Trump's accounting firm."

"It will be the taxes and all accounting records," he explained. "It will be whatever the Mazars have, which should be a wealth of information, internal emails, communications with the Trump Organization, accounting spreadsheets, all sorts of notations as to how they're valuing things. And mechanically what happens is the Manhattan D.A.'s office calls up and says, 'Okay, now that this has been decided, you need to turn them over by X date.'"

There is much more than Trumpâs tax returns that prosecutors will get: Top Mueller prosecutor

Andrew Weissmann, former senior prosecutor for special counsel Robert Mueller, explained that there is a lot more to the tax return documents than a simple PDF of the former president's income. Speaking to MSNBC's Nicolle Wallace on Monday, Weissmann noted that Manhattan prosecutor Cy Vance, Jr...

www.rawstory.com

Impossible To Justify A Biden Win

1. To me, the clearest indication of a stolen election is that none of the Biden serfs....voters.....can say what they voted for. Now......which of these parts of the Democrat Party's agenda brought in that 'landslide.'? The Democrat Party is now running on full-blown anti-white racism...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[colfax_m]

sure about what??

you do know you cant sue until harm is done dont you??

You sure the case was rejected because of lack of harm?

Cite the ruling.

back to your word games I see,,,,

so youre saying you can sue before harm has been done???

Yes.

Cite the ruling.

heres avideo of one of the guys involved,, its well worth the watch cause it gives a first hand accounting of events



and regardless it doesnt change the fact the people that changed the rules didnt have authority to change them,,
that makes all those votes null an void,,,

I don’t have time to watch a two and a half hour video.

Cite the ruling.

refusing to here the words of the people involved makes you unqualified to continue discussing this topic

I’ll read court cases, not a two and a half hour podcast.

Cite the case, or just admit you can’t.

I never said I could,,

best you not discuss this topic further due to your disadvantage of lack of knowledge,,,

And now we know you can’t.

Your understanding is incorrect.