29
Comments (32)
sorted by:
17
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 17 points ago +17 / -0

The person against it is a woman named Riggs.

If the supreme court finds in favor of better laws, regulations and controls like required ID, the election scammers need to find a new method. Blue states will scam while red states will make regulations.

19
-Fender- 19 points ago +19 / -0

So Riggs supports rigged elections?

8
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Yes. Sort of annoyed no one else got the joke.

5
-Fender- 5 points ago +5 / -0

Well. Now you're making me feel bad for not going with a better punchline.

"When does the chief counsel support elections? When she Riggs them!"

2
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Well done.

12
LibertyPrimeWasRight 12 points ago +12 / -0

We live in a meme.

8
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 8 points ago +8 / -0

Poe's law makes memeing a weird experience.

5
ernsithe 5 points ago +5 / -0

What's Murtaugh think about it?

3
GeneralBoobs 3 points ago +3 / -0

Our nation is too damn old for this.

2
SoctaticMethod1 2 points ago +2 / -0

That's still a net improvement given how many red states there are and how much the blue states are depopulating

If the red states elections are locked up like fort knox it also crushes a lot of the attempts by illegal immigration, they'll still do it though as if you can't do it by votes, outbreed your enemy.

2
current_horror 2 points ago +3 / -1

Did you not see the recent census results? The people who executed the census openly admitted that they “accidentally” overcounted blue states and undercounted red states, and that the incorrect results will likely generate +6 or more democrat representatives. The solution to this known problem? Try to get it right next time - ten years from now - during which time democrats will be incorrectly overrepresented in congress.

I do believe that there is a limit to how long the left can use their institutional power to fend off the will of the people, but I also believe our nation is on a clock - and they know all they have to do is run it out.

8
elleand202 8 points ago +8 / -0

Hey, can you use Archive.Today instead of the Internet Archive? The Internet Archive is known to delete stuff, particularly problematic content.

2
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'll see what I can do.

6
dekachin 6 points ago +9 / -3

Please don't post cringe libtard articles like that. It's CNN for fuck's sake and I couldn't even read through it with all the charged propagandistic language and spin.

Here is the wiki article on the case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore_v._Harper

  • North Carolina's Republican-controlled legislature made district maps.

  • Wake County Superior Court upheld the maps in January 2022.

  • North Carolina Supreme Court held the maps unconstitutional in a 4–3 decision given in February 2022, over the dissent of Chief Justice Paul Martin Newby, who called the court's decision an "unprecedented expansion of judicial power".

  • A special master team of outside experts were assigned to create a new map, which was accepted by the superior court on February 24, 2022.

  • On February 25, 2022, the General Assembly sought a stay for the newly-drawn maps pending appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court, to allow for review of the Elections Clause issue. It was denied on March 7, 2022, over the dissent of Justice Samuel Alito, who was joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.

  • The North Carolina Speaker of the House, President pro tempore of the Senate, and other members of the General Assembly subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.[9] The Court granted review on June 30, 2022, to be heard in the October 2022–2023 term.

Throughout the litigation, the General Assembly argued their case based on the independent state legislature theory. This theory is based on language from the Elections Clause in the Article One of the U.S. Constitution, stating "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." The theory is based on the reading that Article I implies that only state legislatures may make any decisions related to election law, and prevent any actions from courts or the executive branch from challenging it.

4
TriangleGang 4 points ago +4 / -0

The theory is based on the reading that Article I implies that only state legislatures may make any decisions related to election law, and prevent any actions from courts or the executive branch from challenging it.

Hmm; this case merits more research. Just from your synopsis, I'm not sure North Carolina winning would be a good thing because then both sides would just gerrymander the states they currently control to ensure the other party never has a chance again.

That sounds great for red states, but blue states already have an outsized impact on federal representation because of their population centers, and those are only going to grow as they welcome in hordes of illegals and their offspring. Another couple censuses and the Senate could get stacked with libs.

2
current_horror 2 points ago +3 / -1

Dude, they literally just sabotaged the census to create democrat overrepresentation in congress. They did this shit in broad daylight and admitted to it, publicly. There is no mechanism to correct their “mistake” or punish those involved.

3
Unknownsailor 3 points ago +3 / -0

Throughout the litigation, the General Assembly argued their case based on the independent state legislature theory. This theory is based on language from the Elections Clause in the Article One of the U.S. Constitution, stating "The times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof." The theory is based on the reading that Article I implies that only state legislatures may make any decisions related to election law, and prevent any actions from courts or the executive branch from challenging it.

I love how wikipedia calls something spelled out in black and white a "theory."

No, you fucking leftoid dip shits, that argument is based off the written text of the Constitution. If you want to argue that there is a disagreement over the meaning of that written text, you call it an interpretation, not a fucking theory.

Furthermore, only a leftist pod person could think that "shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof" means anything other than what it plainly says, in 8th grade English. There is no ambiguity in the word shall. The founders didn't say should, or mostly, or "it is suggested", they said shall.

3
You_Are_Based 3 points ago +3 / -0

Today we are presented with the case of-

Standing

Come again?

you are sitting

Uh I-

you don't have standing

but it's our own election la-

NO. STANDING.

2
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sounds like the joke: knock knock Whose their German crossing guard German cro- -I'll ask the questions!

2
OldBullLee 2 points ago +2 / -0

Alito is correct.

4
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

It is a serious set of questions. As trianglegang pointed out, there is room to cheat in both directions. A win is not a win if one side gets it all.

-3
TheImpossible1 -3 points ago +5 / -8

Ready for the Barrett Backstab?

8
Assassin47 8 points ago +8 / -0

Are you going to let Kavanaugh off the hook?

4
AntonioOfVenice 4 points ago +4 / -0

Actually, he did once denounce Kavanaugh... because he read on The_Donald that he was in the majority when actually in the minority.

A proper judge isn't supposed to always please you.

5
AntonioOfVenice 5 points ago +5 / -0

Great legal scholar Imp has made the definitive pronouncement on what the correct decision in this case is, and any different conclusion is a 'backstab' - provided that it comes from ACB.

Miraculously, never heard him whine about Gorsuch.

5
elleand202 5 points ago +5 / -0

Or Roberts, who’s easily the weakest Republican appointee on the court.

3
Unknownsailor 3 points ago +3 / -0

In defense of Imp, we were warned about ACB (Robert Barnes), and the warnings were correct. She was the deciding vote against taking up the election challenge case brought by a coalition of states.

1
AntonioOfVenice 1 point ago +2 / -1

The 'deciding vote' argument is always such crap. No vote is any different from any other. It's not as if the challenge would have lost if Kav rather than ACB had voted to grant.

Furthermore, you were warned about what? That she would not always do your bidding? That is not the role of a judge. The left judges judges based on what outcome they desire. I thought you guys were supposed to be better.

I prefer ACB&Kav over Gorsuch, as they were smart enough to vote against such nonsense as covering gender identity under civil rights.

3
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 3 points ago +3 / -0

I was actually expecting you to notice the Riggs thing honestly.

-2
TheImpossible1 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Someone else already said it by the time I saw this.

1
AlfredicEnglishRules [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Darn. F1 distracted you I'm sure.

3
LibertyPrimeWasRight 3 points ago +3 / -0

Hey now, Kavanagh has had some commendable backstabs as well. It could be either, or both!