Are we on the brink of civil war 2.0?

[Babagounj]

We're not China.

In name only.

 

[The Driver]

In name only.

Well then I guess it wouldn’t be skipping a beat if you packed up and shipped off to for the first flight to Beijing as soon as you can! Bye!

 

[newfie]

So tell me from what university did you earn your juris degree and in what states did you take the bar exam?

do you need a law degree to know the evidence in a case was not heard?

 

[newfie]

Yes. Well lack of standing is often a reason judges and justices choose not to hear a case.

presidential election fraud is the hot potato no one wants to touch

 

[newfie]

If it wasn't a fraud case in Pa then what the suit over?

you know you could research this and find out . President's case is based on election law changes that were not approved by the state legislature as required by the constitution.

 

[newfie]

Which attorney alleged fraud to a judge? When judges asked if they were alleging fraud, they all said no, because they knew there were consequences for lying to a judge.

the case is about constitutional process. You libs are surprisingly ignorant . well not surprising.

 

[newfie]

Wierd,,, they claim wide spread voter fraud, then when called out on their claims they deny those claims. You cannot start a court case in order to obtain evidence hoping to find i crime. All they have are unsupported suspicions beliefs.

Respectfully, take a step back, and imagine your position were reversed. Imagine it was Trump who was certified. Now imagine it was the democrats claiming fraud,

sounds like 2017

 

[1989]

the case is about constitutional process. You libs are surprisingly ignorant . well not surprising.

That’s weird..... why are they lying about voter fraud then? Giuliani stated widespread voter fraud in his opening arguments in Pennsylvania.

 

[1989]

sounds like 2017

Which state(s) did they claim voter fraud in 2017? I thought they were only concerned about @rickyb watching Russian T V.

 

[Indecisi0n]

The dems want to stop gun production within this country that makes them anti-business.
The whole pipeline from raw materials to the consumer will be effected.
Jobs will disappear and tax revenues along the whole pipeline will go down.

You can’t simple mash together two different topics like this (guns and jobs). This is how lines start to get blurred and people start fighting fights they don’t even understand.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Respectfully, take a step back, and imagine your position were reversed. Imagine it was Trump who was certified. Now imagine it was the democrats claiming fraud, posting sketchy videos of vans with cabinets, stacks of paper which are "seemingly" ballots, affidavits, whatever you want. Now imagine the democrats brought and lost over 60 court cases at the state, federal, and supreme court level. What would be your instinct? That the democrats "really have something here?" Or they were a people and party who could not accept defeat? Which is more likely here?

It's very easy to claim fraud. Much harder to prove it in a court of law. And your supposition that judges just "didn't want anything to do with it" is speculative, self-serving and unconvincing.

I've said it before, if democrats were denied their day in court, I would feel the same way. I agree that I am speculating on the judges' motivations. That's all any of us can do. And yes, when you are denied access to other avenues of remedy, or access to evidence through other channels, you can turn to the courts to order that access.

Both sides have access to the court of public opinion. The left wing media, along with their coworkers in the the Democratic party brough all.of their resources to bear over 4 years deluding a significant portion of the population into believing all sorts of nonsense about Trump. That's why so many are willing to accept any incorrect reason for the lawsuits being dismissed.

As for the Supreme Court case, I realize that lack of standing was given for the reason they chose not to hear the case. But it wasn't dismissed for lack of standing. It's a fine distinction that I don't have the time to explain, but basically, there was no actual ruling in the case. The statement was a non-precedent setting write up explaining why they weren't hearing the case. Thomas and Alito disagreed with the assessment, and affirmed that the Supreme Court can't deny the filing of a bill of complaint that falls under its original jurisdiction. Etc. Etc. Etc. Blah, blah, blah... I know I'm wasting my time, but there you have it.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Are you sure about that?

Yes.

 

[newfie]

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Wrong.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/constitutioncenter.org/amp/blog/why-texass-election-suit-failed-to-reach-first-base-in-the-supreme-court

Nope.

 

[The Driver]

Yes.

“The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.”

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Wierd,,, they claim wide spread voter fraud, then when called out on their claims they deny those claims. You cannot start a court case in order to obtain evidence hoping to find i crime. All they have are unsupported suspicions beliefs.

So, something only exists if the courts allow it to be presented as evidence? Interesting outlook on life. Terrible, but interesting.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

“The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.”

That was the reason given for not allowing Texas to file the bill of complaint. Standing can only be determined through evidentiary processes. The court chose not to hear the case.

 

[The Driver]

That was the reason given for not allowing Texas to file the bill of complaint. Standing can only be determined through evidentiary processes. The court chose not to hear the case.

You’re a piss poor epidemiologist and lawyer.

 

[The Driver]

That was the reason given for not allowing Texas to file the bill of complaint. Standing can only be determined through evidentiary processes. The court chose not to hear the case.

The court dismissed the case due to a determined lack of standing. It’s right there in the article.

 

[Babagounj]

Well then I guess it wouldn’t be skipping a beat if you packed up and shipped off to for the first flight to Beijing as soon as you can! Bye!

Start practicing saying " Comrade ".
Soon it will be required.