Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 56

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

  1. #1

    Exclamation SCOTUS Punts remaining election fraud cases, will hear none.

    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.
    Where they have burned books, they will end in burning human beings. - Heinrich Heine 1823



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions.
    Don't worry about the bumpfire stock ban by executive order they said....

    Don't worry about the "red flag law" trial balloon that even tripped up Rand Paul they said....

    Don't worry about the promising an assault weapons ban before AND AFTER being elected president they said....

    It's all okay because it's all about the awesome judicial nominees they said....

    LOL is all I say.

    Actually...there's more to say. Notice that Roberts and Gorsich, who voted with the liberals on abortion and re-defining the meaning of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, stuck with Thomas this time. So it's always a game of "which justices will defect."
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  4. #3
    Color me shocked.
    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!!!!

  5. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Actually...there's more to say. Notice that Roberts and Gorsich, who voted with the liberals on abortion and re-defining the meaning of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, stuck with Thomas this time. So it's always a game of "which justices will defect."
    Roberts still went with the liberals. Looks like it was Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas who dissented this time.
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  6. #5
    It was so obvious this would happen they really didnt even need to announce it .
    Do something Danke

  7. #6
    Would they have heard the cases had the Democrats been the Plaintiff?

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    Would they have heard the cases had the Democrats been the Plaintiff?
    Are you implying that the Supreme Court is corrupted by leftist biases?
    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!!!!

  9. #8
    Legislators were compromised first.
    Voting was compromised second.
    The SC was compromised last.

    Sure, we can argue the order (if there is one) of the above, but the points remain the same. Where else are we, as "free citizens" supposed to turn? Ah, that's right - no where. We're supposed to bend the knee, kiss the ring, and accept our overlords in D.C.

    Something about "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve..."

    Secession will not happen without a lot of bloodshed. There's no way at this point. The empire will eat itself before it sees its own appendages break off on their own, even risking utter destruction, to preserve its own hubris.

    This country sucks - it's been co-opted. Even so, I don't want to lay down and accept it, and that's why they want people like us gone - dead or otherwise.
    Welcome to the R3VOLUTION!



  10. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  11. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    “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.”
    “Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling.”
    "'The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling."
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  12. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    Roberts still went with the liberals. Looks like it was Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas who dissented this time.
    You're right. It was Kavanaugh who voted with the liberals this time. Roberts always goes liberal when it counts.

    Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  13. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by TheTexan View Post
    Are you implying that the Supreme Court is corrupted by leftist biases?
    I don't know what do you think?

  14. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by GlennwaldSnowdenAssanged View Post
    I don't know what do you think?
    I think the Supreme Court is an honorable institution with a proud history of upholding the Constitution.
    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!!!!

  15. #13
    Send Sydney moar monies!

    Attorney Sidney Powell posted notes in reaction to the court’s decision to her Telegram channel, and she did not mince her words.


    Thank you all! There are still important live cases. Irrefutable proof is coming soon. Keep educating everyone about the facts. Today’s Supreme Court orders were disappointing but we are NOT done, and we will not let this fraud stand. #WeThePeople are supposed to run this country. Our new SuperPAC should be up tomorrow.

    DTRpac.com

    It’s to amplify the voice of #WeThePeople across the country. We intend to expose corruption in both parties and support people with the courage to protect our constitutional rights and the Rule of Law.

    Sign up for updates. Join for as little as $10 a year. Contributors of $200 a year total or less are confidential.
    https://conservativebrief.com/respon...ecision-35686/

  16. #14
    Would like to hear Trump's reaction to above news, upper management should give him permission to the ex-'most powerful man in the world' to exercise his free speech.


    Quote:
    Strictly hypothetical:

    "Trump has thousands of attorneys ready for post-election legal fight"

    "Deep Stage has thousands of judges ready for post-election legal fight"

    This was really said:
    Pro-Trump Lawyer Lin Wood says Jeffrey Epstein is alive.

    Did Trump fail to see the battlefield conditions and lost because he brought knife to a gun fight (or deep coup or deep backstab..)?

  17. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    Don't worry about the bumpfire stock ban by executive order they said....

    Don't worry about the "red flag law" trial balloon that even tripped up Rand Paul they said....

    Don't worry about the promising an assault weapons ban before AND AFTER being elected president they said....

    It's all okay because it's all about the awesome judicial nominees they said....

    LOL is all I say.

    Actually...there's more to say. Notice that Roberts and Gorsich, who voted with the liberals on abortion and re-defining the meaning of "sex" in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, stuck with Thomas this time. So it's always a game of "which justices will defect."
    TRUTH.
    There is no spoon.

  18. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Anti Federalist View Post
    Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett voted with the liberal justices to deny review of the lower court decisions.
    Just wait till she gets to decide an abortion case!

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    It would be good to know more about her. A one issue Supreme Court nomination would be very bad. Everything I hear about her revolves around abortion, nothing about anything else. We don't need another Roberts in there.
    "Foreign aid is taking money from the poor people of a rich country, and giving it to the rich people of a poor country." - Ron Paul
    "Beware the Military-Industrial-Financial-Corporate-Internet-Media-Government Complex." - B4L update of General Dwight D. Eisenhower
    "Debt is the drug, Wall St. Banksters are the dealers, and politicians are the addicts." - B4L
    "Totally free immigration? I've never taken that position. I believe in national sovereignty." - Ron Paul
    They are what they hate.” - B4L


    The views and opinions expressed here are solely my own, and do not represent this forum or any other entities or persons.



  19. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  20. #17
    Winning!

    SCOTUS Shoots Down Daniels Lawsuit; One Trump Victory Against The Witch Hunt

    https://dailytruthreport.com/scotus-...he-witch-hunt/

  21. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    Winning!

    SCOTUS Shoots Down Daniels Lawsuit; One Trump Victory Against The Witch Hunt

    https://dailytruthreport.com/scotus-...he-witch-hunt/
    LOL. So now victory is the fact that the porn star will only have been paid twice (once for doing the deed and once to remain silent) rather than 3 times? Someone explain to me again why this isn't all about Trump?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  22. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    LOL. So now victory is the fact that the porn star will only have been paid twice (once for doing the deed and once to remain silent) rather than 3 times? Someone explain to me again why this isn't all about Trump?
    I posted tongue-in-cheek. SCOTUS also decided to release the Kraken tax forms. The entire political system is a dumpster fire. Separate or Die.

  23. #20
    Lawyers have never done me any good..

    Wrap your head around this if you can.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_fiction

    A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts,[1] which is then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_possession
    Constructive possession is a legal fiction to describe a situation in which an individual has actual control over chattels or real property without actually having physical control of the same assets. At law, a person with constructive possession stands in the same legal position as a person with actual possession.
    Wrap your head all around that,, it can apply anywhere they want.
    My 4th Felony.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  24. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post
    I posted tongue-in-cheek. SCOTUS also decided to release the Kraken tax forms. The entire political system is a dumpster fire. Separate or Die.
    Gotcha! And I agree. Agorism FTW!
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  25. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Okie RP fan View Post
    Legislators were compromised first.
    Voting was compromised second.
    The SC was compromised last.

    Sure, we can argue the order (if there is one) of the above, but the points remain the same. Where else are we, as "free citizens" supposed to turn? Ah, that's right - no where. We're supposed to bend the knee, kiss the ring, and accept our overlords in D.C.

    Something about "When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve..."

    Secession will not happen without a lot of bloodshed. There's no way at this point. The empire will eat itself before it sees its own appendages break off on their own, even risking utter destruction, to preserve its own hubris.

    This country sucks - it's been co-opted. Even so, I don't want to lay down and accept it, and that's why they want people like us gone - dead or otherwise.
    You left out "The president was compromised." Seriously if Trump hadn't been such a douche the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal. What kind of person tells Bob Woodward, of all people "I knew back in January it was really bad but I didn't want to cause a panic?" Like...the panic wasn't going to happen anyway?
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  26. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by phill4paul View Post

    I despise modern journalism.

    If you click the click that should... theoretically... take you to the source for Justice Thomas' dissent, it takes you to another article by the same author.

    That article has another, different link for Thomas' dissent... which takes you to Newsmax.

    Newsmax's article also has a link to Thomas' dissent... which takes you to Twitter, where... some random person... has posted a tweet with a screenshot of one paragraph of the dissent.



    What in the $#@!.
    "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
    In conclusion THE ONLY WAY BIDEN IS GOING TO SEE THE INSIDE OF THE OVAL OFFICE IS VIA THE A WHITEHOUSE PUBLIC TOUR

  27. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructive_possession

    Constructive possession is a legal fiction to describe a situation in which an individual has actual control over chattels or real property without actually having physical control of the same assets. At law, a person with constructive possession stands in the same legal position as a person with actual possession.
    Wrap your head all around that
    If you have the power to control property you will be treated as posessing it even though you don't have actual physical possession. Example: you're sued in a civil case and are served with a subpoena requiring you to turn over copies of certain business records in your posession. You don't actually have them in your possession because you gave them to your CPA. But you have the power to have your CPA return them to you. You can't refuse to comply with the subpoena on the grounds that the records aren't in your physical possession because you're treated as if they were. Any other result would be nonsensical.
    We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
    Erwin N. Griswold

    Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
    Anonymous



  28. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  29. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by jmdrake View Post
    You left out "The president was compromised." Seriously if Trump hadn't been such a douche the election wouldn't have been close enough to steal. What kind of person tells Bob Woodward, of all people "I knew back in January it was really bad but I didn't want to cause a panic?" Like...the panic wasn't going to happen anyway?
    As much as I'd like to believe that, I don't think he ever stood a chance, regardless of anything he did. (except, maybe standing up to all the lockdown madness instead of participating in it.)

    I think the media and big tech leveraged the pandemic and racial unrest to stir enough dissatisfaction to make a Trump loss plausible. And once it was plausible, the rule changes to the election sealed the deal. With those headwinds, there was no way he could have made it "not close enough to steal".
    "And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgment of faith in God and His works." - Bastiat

    "It is difficult to free fools from the chains they revere." - Voltaire

  30. #26
    Quote Originally Posted by CaptUSA View Post
    As much as I'd like to believe that, I don't think he ever stood a chance, regardless of anything he did. (except, maybe standing up to all the lockdown madness instead of participating in it.)

    I think the media and big tech leveraged the pandemic and racial unrest to stir enough dissatisfaction to make a Trump loss plausible. And once it was plausible, the rule changes to the election sealed the deal. With those headwinds, there was no way he could have made it "not close enough to steal".
    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?

    Simple Trump win. In January 2020 if he made this speech he would have been difficult to beat.

    "My fellow Americans. I know what I am about to say may not be well received due to the recent impeachment trial. But we are about to be in a state of emergency. I have received intelligence from Taiwan about a new SARS virus coming out of China but this one may be much worse than the other. Taiwan is locking down its borders but not its economy. We will do the same. All travel to an from the U.S. will be severely limited for the next month. Any Americans abroad please report to the nearest embassy, consulate or military base for 14 day quarantine and testing. We will keep re-evaluating this situation as we go along. I'm asking Congress for immediate emergency spending to procure protective equipment for hospital workers and first responders and to ramp up on shore manufacturing of the same. Make your on mask if you wish. The plans will be on the Whitehouse website. I want a clean bill. If congress tries to put any earmarks in this bill I will veto it. Please call your members of congress and tell them not to do that. We will put our best minds not only into discovering pharmucutical treatments and a possible vaccine for this new virus but also put forward a clearinghouse of which already available treatments and natural remedies may be effective. The type of virus, a coronavirus, has been known to the medical community for many years even though this is a new variation."

    Yeah. That MIGHT not of worked, but it MIGHT have. 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.
    9/11 Thermate experiments

    Winston Churchhill on why the U.S. should have stayed OUT of World War I

    "I am so %^&*^ sick of this cult of Ron Paul. The Paulites. What is with these %^&*^ people? Why are there so many of them?" YouTube rant by "TheAmazingAtheist"

    "We as a country have lost faith and confidence in freedom." -- Ron Paul

    "It can be a challenge to follow the pronouncements of President Trump, as he often seems to change his position on any number of items from week to week, or from day to day, or even from minute to minute." -- Ron Paul
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian4Liberty View Post
    The road to hell is paved with good intentions. No need to make it a superhighway.
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    The only way I see Trump as likely to affect any real change would be through martial law, and that has zero chances of success without strong buy-in by the JCS at the very minimum.

  31. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonny Tufts View Post
    If you have the power to control property you will be treated as posessing it even though you don't have actual physical possession. Example: you're sued in a civil case
    Not a "Civil case"..
    a alleged Crime..
    a NONEXISTENT CRIME

    a Fiction.. Made up fantasy.

    and a Felony.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  32. #28
    O ye of little faith ...

    Trust the plan.



    Frédéric Bastiat (1801-1850)

    • "When law and morality are in contradiction to each other, the citizen finds himself in the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense, or of losing his respect for the law." - The Law (p. 54)
    • "Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else." - Government (p. 99)
    • "[W]ar is always begun in the interest of the few, and at the expense of the many."
      - Economic Sophisms - Second Series (p. 312)
    • "There are two principles that can never be reconciled - Liberty and Constraint."
      - Harmonies of Political Economy - Book One (p. 447)

    · tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior ito ·
    MOFA (Make Orwell Fiction Again)

  33. #29
    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?
    That might have worked in 2020.

    But if he'd just... acted like the president of the US instead of the president of the WWE the whole time then it wouldn't even have been close.
    "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
    In conclusion THE ONLY WAY BIDEN IS GOING TO SEE THE INSIDE OF THE OVAL OFFICE IS VIA THE A WHITEHOUSE PUBLIC TOUR

  34. #30
    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.
    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.


    .
    .
    .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)

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


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
  •