- Joined
- Sep 6, 2017
- Messages
- 4,398
- Reaction score
- 3,317
- Location
- A Purple State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Another obvious troll thread, and people have let this go on for 48 pages
One huge issue for SCOTUS here is what's the remedy they CAN order? Let's say they conclude that X law is "unconstitutional." Well, if that's the case, and the remedy is nothing, because the remedy requested is to disenfranchise 10s of millions of votes LEGALLY cast under the state law that existed during the election, what is the SCOTUS's role? To say that and then do nothing or do you really think the court will throw out 10s of millions of votes for a violation of law that could have been challenged in 2019 or months BEFORE the election but was not?
The closest analogy I can think of would be a rule change for NCAA football. The teams play the national championship game under the rules in place at that time. Weeks later, the loser files a lawsuit alleging the NCAA didn't follow the right procedure to change the rule, and that rule which arguably or clearly advantaged the winning team should be thrown out. Well, what's the remedy? Should the courts order a new game be played months later, or just reverse the results and award the losing team the national championship?
Or do nothing, since if the loser didn't like how the rule was changed, the time to do it was BEFORE THE GAME WAS PLAYED, not after they lost.... I'll go with that option.
What are you talking about? We constantly laugh at you people.Left wing radicals have zero sense of humor. they are like Igors
I gotcha .
So what we need to do is throw out all of the Senators and Representatives for every state that changed their laws.
The POTUS election is fine since it is not included in this.
I think that is a great plan
Oh, and why are only 4 states being sued since far more than just 4 did what those 4 did?
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
While I agree that a law should be able to be challenged (on constitutional grounds) before it has taken effect, the SCOTUS does not see it that way and requires that someone have standing (has actually been harmed as a direct result of that law).
That is covered by Article 2, Section 1:
Thanks for revealing your own BS. Nothing in that section or any other section gives any state, or a group of any number of states, power to change the vote in another state. In fact, the part you emphasized specifically shows that each state has the sole power to determine how its election is run. I thought you people knew what federalism means. You're always throwing it around when it suits your need.That is covered by Article 2, Section 1:
But the state laws do not require this, so the laws could have been challenged at the state level, but they were not
Hell, Pa wrote in to the law the process to challenge it
and this is taking place in all 50 states right now.
how the election is ran and how the Electors are appointed are two separate issues
How so?not true at all.
Yep, but the PA Supreme Court changed it by other means.
The will of the people in their state is for Trump to be president.Not in this case. They are representing pretty much their own will, claiming it is of the people of their state. At what point did they take any sort of consideration for the will of the people on their stance here?
How so?
You're woefully unread. My condolences.I'm straight up laughing in your face right now. I know you, I know, you can't see me, but I just put ramen soup through my nose in laughter, thinking about you typing that in seriousness and hitting Reply.
The best part of this is that, even if you somehow manage to put your entire election process into a dumpster and set it on fire by somehow managing to keep Trump in office, you still lose. The rest of the world will look at you as an untrustworthy failed stated, headed by a tinpot dictator that they've already rejected as a worthless dumbass.
Or, if, as everything in the land of reality would suggest, the piece of shit gets evicted, well, you'll be bitter all the rest of your days over it, won't you.
Don't you see? Either way I win, and either way you lose. That's why I don't have to care, while you reek of desperation.
Happy Thursday!![]()
The Will of the People of the Republic is for Biden to be President.The will of the people in their state is for Trump to be president.
Trump would settle for PoS of the Confederate States.The will of the people in their state is for Trump to be president.
The people voted Republican and want Trump. Sorry logic is not your strong suit.Because they are speaking for themselves and not the people.
The people were not asked if the AG should approve of the suit.
Even the Govs in some states have stated the AGs are speaking only for themselves
You're woefully unread. My condolences.
You're woefully unread. My condolences.
The People's Republic of China?The Will of the People of the Republic is for Biden to be President.
The people voted Republican and want Trump. Sorry logic is not your strong suit.
Here we go again with the Goebbelsian lie. Mind telling me what his full comment was about "There are good people on both sides."?Trump would settle for PoS of the Confederate States.
But that is not the will of the people in those states that they are suing. They need to deal with that.The will of the people in their state is for Trump to be president.
no they did not. That is why the Pa case was thrown out of SCOTUS