You’re throwing a Hail Mary from your own end zone.
LOL if that was true then idiots like Clyburn and Waters would have been gerrymandered out of a job long ago. Southern states had to gerrymander at least one district for minorities since 1965.
Okay, tell me if I'm wrong here. The Pennsylvania state legislature ruled that ballots count until Nov. 3 but the state supreme court ruled that they'll give, what was it exactly, 3 days? You see? All these ballots they are counting beyond election day are voided. The US Supreme court has stepped in once and ruled against the courts on this matter before.
I agree with this. As much as I hate it. Unless there is overwhelming convincing proof of thousands of ballots of voter fraud you’re not gonna be able to overturn the selection simply because they change the rules at the last minute. That’s why I winning those legal cases before the vote was so important. Hard to put the Genie back in the bottle.
I am not an attorney so I am limited with knowledge, but this is a national election, not one of just local officials. When tampering with federal programs such as this when fraud is proven, the Fed. court should intercede and, quite possibly, order a new election (doubt it) of states involved. Disputed elections are, by definition, destabilizing, so the Constitution is designed to maximize the chances of a conclusive outcome, particularly for the the presidency. Some say that the language in Article II of the Constitution prevents holding a presidential election again, thus putting it beyond the power of the courts to order a re-vote, as they have occasionally done for other offices. Others suggest that there is a legal precedent for a presidential re-vote if there were flaws in the process. One instance in which this question arose was the hang chads from the 2000 election. If the court found sufficient evidence that voter fraud had altered the outcome a few states in question would vote again, not the entire country. If all options fall on deaf ears, there is one more option: Removal of the President from office by the Senate. But what good would that do? All-in-all I do not think the US Supreme Court will do anything.
You seem to deliberately still choose to believe the courts overreached in 2000.
Already involved:
freebeacon.com
The ballots were already set aside. We’re talking like 3000 ballots. It’s a nonissue. You need to move on.Already involved:
Supreme Court could still overturn Pennsylvania mail-in ballot deadline extension after election
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to fast track an appeal by Pennsylvania Republicans who oppose a three-day extension of the deadline for mail ballots to be received by election authorities -- but the case could still be decided after Election Day, Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a...www.foxnews.com
Alito Orders PA Counties To Set Aside Mail-In Ballots Received After Election Day
Justice Alito ordered election officials in Pennsylvania to segregate mail-in ballots received after Election Day in an emergency order.
Jeez, I guess you’re right man. Sucks. I guess I’ll just go kick rocks.
You can accept it or just be like Donald and pound your fist and kick and scream like a child.
Let’s see how the recount goes before it’s called, k? That’s not Trump throwing a fit, that’s the process.
Recounts generally find dozens of errors, not thousands. That’s a fact. And it could go either way.
That was different when the election was literally decided by a few hundred votes in one state. That’s not the case here.
LOL. Now you're trying to claim no mail in ballots should be counted. Good luck with that. I guess Trumps vote won't count.
Absentee or mail-in? Mail-ins are unsolicited. Absentee are requested by specific voter. Shotgun verses Rifle. Both are guns but not the same thing.
