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.
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.
Comment Reported for: Troll
Comment Approved: He is not a troll