The SCOTUS' entire fucking job is to ensure the Constitution is adhered to. They put their hands in the pockets and walked away whistling while the Left conducted the Steal, and they did it on purpose.
We have a constitutional scholar here, deeply immersed in both the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence. Definitely not some opinion based on something he read written by some ignoramus who knew nothing.
We have a constitutional scholar here, deeply immersed in both the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence. Definitely not some opinion based on something he read written by some ignoramus who knew nothing.
The claim that red states have no standing when blue states break their own election laws - in a federal election that decides a president who sets policy for the entire nation - is retarded on its face. Of course red states have standing. They are subject to the outcome of the election, same as every other state. If blue states broke their own laws and illegally decided the election, exactly which court should resolve such a dispute?
The claim that red states have no standing when blue states break their own election laws - in a federal election that decides a president who sets policy for the entire nation - is retarded on its face.
Is it? You're not only arguing that your point of view is correct, but that no one could possibly come to a different conclusion.
If blue states broke their own laws and illegally decided the election, exactly which court should resolve such a dispute?
Apparently, they're free to break their own laws as much as they like. Legislators who passed the laws may have standing. I am pretty sure standing has been granted in such cases in the past.
Let's be real here. There was no way the SCOTUS was going to change the outcome, even to overturn fraud. That would invite charges of politicization. Hell, just stopping the recount in 2000 led to people saying that.
The Supreme Court didn't rob him.
We have a constitutional scholar here, deeply immersed in both the Constitution and 200 years of jurisprudence. Definitely not some opinion based on something he read written by some ignoramus who knew nothing.
Sorry can't hear you WHISTLING from all the way over there.
Says the foreigner.
Yup, a country which is not in flames, by the way.
I just wonder how randos on the internet just know that a given decision is wrong, because they disagree with it.
"But your honor, I didn't rape her, I just stood next to it, filmed and dindu nuffin!"
Well yeah, it was dismissed on procedural grounds. Standing. Do you think well-established legal norms should just be ignored?
The claim that red states have no standing when blue states break their own election laws - in a federal election that decides a president who sets policy for the entire nation - is retarded on its face. Of course red states have standing. They are subject to the outcome of the election, same as every other state. If blue states broke their own laws and illegally decided the election, exactly which court should resolve such a dispute?
Is it? You're not only arguing that your point of view is correct, but that no one could possibly come to a different conclusion.
Apparently, they're free to break their own laws as much as they like. Legislators who passed the laws may have standing. I am pretty sure standing has been granted in such cases in the past.
Let's be real here. There was no way the SCOTUS was going to change the outcome, even to overturn fraud. That would invite charges of politicization. Hell, just stopping the recount in 2000 led to people saying that.
Your opinions on this forum have slowly morphed into nuclear garbage. You're basically an idiot now.
My opinions haven't changed.