Texas case importance (accepted to take case 6-3) - in the end if Biden wins - be afraid - be very afraid

[DCandtheUTBand]

Sadly also what has happened is ananlgous to a judge telling an wife who has been beaten by her husband to talk to the Sheriff when her husband is the Sheriff.

Pa, Ga,Wi ,and Mi cant fix the unconstitutional acts through the courts because they were perpetrated by, well, the courts and/or the executives against the legislatures.

SCOTUS is the ONLY place where this can be fixed for THIS election unless the legislatures send their own set of electors which IMHO should have already been done.

This too would end up in SCOTUS once Pence picked the legislative votes over the SOS ones.

 

[Nolec]

LOL. Have you ever been right about anything? Let me know when you’re willing to honor your bet? Remember, it was you that proposed it.

I'm certain the terms, conditions, and potential outcomes and ramifications of the bet make it... well.... airtight.

 

[sadgator]

Sadly also what has happened is ananlgous to a judge telling an wife who has been beaten by her husband to talk to the Sheriff when her husband is the Sheriff.

Pa, Ga,Wi ,and Mi cant fix the unconstitutional acts through the courts because they were perpetrated by, well, the courts and/or the executives against the legislatures.

SCOTUS is the ONLY place where this can be fixed for THIS election unless the legislatures send their own set of electors which IMHO should have already been done.

This too would end up in SCOTUS once Pence picked the legislative votes over the SOS ones.

...the case was legally insufficient..it really is that simple...

 

[BamaFan1137]

You should file for Supreme Court review of BSC’s posts.

Why would I need to do that? He knows it as well as I do.

 

[BSC911]

Why would I need to do that? He knows it as well as I do.

I tried telling you guys this case was nonsense. But you all just wouldn’t listen.

 

[BamaFan1137]

I tried telling you guys this case was nonsense. But you just wouldn’t listen.

I wouldn't listen? I disagreed?

Are you retarded or lying?

I've stated that I did NOT believe that the SCOTUS would make a ruling that would change the apparent election results.

Does that sound like a guy who wouldn't listen to you? Stop being such a lying tool.

 

[sadgator]

I wouldn't listen? I disagreed?

Are you retarded or lying?

I've stated that I did NOT believe that the SCOTUS would make a ruling that would change the apparent election results.

Does that sound like a guy who wouldn't listen to you? Stop being such a lying tool.

You aren’t the flash point here...but you know who is...and you know why...

 

[BSC911]

I wouldn't listen? I disagreed?

Are you retarded or lying?

I've stated that I did NOT believe that the SCOTUS would make a ruling that would change the apparent election results.

Does that sound like a guy who wouldn't listen to you? Stop being such a lying tool.

I meant to say you all. I don’t recall each person’s position. But you still seem to believe the election was stolen. Am I right? If so, you believe the SC would allow such a thing to happen.

Hpefully you weren’t one of the 11.

 

[kjfreeze]

I meant to say you all. I don’t recall each person’s position. But you still seem to believe the election was stolen. Am I right? If so, you believe the SC would allow such a thing to happen.

Hpefully you weren’t one of the 11.

Watch this please:

 

[BamaFan1137]

I meant to say you all. I don’t recall each person’s position. But you still seem to believe the election was stolen. Am I right? If so, you believe the SC would allow such a thing to happen.

Hpefully you weren’t one of the 11.

You responded to me and then said stupid shit that isn't based on reality. You do that a lot.

Believe the election was stolen? Yes, I do. I have zero proof. So no, without proof, I did NOT expect the SCOTUS to reverse anything.

I'm not sure they would make a ruling that would reverse the election if they had actual proof.

 

[BSC911]

You responded to me and then said stupid shit that isn't based on reality. You do that a lot.

Believe the election was stolen? Yes, I do. I have zero proof. So no, without proof, I did NOT expect the SCOTUS to reverse anything.

I'm not sure they would make a ruling that would reverse the election if they had actual proof.

Do you always believe things without proof?

Space aliens?
Big Foot?
Loch Ness Monster?
Pedo pizza parlors?

Not me. I’m just not that kind. Your belief is based on Trumps words and crazy conspiracies. I need more.

If you think the SC wouldn’t overturn an election with actual proof that the results were stolen, then you must have no faith in our legal system. Shame really.

 

[bradleygator]

Do you always believe things without proof?

Space aliens?
Big Foot?
Loch Ness Monster?
Pedo pizza parlors?

Not me. I’m just not that kind. Your belief is based on Trumps words and crazy conspiracies. I need more.

If you think the SC wouldn’t overturn an election with actual proof that the results were stolen, then you must have no faith in our legal system. Shame really.

This is what it is. Trumpers don’t trust our elections, they don’t trust the courts. So what does that leave us with? Trump just stays president until he’s tired of it? Thanks but no.

 

[sadgator]

But they DO believe drunk chicks...go figure...

 

[LizardGrad89]

Texas has no standing. Learn what standing means and get back to me.

It's funny that Pennsylvania filed that request for Pennsylvania and got rebuffed 9-0, but somehow you think Texas can sue Pennsylvania and get the verdict you want. LOL at you.

@GhostOfMatchesMalone

Supreme Court today says Texas has no standing.

Holy Crap, who could have seen that coming? Who, among us, is smart and savvy and understands the law well enough to know what the Supreme Court was going to rule? Who could have predicted that the Supreme Court would have come back with a no standing argument?

Who could it be?

But to be fair, it didn't take all that many brains to see that coming. I mean, a lot more brains that in that lump three feet above @GhostOfMatchesMalone 's ass, but not a huge amount in the larger scheme of things.

 

[LizardGrad89]

How much more phucking evidence do they need????

More than zero, which is the current amount.

 

[LizardGrad89]

This case was not about "cheating or fraud." It was about unconstitutional votes.

Except there weren't any.

See, I look at it like this.

On the one hand, we have the entire judiciary of America, beginning and ending with SCOTUS. They do not believe what happened was unconstitutional. Because, if they had, they would have ruled that way.

On the other hand, we have @DCandtheUTBand , someone with no background in law, and certainly not in constitutional law, who claims it was unconstitutional.

Who to believe, who to believe...

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

So why didn't Trump concede tonight?

What happens on Thurs?

Keep watching...

 

[BamaFan1137]

Do you always believe things without proof?

Space aliens?
Big Foot?
Loch Ness Monster?
Pedo pizza parlors?

Not me. I’m just not that kind. Your belief is based on Trumps words and crazy conspiracies. I need more.

If you think the SC wouldn’t overturn an election with actual proof that the results were stolen, then you must have no faith in our legal system. Shame really.

I saw you use this line with someone else. Maybe it worked for that situation, no idea, but you're just being a horses ass in this one.

Space Aliens...or just aliens I would guess...lol

Probably exist. Don't believe we've been visited. It's an awfully big space we live in and most scientists agree we probably aren't alone.

Bigfoot? No. I've seen big feet though...on my nephew for example.

Loch Ness monster? No.

Pedo pizza parlors? I'd have to say no...but I've actually never wasted a second of my life reading up on that subject. Less than Bigfoot, lol.

So, to answer your question, no, i do not always believe things without proof. In fact I'd say I rarely do but I do believe some things can be and are true even if I cannot prove them. I bet the same is true for you....even if you aren't man enough to admit as much right now.

You view this crap as a team sport and that's how you're reacting to it. I'm not. I think my way is better.

 

[BamaFan1137]

If you think the SC wouldn’t overturn an election with actual proof that the results were stolen, then you must have no faith in our legal system. Shame really.

I think SCOTUS would offer some type of legitimate remedy if X could prove that Y stole an election and bore that out specifically meaning they could show X actually won by 1 or more votes.

Short of that I think there is very little chance that SCOTUS would overturn election results.

Spin that into some smarmy comment about my faith in our legal system you little shit. Or come work with me for a few nights in the enforcement of that justice system and we'll see if your faith can match mine.

 

[BamaFan1137]

This is what it is. Trumpers don’t trust our elections, they don’t trust the courts. So what does that leave us with? Trump just stays president until he’s tired of it? Thanks but no.

Not what I said at all but kudos on the spin genius.

You think I can't twist your words if I had a mind to (meaning I chose to be a dishonest horses ass)?

It's just lazy and it tells me that, at least in this case, you had nothing worthwhile to add. Maybe just don't respond next time???

 

[BamaFan1137]

But they DO believe drunk chicks...go figure...

We do? Well now, that is disconcerting.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

Except there weren't any.

See, I look at it like this.

On the one hand, we have the entire judiciary of America, beginning and ending with SCOTUS. They do not believe what happened was unconstitutional. Because, if they had, they would have ruled that way.

On the other hand, we have @DCandtheUTBand , someone with no background in law, and certainly not in constitutional law, who claims it was unconstitutional.

Who to believe, who to believe...

Standing ...hmmm where is that in the constitution? nope not there...concept that has evolved since 1923. The word IN the constitution under article 3 is controversy. Plain English vs. the extra constitutional contrivances that have been built out over the last 100 years by the bureaucratic state. Not even quite 100 year old doctrine.

So they used an extra constitutional contrivance created in 1923 to undermine the plain wording in article 3! They were brazen or indoctrinated enough to explicitly use this device to rule 180 degrees opposite the plain text.

Original jurisdiction and a controversy between states in plain English ...the word standing nowhere to be found.

The thing about the COTUS is it was written on an 8th grade level. I do not have to be a lawyer to understand its plain English. Studying history and understanding intent is more important for a SCOTUS justice than stare decisis or the extra constitutional lattice that SCOTUS has woven over the last century.

As I said it would be better to have HS educated farmers on SCOTUS than super lawyers. All they need is the federalist papers, writing of framers up through Mason, and the debate text of the various amendments. And they can use the internet to look up archaic but relevant ideas like apportionment and corruption of blood. Ideas that still protect us today or would if Roberts has looked at apportionment when he ruled a direct tax was ok without it in his zer0care malfeasance.

Originalist Thomas has it right. Why we need 8 more like him to get back to being a constitutional republic.

The idea of Standing like Roe and Ogberfell should be thrown out as it is NOT in the constitution.

People do not need to believe me. They just need to read the COTUS for themselves.

We are better off as a country when gubmint is confined to a small box. 1923 was about letting gubmint out of that box 10 years after it was given the credit card, the right to a mans labor and kicked the states out of the spending decisions.

And just like a college kid with no job who was given a credit card with mamas blessing we see the results. The mama and the kid expect daddy to pay the bill and shut up.

A lot of bad unconstitutional behavior has been going on since 1913.

 

[sadgator]

So why didn't Trump concede tonight?

What happens on Thurs?

Keep watching...

LSMFAO....

you haven’t had enough yet, huh?

Please reveal to us the magic event we should “keep watching” for on Thurs...

...and you know why Trump won’t concede...it is the same reason his ass was voted out of office....

Dots starting to connect?

 

[Sunburnt Indian]

Beijing Biden will be our first president who did not campaign, can't draw flies to a Phoenix rally, lost on Election Day, and set an all time record vote count of 80 million on Nov. 4, the day after. PA law for one, requires all votes be counted on Election Day.

Wow!!! The SC has now opened the door for Hugo Chavez elections in the United States.

 

[BSC911]

Beijing Biden will be our first president who did not campaign, can't draw flies to a Phoenix rally, lost on Election Day, and set an all time record vote count of 80 million on Nov. 4, the day after. PA law for one, requires all votes be counted on Election Day.

Wow!!! The SC has now opened the door for Hugo Chavez elections in the United States.

Yet he still beat Trump. That shows how big a loser Trump is.

 

[kjfreeze]

Yet he still beat Trump. That shows how big a loser Trump is.

I see you still haven't seen that video I told you to watch. What are you afraid of? You do understand that you didn't vote orange man out, you voted communism in, right? Do you or do you not agree to that statement? You do understand that you voted to have the courts packed, not because it will side with "democrats" but will do away with the Constitution, right? You do understand the intent of "The Great Reset" right? Answer me! These questions are what you are now facing.

 

[BSC911]

I see you still haven't seen that video I told you to watch. What are you afraid of? You do understand that you didn't vote orange man out, you voted communism in, right? Do you or do you not agree to that statement? You do understand that you voted to have the courts packed, not because it will side with "democrats" but will do away with the Constitution, right?

I told you. I watched long ago. It’s nonsense.

The constitution isn’t going away. Quit being so dramatic.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I see you still haven't seen that video I told you to watch. What are you afraid of? You do understand that you didn't vote orange man out, you voted communism in, right? Do you or do you not agree to that statement? You do understand that you voted to have the courts packed, not because it will side with "democrats" but will do away with the Constitution, right? You do understand the intent of "The Great Reset" right? Answer me! These questions are what you are now facing.

@BSC911 has already told you that his life won't change a bit regardless of who the president is.

@sadgator has told you that he will continue to work 13-15 hours a day and will likely die doing so.

These are miserable people. They have come to terms with their misery. When you are already on the bottom, threats of things getting even worse really don't resonate.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Standing ...hmmm where is that in the constitution? nope not there...concept that has evolved since 1923. The word IN the constitution under article 3 is controversy. Plain English vs. the extra constitutional contrivances that have been built out over the last 100 years by the bureaucratic state. Not even quite 100 year old doctrine.

So they used an extra constitutional contrivance created in 1923 to undermine the plain wording in article 3! They were brazen or indoctrinated enough to explicitly use this device to rule 180 degrees opposite the plain text.

Original jurisdiction and a controversy between states in plain English ...the word standing nowhere to be found.

The thing about the COTUS is it was written on an 8th grade level. I do not have to be a lawyer to understand its plain English. Studying history and understanding intent is more important for a SCOTUS justice than stare decisis or the extra constitutional lattice that SCOTUS has woven over the last century.

As I said it would be better to have HS educated farmers on SCOTUS than super lawyers. All they need is the federalist papers, writing of framers up through Mason, and the debate text of the various amendments. And they can use the internet to look up archaic but relevant ideas like apportionment and corruption of blood. Ideas that still protect us today or would if Roberts has looked at apportionment when he ruled a direct tax was ok without it in his zer0care malfeasance.

Originalist Thomas has it right. Why we need 8 more like him to get back to being a constitutional republic.

The idea of Standing like Roe and Ogberfell should be thrown out as it is NOT in the constitution.

People do not need to believe me. They just need to read the COTUS for themselves.

We are better off as a country when gubmint is confined to a small box. 1923 was about letting gubmint out of that box 10 years after it was given the credit card, the right to a mans labor and kicked the states out of the spending decisions.

And just like a college kid with no job who was given a credit card with mamas blessing we see the results. The mama and the kid expect daddy to pay the bill and shut up.

A lot of bad unconstitutional behavior has been going on since 1913.

You seriously believe you understand the constitution better than SCOTUS. Wow. Just, wow.

 

[kjfreeze]

I told you. I watched long ago. It’s nonsense.

The constitution isn’t going away. Quit being so dramatic.

Are you really that naive and dumb? I posted it yesterday.

 

[LizardGrad89]

Are you really that naive and dumb? I posted it yesterday.

That doesn't mean it was created yesterday, does it?

 

[kjfreeze]

That doesn't mean it was created yesterday, does it?

It's not that old, and yes it's probably been only a few days old and it's truly sad that someone can see the handwriting on the wall and not admit that they MIGHT be misguided. How about you? Do you think we'll become a communist country? When they pack the courts do you actually believe they'll uphold the Constitution? That's not the global initiative. That's America's past. Watch and see. This election truly had global ramifications. Enjoy your new life.

 

[LizardGrad89]

It's not that old, and yes it's probably been only a few days old and it's truly sad that someone can see the handwriting on the wall and not admit that they MIGHT be misguided. How about you? Do you think we'll become a communist country? When they pack the courts do you actually believe they'll uphold the Constitution? That's not the global initiative. That's America's past. Watch and see. This election truly had global ramifications. Enjoy your new life.

I heard the same stupid bullcrap when Obama took over, and pretty sure when his 8 years ran out we still had a constitution.

I am going to say this, and I know it for the truth. If you truly believe what you posted above, you are dumb as f*ck.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I heard the same stupid bullcrap when Obama took over, and pretty sure when his 8 years ran out we still had a constitution.

I am going to say this, and I know it for the truth. If you truly believe what you posted above, you are dumb as f*ck.

Did you hear he was in bed with Russia? Hired hookers to pee on a bed?

Cause you clowns still believe that. Even when we have evidence of your party actually working with Russia.

 

[BSC911]

Are you really that naive and dumb? I posted it yesterday.

I watched it. It’s just The same discredited speculation that you nut cases have been posting here for a while. You are taking the supposed answer, ie fraud, and then looking for things that support your presumptions. It’s called confirmation bias.

It was all nonsense but certainly appeals to your type. It doesn’t even pretend to be objective. All speculation. Why didn’t they talk to the election officials to respond to these claims?

 

[BSC911]

What you tubes don’t understand is that even when the courts have evaluated these claims, they found them to be merit less.

 

[BSC911]

It's not that old, and yes it's probably been only a few days old and it's truly sad that someone can see the handwriting on the wall and not admit that they MIGHT be misguided. How about you? Do you think we'll become a communist country? When they pack the courts do you actually believe they'll uphold the Constitution? That's not the global initiative. That's America's past. Watch and see. This election truly had global ramifications. Enjoy your new life.

The Pubs have already packed the court, and yet not a peep from you. Where were you when then they wouldn’t even hold a hearing for Garland. Such a hypocrite.

There is no constitutional guideline on how many justices there should be.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

The Pubs have already packed the court, and yet not a peep from you.

Why would he comment on something that didn't happen?

Packing the court refers to adding seats. The republicans didn't do that.

 

[LizardGrad89]

The Pubs have already packed the court, and yet not a peep from you. Where were you when then they wouldn’t even hold a hearing for Garland. Such a hypocrite.

There is no constitutional guideline on how many justices there should be.

No, but there should be.

I don't want Dems to fall into the same trap Pubs keep falling into, making changes for short term gain without taking the long view on the impact. If Dems increase the SC number to 11 or 13, what's to keep the Pubs from jumping it up to 17 when they get power again? Because they will, it's all about the pendulum. If the Dems want to show they are really the party of leadership, they will sponsor a constitutional amendment to lock the number of judges at 9.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

No, but there should be.

I don't want Dems to fall into the same trap Pubs keep falling into, making changes for short term gain without taking the long view on the impact. If Dems increase the SC number to 11 or 13, what's to keep the Pubs from jumping it up to 17 when they get power again? Because they will, it's all about the pendulum. If the Dems want to show they are really the party of leadership, they will sponsor a constitutional amendment to lock the number of judges at 9.

Dems? Same party that argued that the Senate must approve a SC nominee in 2016, then flip-flopped and said they were destroying democracy by doing that same thing in 2020?

You sheep are the best!