What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[colfax_m]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

 

[pknopp]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

 

[busybee01]

Maybe you should actually read the PA Supreme Court Decision on this case...and why they ruled the way they did, so to know more on what you are debating.... and we all are debating? Let me see if I can find it again.... I read it at the time of the decision a while back and have certainly forgotten some of it....

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Also, there is long standing precedent, that the US Supreme court does NOT involve themselves in election disputes....

The exception was Bush v Gore, where they specifically stated that their decision on that was a 1 time move by them and could not be used as precedent for any future case.

No question they don't like getting involved in political issues.

But to your first point, think about it. PA Supreme Court absolutely has the right to review the constitutionality of PA laws under the PA Constitution. No question. But if the relief they grant is unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, it doesn't matter what the state constitution says.

It does not violate the US Constitution in any way. There are no federal issues here.

 

[busybee01]

Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media

'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'

www.theblaze.com

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.

He writes:


"[Pennsylvania's] 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 wrote. "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."


Thomas later added:

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.

What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?

It is criminal.

Just one more reason why this election fraud MUST BE INVESTIGATED!

You gonna ante up the tens of millions to do it?

If they can spend $30 million to investigate the Trump/Putin conspiracy that did not turn up a damn thing, they sure as hell can find the funds to investigate the election issue that threatens the very roots of any democracy in the US.

The election issue has veen examined by federal law enforcement and state officials. They found nothing.

 

[Turtlesoup]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

They are when the state's bring them to SCOTUS.

SCOTUS dropped the ball not hearing arguments

Roberts is a swamp dwelling epstein pedophile plane flying turd. Bush put him in---because they are both swamp turds.

 

[busybee01]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

New Zealand busted the curve by shutting down the country for around a month.

 

[busybee01]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

The US Constitution says nothing about it.

 

[pknopp]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

New Zealand busted the curve by shutting down the country for around a month.

Great. And if we had did that the court wouldn't have ruled as they did. They ruled you can't pick and choose who you shut down and who you do not.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

 

[colfax_m]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

 

[struth]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

Church services were shut down in my state.....they were on line. They were allowed to open up as other businesses were. I don't recall any Supreme Court rulings on the issue, so not sure what you are talking about.

As far as any other issues related to the Church at the Court, I am not sure at all where the Court has put the Church ahead of the State, they have stuck down laws where the State has overreached and infringed on people's 1st Amendment right, as when the State tried to comply people to violate their faith.

I am not sure how the Court has in anyway acted like the Mullahs in Iran....first, in my lifetime I don't recall the Court being made up of people from all the same faith like the Mullahs.....nor have I seen them try to promote a state religion or one religion over another. But I'll wait for you to give me some examples and support your claims.....

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was

 

[pknopp]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

If Justice Vinson hadn't died we might not have got the Brown v BoE ruling.

 

[colfax_m]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was

Not our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.

Nine justices on SCOTUS.

 

[struth]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

The US Constitution says nothing about it.

Sure it does...it actually specifically addresses election laws...Art 1 Sect 4, as to Congress 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.

and as to Presidential elections Art 2, Sect 1:

"

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

As you can see, the US Constitution requires the Legislature, not a State Court, to determine the manner of how elections are played out in a state.....

In this case the PA Legislature created a law, the State Court then, on it's own, extended the timeframe by three days

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was

Not our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.

Nine justices on SCOTUS.

Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someone

Well goodbye thread. Nice a knowin ya.

 

[Rawley]

It does not violate the US Constitution in any way. There are no federal issues here.

"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."

The PA Legislature prescribed the Time for holding the Election. The PA SOS and the PA Supreme Court changed the Time. Slam dunk Unconstitutional.

 

[toobfreak]

If they can spend $30 million to investigate the Trump/Putin conspiracy that did not turn up a damn thing, they sure as hell can find the funds to investigate the election issue that threatens the very roots of any democracy in the US.

The election issue has veen examined by federal law enforcement and state officials. They found nothing.

SO FUCKING WHAT. I wouldn't ask the fox neither if he knows anything about those missing chickens! IDIOT.

When the highest law enforcement officer in the country told you that he hadn't collaborated in any way with Russia to affect the 2015 election, it meant NOTHING to you, asshole.

 

[colfax_m]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was

Not our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.

Nine justices on SCOTUS.

Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someone

Well goodbye thread. Nice a knowin ya.

9 pages of pointing out the obvious.

 

[Hang on Sloopy]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was

Not our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.

Nine justices on SCOTUS.

Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someone

Well goodbye thread. Nice a knowin ya.

9 pages of pointing out the obvious.

Well I listened to him and people like Reagan. I never had a boss. Never owned an alarm clock. Did what I wanted and called all my shots.

Would you listen to live like that? No boss. no slavery. No wasting a life? Not me pal, I ain't stoooopid. LOL