What is wrong with the Supreme Court these days? Brunson case RE overturning distrusted results of the 2020 election.

[BackAgain]

can't say I've read the whole thing but I did not ever think THAT.

You seem to be losing it somehow... just being upfront re my honest thoughts

Not sure why you’d say that if you haven’t read the Brunson pleadings.

 

[notmyfault2020]

Not sure why you’d say that if you haven’t read the Brunson pleadings.

I've read some, but at this point it seems moot since the case has been ditched

 

[BackAgain]

I've read some, but at this point it seems moot since the case has been ditched

What part did you read that wasn’t just gibberish?

And it is moot now. But you seemed to consider it important enough to comment about a couple of posts back.

 

[Magnus]

you wish no one took us seriously.

It look like the voters did RE the US House of Reps last election

You didn't answer my question. Do you see why no one takes you seriously?

 

[task0778]

Some poster here said that the scotus doesn't have the power to hear cases that aren't based on some precedent or another.. although those aren't poster's exact words. He said something about how Congress needs to deal w/ that kind of problem..

If you are referring to me, what I actually said was that the Supreme Court does not have the jurisdiction to rule on whatever case comes before it IF there is nothing in the Constitution or in federal law for them to base their ruling on. Precedence helps, but it isn't mandatory. They are the last line in determining legality, not the 1st. They are not going to look at any case that has never been considered and decided in any lower court, and it is ridiculous to expect otherwise. They may issue emergency stays on a given law until properly considered, but that is not a permanent ruling. It's been over 2 years; it ain't an emergency at this point. Maybe I should capitalize this: THE SUPREME COURT DOES NOT MAKE LAWS, IT INTREPRETS THEM AND OVERTURNS EXISTING LAWS THAT ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Now understand this: THERE IS NO LAW OR CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION THAT DEALS WITH OVERTURNING AN ELECTION. In other words, they have absolutely nothing to base an opinion on the lawfulness of that election. No lower court finding, nothing. And if they issue a ruling on the matter anyway, that is called judicial activism, otherwise known as legislating from the bench. That is exactly what they did in 1972 when they ruled in Roe v Wade; there was nothing in the Constitution or any federal law upon which that court based their ruling on and that is why that case was overturned. It has no grounding or roots or precedence.

It is the sole province of the Congress to legislate, not the Supreme Court. So quit your bitching about something that the Court has no power or authority to do. If the Congress wants to create such a law, then they may do so. But absent such a law, it is not up the Supreme Court to decide that for them.

 

[Aldo Raine]

So you’re as crazy as a bedbug huh?

And dumber than a bucket of poop !

 

[Billiejeens]

Your allegation is still too vague. How did they slip in unverified ballots in with the verified ones again?

Okay

I will just slide you into the 3rd group and move on.

 

[Death-Ninja]

SCOTUS again denies hearing 2020 election case alleging Biden, Harris, lawmakers ignored fraud

"2nd Petition denied. Moving on to plan C," petitioner Raland Brunson wrote.

justthenews.com

I just don't get this. The only thing that makes sense is that the SCOTUS doesn't want to tick off Deep State.

What are your thoughts on this?

Are they afraid of being impeached or something? I just don't get it. There is massive evidence of vote fraud. Mollie Hemingway was on Fox last night (they didn't discuss the fake election she wrote a book about, though... Come to think of it Fox puzzles me also... but then maybe I shouldn't be surprised)

Not the only reason, the primary reason is they were instrumental in the cheat, denying Texas standing was the death knell of the republic, period!

 

[Care4all]

Wrong again bucko, Richard Nixon was a Progressive Republican, you know like John McCain, so you can shove it up your ass.

Wash your mouth out with soap, little boy!

Okie dokie then, it was a Republican Picked majority of justices in the supreme court, and the supreme chief justice was also Republican, picked by a Republican President....

 

[MagicMike]

There is massive evidence of vote fraud.

Well there ya go.
Your entire befuddled argument rests on a faulty premise.
There is in fact NO evidence of election fraud on the scale that would have affected the outcome of the election.

This has all been rehashed and revisited and restated and reinforced for you conspiracy dependent morons it is almost becoming comical the way you all keep circling back to the original conspiracy claim each time you are presented with EVIDENCE proving your claims are bullsit.
You deny the evidence...and claim "fraud" again.
Then you are presented with the EVIDENCE of no fraud.
You deny the evidence....and claim "fraud" again.
Then you are presented with the EVIDENCE of no fraud.
You deny the evidence....and claim "fraud" again.
Then you are presented with the EVIDENCE of no fraud.
You deny the evidence....and claim "fraud" again.
Then.......
well....you get the picture.

But probably NOT.

• Election security officials have said the 2020 presidential election was secure and post-election audits in various states found no evidence of widespread fraud.
• Post-election lawsuits were thrown out for jurisdictional or procedural reasons, but several judges also said the Trump campaign’s allegations of election fraud lacked sufficient proof.
• A group of prominent conservatives examined 64 cases brought by Trump and his allies and found that 30 included a hearing on the case’s merits. Trump and his allies won only one case, and it involved too few votes to impact the results, the group found.

Yes, courts heard ‘evidence’ of alleged 2020 election fraud

Former President Donald Trump lost the presidential election to Joe Biden in November 2020. Unwilling to accept that def

www.politifact.com

your "response" does not coincide with what I said

figures

I'm bored

 

[MagicMike]

There is massive evidence of vote fraud.

Well there ya go.
Your entire befuddled argument rests on a faulty premise.
There is in fact NO evidence of election fraud on the scale that would have affected the outcome of the election.

This has all been rehashed and revisited and restated and reinforced for you conspiracy dependent morons it is almost becoming comical the way you all keep circling back to the original conspiracy claim each time you are presented with EVIDENCE proving your claims are bullsit.
You deny the evidence...and claim "fraud" again.
Then you are presented with the EVIDENCE of no fraud.
You deny the evidence....and claim "fraud" again.
Then you are presented with the EVIDENCE of no fraud.
You deny the evidence....and claim "fraud" again.
Then you are presented with the EVIDENCE of no fraud.
You deny the evidence....and claim "fraud" again.

• Election security officials have said the 2020 presidential election was secure and post-election audits in various states found no evidence of widespread fraud.
• Post-election lawsuits were thrown out for jurisdictional or procedural reasons, but several judges also said the Trump campaign’s allegations of election fraud lacked sufficient proof.
• A group of prominent conservatives examined 64 cases brought by Trump and his allies and found that 30 included a hearing on the case’s merits. Trump and his allies won only one case, and it involved too few votes to impact the results, the group found.

What would you have them do, take up the case? Then what? If they find voter fraud, do you expect them to overturn the election? No, they know that if they would find anything, it would be the death of the nation. We would be at war with each other.

It wasn't worth it.

Or maybe they just looked at the case (again) and decided it had no more merit or legal standing than the first time around and it wasn't worth wasting the court's time on.

 

[MagicMike]

We all saw it, you fucking retard.

No you didn't.
You cannot see what isn't there.

 

[Billiejeens]

No you didn't.
You cannot see what isn't there.

We all watched it.

 

[BlindBoo]

Okay

I will just slide you into the 3rd group and move on.

Well if you can't defend you little theory when pressed for specifics, I will put you in Little Donnies Boat of Biglies.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Wash your mouth out with soap, little boy!

Okie dokie then, it was a Republican Picked majority of justices in the supreme court, and the supreme chief justice was also Republican, picked by a Republican President....

Come try to put some soap in my mouth you asswipe...I double dog dare you...

 

[Care4all]

Come try to put some soap in my mouth you asswipe...I double dog dare you...

 

[LAUGHatLEFTISTS]

As they should have.

Two things should have happened in 2000.

1) They should have kept counting until they got a definitive number.
2) They should have gotten rid of the fucking Electoral College so we don't keep doing this shit.

Instead, SCOTUS installed Bush after the people rejected him, and he proceeded to wreck the economy and get us into a pointless war.

Tell us Joe, how many recounts did Algore win?