Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 56 of 56

Thread: SCOTUS Punts remaining election fraud cases, will hear none.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    It appears that they are trying to prevent the Democrats from destroying the court with their pack the court scheme.



    Deja vu all over again

    The switch in time that saved nine

    "The switch in time that saved nine" is the phrase, originally a quip by humorist Cal Tinney,[1] about what was perceived in 1937 as the sudden jurisprudential shift by Associate Justice Owen Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1937 case West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish.[2] Conventional historical accounts portrayed the Court's majority opinion as a strategic political move to protect the Court's integrity and independence from President Franklin Roosevelt's court-reform bill (also known as the "court-packing plan"), which would have expanded the size of the bench up to 15 justices.


    .
    I don't buy it.

    If they overturned the fraud there would be no threat.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    I disagree. He made some absolutely indefensible asinine moves. "I didn't want to cause a panic?" Do you seriously think that didn't cost him any votes? Talking about injecting disinfectant? Letting Fauci be all over the map? //
    The fact that Trump managed to keep things close despite possibly being the worst presidential candidate in my lifetime tells me how weak Biden was.
    Trump picked up 11 million votes over his 2016 run.
    Trump did extremely well in 2020. Biden wasn't a weak candidate. He was (inexplicably) the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.
    Last edited by otherone; 02-23-2021 at 06:10 PM.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't buy it.

    If they overturned the fraud there would be no threat.
    HUH ?!?!?!?!?!?


    .
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  6. #34
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    I don't buy it.

    If they overturned the fraud there would be no threat.
    What fraud?

    Which of these cases was about fraud?
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    Yes, indeed , we will never be able to prove fraud.

  7. #35
    Supporting Member
    Phoenix, AZ
    Cleaner44's Avatar


    Blog Entries
    4
    Posts
    8,645
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Just like I said they would.

    Teach you proles a lesson.

    How dare you question The Cathedral?



    Clarence Thomas Dissent in Election Cases: ‘Our Fellow Citizens Deserve Better’

    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...lection-cases/

    Joel B. Pollak 22 Feb 2021

    “Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us,” Justice Clarence Thomas declared Monday, when the Supreme Court decided — by one vote –to hear none of the 2020 election cases raising issues of voter fraud and illegal votes.

    Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions.

    Four justices must vote to hear a case to put it on the Court’s docket, but only three justices — Thomas, fellow conservative Samuel Alito, and libertarian Neil Gorsuch — voted to take at least two of four of the key cases from November 2020.

    All three dissenting justices took the unusual step of writing opinions as to why the Court should have taken at minimum two of these cases.

    “The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections,” began Thomas. “Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example.”

    “The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days,” Thomas explained, referring to one of the rejected cases. “These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.”

    “For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Constitution operates as a limitation upon the State in respect of any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power to regulate federal elections,” he continued, quoting Supreme Court precedent. “Because the Federal Constitution, not state constitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate federal elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding the clearly expressed intent of the legislature.”

    “But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that give citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election,” Thomas added, quoting a recent Supreme Court case that held, “Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.”

    “Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the integrity and fairness of elections,” he explained. “To prevent confusion, we have thus repeatedly — although not as consistently as we should — blocked rule changes made by courts close to an election.”

    The mail-deadline case did not impact enough votes to change the 2020 election. “But we may not be so lucky in the future,” Thomas warned. “Indeed, a separate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result.”

    Thomas surmised:

    That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.

    “At first blush, it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises,” he aknowledged. “But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections.”

    “For factually complex cases, compressing discovery, testimony, and appeals into this timeline is virtually impossible,” Thomas explained of the five-week window to resolve November presidential election disputes before the Electoral College meets in December, adding “this timeframe imposes especially daunting constraints when combined with the expanded use of mail-in ballots.”

    “Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent,” he observed, but then noted that while only four percent of Pennsylvania votes were by mail-in ballot last cycle, that the number soared to 38 percent in 2020.

    “This expansion impedes postelection judicial review because litigation about mail-in ballots is substantially more complicated,” Thomas continued, quoting expert reports. “For one thing, as election administrators have long agreed, the risk of fraud is vastly more prevalent for mail-in ballots … The reason is simple: Absentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.”

    As a result, one article concluded that, “voting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.”

    “Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence,” Thomas reasoned after examining several examples.

    “[P]erhaps most significant, postelection litigation sometimes forces courts to make policy decisions that they have no business making,” Thomas added, giving the example that when election officials illegally change rules during an election where some voters have already voted, “courts must choose between potentially disenfranchising a subset of voters and enforcing the election provisions — such as receipt deadlines — that the legislature believes are necessary for election integrity.”

    Filing lawsuits after Election Day “is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladministration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results,” Thomas noted as additional reason to decide these legal issues now. “An incorrect allegation, left to fester without a robust mechanism to test and disprove it, drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government.”

    “Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election, we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these admittedly important questions,” Thomas declared. “Here, we have the opportunity to do so almost two years before the next federal election cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling.”

    “The issue presented is capable of repetition, yet evades review,” Thomas determined, citing the Court’s standard for hearing cases of this nature:

    This exception to mootness, which the Court routinely invokes in election cases, “applies where (1) the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.

    “I agree with JUSTICE THOMAS that we should grant review in these cases,” Alito began in a separate dissent, joined by Gorsuch. “They present an important and recurring constitutional question … that has divided the lower courts, and our review at this time would be greatly beneficial.”

    Quoting the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist’s concurring opinion from the 2000 case Bush v. Gore, Alito continued:

    Now, the election is over, and there is no reason for refusing to decide the important question that these cases pose. 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. But a decision would provide invaluable guidance for future elections.

    “Conservatives will be very concerned that Justice Barrett did not provide the fourth and final vote to take these cases,” former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell—who also served on the Presidential Commission on Election Integrity—told Breitbart News in an exclusive reaction to the Supreme Court’s refusal to take any of these cases. “Republicans have long since written off Roberts, and Kavanaugh is giving us a string of disappointments, but this is the first time that Barrett has failed to step up to the plate.”

    He echoed Thomas, who concluded his dissent with:

    One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.

    The cases are Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party, Nos. 20-542 and 20-574 in the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court also denied review in the similar case Donald J. Trump for President v. Degraffenreid and Trump v. Biden, and Nos. 20-845 and 20-882 in the Supreme Court of the United States.
    The U.S. is officially a $#@! show that has completely abandoned the Constitution.

    Protect yourself and your rights accordingly, the government won't.
    Citizen of Arizona
    @cleaner4d4

    I am a libertarian. I am advocating everyone enjoy maximum freedom on both personal and economic issues as long as they do not bring violence unto others.

  8. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Cleaner44 View Post
    The U.S. is officially a $#@! show that has completely abandoned the Constitution.

    Protect yourself and your rights accordingly, the government won't.
    Amen. Or A-WoeMan. Or.. you understand.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    What fraud?

    Which of these cases was about fraud?
    That'd be your citizenship case, ya filthy $#@!ing Chi-Comm.

  10. #38

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    HUH ?!?!?!?!?!?


    .
    If SCOTUS ruled the election was fraudulent then Trump would be POTUS and we would probably end up with multiple more Republican Senators as well.
    The Demoncrats would not be able to expand the court.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    If SCOTUS ruled the election was fraudulent then Trump would be POTUS and we would probably end up with multiple more Republican Senators as well.
    The Demoncrats would not be able to expand the court.
    So what you're saying is, the Democrats wouldn't be able to make the court more leftist if a Democrat named Trump hadn't made it more leftist.

    Right?
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So what you're saying is, the Democrats wouldn't be able to make the court more leftist if a Democrat named Trump hadn't made it more leftist.

    Right?
    Yep.

    Interesting how the whole Kavanaugh "Me Too" $#@! show had all the Trumpa-lumpas defending Kavanaugh w/o ever acknowledging that he was the main power behind getting the Patriot Act through.

    I was called all kinds of names for pointing out that this was probably just to take everyone's eye off the man-behind-the curtain.
    There is no spoon.

  15. #42
    Considering "superior" justice appointments was their main selling point of Trump in 2016, the cognitive dissonance is hardly surprising.

    Or was it Kavanaugnitive dissonance?
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  16. #43
    Not shocked by this one bit. The Deep State is determined to make sure this evidence never comes to surface. Maybe now Trump will realize that invoking the Insurrection Act could have avoided this whole situation.
    "Perhaps one of the most important accomplishments of my administration is minding my own business."

    Calvin Coolidge

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Globalist View Post
    Not shocked by this one bit. The Deep State is determined to make sure this evidence never comes to surface. Maybe now Trump will realize that invoking the Insurrection Act could have avoided this whole situation.
    .
    .DON'T TAX ME BRO!!!

    .
    .
    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    So what you're saying is, the Democrats wouldn't be able to make the court more leftist if a Democrat named Trump hadn't made it more leftist.

    Right?
    A Republican named Trump made it less leftist but was limited in his ability to do so by a RINO named McConnell.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  19. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    That'd be your citizenship case, ya filthy $#@!ing Chi-Comm.
    So... none?
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    Yes, indeed , we will never be able to prove fraud.

  20. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    A Republican named Trump made it less leftist but was limited in his ability to do so by a RINO named McConnell.
    Oh? What nominee did the senate fail to rubber stamp?
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    Oh? What nominee did the senate fail to rubber stamp?
    The ones they were afraid he would install if they let him have recess appointments and that he did not nominate because he knew from backroom negotiations they would reject.

    See also: Judy Shelton. (and I don't remember but I would guess there were others he nominated and they rejected)

    Are you really this naive? or are you just trying to trick people who are? (I know the answer)
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by TheCount View Post
    So... none?
    I believe that there was fraud but that is based upon mostly circumstantial evidence and seemingly suspicious activity and data. Asking to provide "proof" is a trap since that is an impossible task for any person here when the adversary is elements within the government who control the voting apparatus. When people cried foul (even before the election, due to the mail-in voting scheme), they were met with derision and ultimately censorship. If the people in power were in the least bit sincere, they would realize how dangerous it is for tens of millions of Americans to believe with full faith and conviction that the election was fraudulent. There is nothing wrong with people wanting the government to prove that the election was not fraudulent.
    "I shall bring justice to Westeros. Every man shall reap what he has sown, from the highest lord to the lowest gutter rat. They have made my kingdom bleed, and I do not forget that."
    -Stannis Baratheon

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    The ones they were afraid he would install if they let him have recess appointments and that he did not nominate because he knew from backroom negotiations they would reject.

    See also: Judy Shelton. (and I don't remember but I would guess there were others he nominated and they rejected)

    Are you really this naive? or are you just trying to trick people who are? (I know the answer)
    What was the mantra in 2016 again? He knows how to make deals. We have to have him to pack the Supreme Court. He has balls.

    Gee, that worked out well.
    Quote Originally Posted by DamianTV View Post
    Define Terrorist please.

    According to, well, pretty much both political parties, the other party is now guilty of Terrorism.
    Listening to the mainstream media is like standing under a power line when the birds are migrating.

  25. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    I believe that there was fraud but that is based upon mostly circumstantial evidence and seemingly suspicious activity and data. Asking to provide "proof" is a trap since that is an impossible task for any person here when the adversary is elements within the government who control the voting apparatus. When people cried foul (even before the election, due to the mail-in voting scheme), they were met with derision and ultimately censorship. If the people in power were in the least bit sincere, they would realize how dangerous it is for tens of millions of Americans to believe with full faith and conviction that the election was fraudulent. There is nothing wrong with people wanting the government to prove that the election was not fraudulent.
    Fraud is hard to prove as it requires proving intent.

    The fact that election laws were broken is quite a bit easier. It's extremely well documented for example that election laws were flagrantly broken/ignored at the TCF Center in Detroit, which processed many 100's of thousands of votes. Observer & challenger laws were broken as a matter of policy within the building; every employee essentially was breaking the law, from the floor workers, to the supervisors, to the head honcho's.

    The reason that observer/challenger laws even exist is to detect, document, and prevent fraud. None of this was allowed to occur. Republican observers were thrown out, not allowed to do their job. When a challenge was made, it was outright ignored, despite the fact that by law every challenge has to be recorded (it's not discretionary). And so on.

    Judges liked to proclaim boldly in their decisions that "there is no evidence that fraud occurred" while at the same time they ignored the literal mountains of evidence that the election laws designed to prevent/detect fraud were ignored on an institutional level.
    Last edited by TheTexan; 02-26-2021 at 09:06 AM.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  26. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    What was the mantra in 2016 again? He knows how to make deals. We have to have him to pack the Supreme Court. He has balls.

    Gee, that worked out well.
    It worked out as well as it could have under the circumstances, it would have worked better if he had had even more support.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  27. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Fraud is hard to prove as it requires proving intent.

    The fact that election laws were broken is quite a bit easier. It's extremely well documented for example that election laws were flagrantly broken/ignored at the TCF Center in Detroit, which processed many 100's of thousands of votes. Observer & challenger laws were broken as a matter of policy within the building; every employee essentially was breaking the law, from the floor workers, to the supervisors, to the head honcho's.

    The reason that observer/challenger laws even exist is to detect, document, and prevent fraud. None of this was allowed to occur. Republican observers were thrown out, not allowed to do their job. When a challenge was made, it was outright ignored, despite the fact that by law every challenge has to be recorded (it's not discretionary). And so on.

    Judges liked to proclaim boldly in their decisions that "there is no evidence that fraud occurred" while at the same time they ignored the literal mountains of evidence that the election laws designed to prevent/detect fraud were ignored on an institutional level.
    Throwing out the observers and breaking the laws is proof of fraud and intent.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  28. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Throwing out the observers and breaking the laws is proof of fraud and intent.
    For people who live in reality, you are correct. For clowns who wear gowns, it's not enough.
    It's all about taking action and not being lazy. So you do the work, whether it's fitness or whatever. It's about getting up, motivating yourself and just doing it.
    - Kim Kardashian

    Donald Trump / Rand Paul (Vice Pres) 2016!!!!

  29. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Philhelm View Post
    I believe that there was fraud but that is based upon mostly circumstantial evidence and seemingly suspicious activity and data. Asking to provide "proof" is a trap since that is an impossible task for any person here when the adversary is elements within the government who control the voting apparatus. When people cried foul (even before the election, due to the mail-in voting scheme), they were met with derision and ultimately censorship. If the people in power were in the least bit sincere, they would realize how dangerous it is for tens of millions of Americans to believe with full faith and conviction that the election was fraudulent. There is nothing wrong with people wanting the government to prove that the election was not fraudulent.
    None of the lawsuits were about fraud.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    Yes, indeed , we will never be able to prove fraud.

  30. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by acptulsa View Post
    What was the mantra in 2016 again? He knows how to make deals. We have to have him to pack the Supreme Court. He has balls.

    Gee, that worked out well.
    The best and most serious people. Top of the line professionals.
    "The one permanent emotion of the inferior man is fear - fear of the unknown, the complex, the inexplicable. What he wants above everything else is safety."
    H. L. Mencken

    Quote Originally Posted by Contumacious View Post
    Yes, indeed , we will never be able to prove fraud.



  31. Remove this section of ads by registering.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-29-2021, 11:49 AM
  2. Replies: 27
    Last Post: 09-19-2020, 09:03 AM
  3. SCOTUS Issues Stay In Redistricting Cases
    By angelatc in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 05-25-2019, 02:49 PM
  4. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2017, 02:20 PM
  5. SCOTUS Drops All Obama Cases?
    By arKangel in forum Grassroots Central
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 01-22-2009, 07:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •