• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. attorney in Georgia: ‘There’s just nothing to’ claims of election fraud

If 3 others had agreed with him, then the court would have taken the case, it only take 4 justices to agree to take up a case.

Read the article again ... or for the first time.
 
In several cases judges altered the law In other cases state auditors or non-legislative committees altered the law/rules Only a state legislature has that authority. They can not grant that authority to the judiciary or political appointees.
Nevermind that it was all just eligible voters who cast their votes in good faith.

If they didn't cross a t on a single ballot then that state's votes should go to trump.

Really shameless lie y'all bought into.
 
When you have nothing to stand on, you attack the source. That's a sign of intellectual laziness.

you mean like someone saying something like this....

1610989518680.png
 
Alito wrote that for the Court.
He said it was 4 o 4 whether to grant the writ.
He said what the PASC admitted they thought what they did was needed to respond to a “natural disaster,”.
Alito called bullshit on that.
Because it was bullshit.
Don't you people read your own links?

I showed to you the reason why the court did not take the case. And again, what Alito thinks (or you think he said) is not what the court thinks or decided. Alito did not issue a decision on the case, so he did not call bullshit about anything. Supporting judicial review does not equate with overturning the lower court decision. So, you make things up! Finally, I heard "crickets" regarding the fact that a court decision would not change the result because the ballots in question were too few to change the outcome.
 
Last edited:
Read the article again ... or for the first time.

There were no noted dissents in the Pennsylvania case, though three justices said the court might return to it after Election Day. In the North Carolina case, the same three members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have granted requests from Republican lawmakers and the Trump campaign to block lower court rulings allowing the longer deadline.

The ball is now in the hands of the right leaning court, lets see if they return to this case.
 
There were no noted dissents in the Pennsylvania case, though three justices said the court might return to it after Election Day. In the North Carolina case, the same three members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have granted requests from Republican lawmakers and the Trump campaign to block lower court rulings allowing the longer deadline.

The ball is now in the hands of the right leaning court, lets see if they return to this case.

Even if they had voted the way Trump wants regarding the deadline, Biden would have still won. The ballots that arrived late were too few to change the final outcome
 
I showed to you the reason why the court did not take the case. And again, what Alito thinks (or you think he said) is not what the court thinks or decided. Alito did not issue a decision on the case, so he did not call bullshit about anything. Supporting judicial review does not equate with overturning the lower court decision. So, you make things up! Finally, I heard "crickets" regarding the fact that a court decision would not change the result because the ballots in question were too few to change the outcome.
If all election fraud were discovered and corrected I have no idea what would be changed and where and neither do you.
Alito most certainly did call bullshit on what the PA SC claimed.
What does this sound like to you ...
"That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election."
 
Even if they had voted the way Trump wants regarding the deadline, Biden would have still won. The ballots that arrived late were too few to change the final outcome

And Trump winning the election is all this has ever been about. The people pushing this like to pretend this is about fairness and fraud across the board yet they never bring up NC, on which the SCOTUS had the exact same ruling before the election about extended deadlines. Since Trump won that state that was all cool.
 
There were no noted dissents in the Pennsylvania case, though three justices said the court might return to it after Election Day. In the North Carolina case, the same three members of the court — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — said they would have granted requests from Republican lawmakers and the Trump campaign to block lower court rulings allowing the longer deadline.

The ball is now in the hands of the right leaning court, lets see if they return to this case.
That's contrary to what you claimed.
 
Alito wrote that for the Court.
He said it was 4 o 4 whether to grant the writ.

He said what the PASC admitted they thought what they did was needed to respond to a “natural disaster,”.
Alito called bullshit on that.
Because it was bullshit.
Don't you people read your own links?

Also, from the link



Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join.

Now, let's count the number of judges in the Supreme Court who wanted to grant the writ

Is it 4 or 3?
 
If all election fraud were discovered and corrected I have no idea what would be changed and where and neither do you.
Alito most certainly did call bullshit on what the PA SC claimed.
What does this sound like to you ...
"That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election."

I am not interested in speculations because I can use them to argue whatever I want, including the scenario of Biden winning with even a bigger margin. You presented a specific case from PA and I showed to you that a court decision about the complaint you cited would not affect the outcome. I also showed to you that you cannot count. Only two judges sided with Alito, and this was about having a judicial review. You do not know the result of this judicial review, so you just speculate.

Again

Statement of JUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS and JUSTICE GORSUCH join.


If Kavanaugh and Roberts are not part of the conservative block, there are not enough votes to make any decision in the supreme court the way you or Alito want.
 
Last edited:
You'd think a legal team that actually had something of substance to introduce would be able to figure out the legal requirements to do so. If they can't handle simple legal procedures, how do you expect them to run a nation? (Well, they can't. Look at their disastrous Covid response.)
Never mind changing the subject, the courts decided, they didn't have jurisdiction, so heard nothing of argument!

That is the problem in a nut shell!

But civil war is easy to start, and horrific in all it's manifestations, by all means, knock yourself out, the roads all yours!

Or, address the problems highlighted!

Just remember, the first recorded deaths, will not be the last deaths, American fighting American!

Just remember the futility of replies, all those wise cracks, all that bad mouthing, it's not going to by Americans against defenceless civilians, as it is in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, C.A.R., etc..... both sides of Americans will be fully armed.
 
Just so you know, Gateway Pundit is far right propaganda. Reading crap like this make you less informed and more deluded.
I was pointing out, exactly how easy it would be to remedy the situation, but again you deflect, and insult.

Just remember, you, Americans, lite the fuse, you're watching it burn, the armed men are on the streets, tanks on street corners, building full of special forces...... you made it, you own it!
 
So what does Scotland do when their ruling party becomes a cult and its cult leader refuses to accept defeat? Endlessly coddle their delusions? Or, at some point, after all the recounts and courts fights have ended, move on?
Firstly, it's only now we have had any representation, of Scotlands aspirations needs and wants, thanks to the United Nations Scotland Reporteur, who found the majority in 1979 voted for independence, and our representatives fought for twenty three years, to get justice. Hence we have our parliament, the worlds oldest parliament, back.
We got rid of them by election, and the people's will. The 2014 referendum, was corrupted and we have the moral high ground, and we will democratically remove the last vestiges of the Butchers apron and the French aristocracy that missed Madam la guillotine, by people power and the rule of law.
Unlike America, using the rule of law to circumvent the democratic will of the people.
I think I have already proven, how easy it would be to prove one way or another, who won, or even having another election run in the seven states....had it been me, I would of already demanded this was done! To ensure that proper propriety and respect for the offices of state, instead of being in a state!
 
Yes state legislatures are responsible for creating or altering their election laws . Not judges, state auditors or a committee of appointees . Only the state legislature.
Apparently you didnt understand the SCOTUS decision also in that post. State legislatures are responsible for that but according to their decision, other bodies changing the laws can be upheld. They wrote that the will of the voters was higher priority than process.

Reread it and let me know if you still dont get it.
 
The fact you are linking to the GWP does nothing but further prove you have no real information on this topic.

First off Jovan Pulitzer is neither a hacker nor an elections security expert as the GOP claimed. This is a common tactic for them. In Az they had a financial planner masquerading as a mathematician. If the case is so strong, why do they need to lie about the credentials of their experts?

Second, Jovan Pulitzer provided not one tiny bit of evidence to support the claims he made to the Ga senate fake hearing. There is a reason that nobody was sworn in for these hearings and there was no "cross examination" allowed.

Here is some more information the guy in your link...please take the time to read it and educate yourself

He clearly states, he's an engineer, a computer engineer!

The 74 million Americans complaining is all that's required, no cross examinations required, remedy the situation, or civil war?

Okay what do you think would be the best position to take?
 
Never mind changing the subject, the courts decided, they didn't have jurisdiction, so heard nothing of argument!

That is the problem in a nut shell!

But civil war is easy to start, and horrific in all it's manifestations, by all means, knock yourself out, the roads all yours!

Or, address the problems highlighted!

Just remember, the first recorded deaths, will not be the last deaths, American fighting American!

Just remember the futility of replies, all those wise cracks, all that bad mouthing, it's not going to by Americans against defenceless civilians, as it is in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Sudan, Eritrea, C.A.R., etc..... both sides of Americans will be fully armed.

I gave you a list of cases that were heard by the courts, and you ignored it...why is that?
 
And #304 straightened you out. Now you choose to be bent again.
No, you are still wrong. I know you cant understand why at this point but if you cannot properly articulate even your questions for better understanding, this entire thread is obviously over your head.

Post 281 for reference...again, I'm happy to explain more if you can articulate a question.
 
In most cases yes. In the Pa case that made it to the SCOTUS both sides were given time to present their briefs to SCOTUS. In the Texas case before SCOTUS the same occurred, in fact many other parties from both sides were allowed to present them as well.

Then in Wi, the Trump legal team was given the opportunity to present all their evidence and for some inexplicable reason they declined. You can read about it here... https://www.nationalreview.com/2020...rom-the-latest-court-rejection-of-team-trump/

Then there was the case of Trump campaign et al v. Kathy Boockvar et al. In this case the judge heard opening arguments Nov. 17 in a Philadelphia federal court. What the Trump team asked for was denied and then the denial was upheld by the appellate court.

Then there is the case of Trump campaign v. Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson. This was denied due to "the lack of evidence and detail provided by the campaign.". So, once again they were given the chance and they failed to provide any real evidence.

Then in Az there was Aguilera v. Fontes, which the Trump legal team joined and when the judge instructed the two sides to find a path going forward, the Trump team withdrew their lawsuit instead of working with the other side and the judge.

I could go on and on and on and on and on....but really what is the poing
Aye, civil war is better. The tanks on the streets, the white supremists are on the street, fully armed, with hand guns and assault rifles. The Black Panthers are on the streets with they're gone and assault rifles, fuses lite, waiting for the starting whistle.
 
He clearly states, he's an engineer, a computer engineer!

Yes, he did state that...and he ****ing lied, He has no engineering degree.

He took some classes in Machine Learning, but that is about it.

The 74 million Americans complaining is all that's required, no cross examinations required, remedy the situation, or civil war?

cross examinations are the remedy, they can point out to all the morons out there they have been lied to.
 
Aye, civil war is better. The tanks on the streets, the white supremists are on the street, fully armed, with hand guns and assault rifles. The Black Panthers are on the streets with they're gone and assault rifles, fuses lite, waiting for the starting whistle.

If the ****ing morons want to start a civil war over a lie, then so be it. I will have no problem taking them out. I will be happy to go back on active duty for the chance.
 
Back
Top Bottom