We are actually at the point of mob ruleThis is the dumbest thing I’ve read today and that’s saying a lot considering that both Dilbert the Dummy and Wimp Dixie have posted as well.
Legislators in Georgia are fearful that if they call a special session to address the fraud and make aright the election, Antifa and blm will burn Atlanta
They are afraid to do right
the Supreme Court should reinforce their redoubt should they take up the texas case Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought
- 1blackman1
- 12-08-2020, 06:06 PM
- winn dixie
- 12-08-2020, 06:09 PM
SCOTUS just told PA Republicans to STFU and GTFO already.Thank you for that insightful vomit post
Texas AG Popeye Paxton is the biggest asshole in Texas government. And that's saying a LOT.
SCOTUS will smack him down with their collective right-leaning dicks.
They're probably tired of his bullshit anyway. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider
- nevergaveitathought
- 12-08-2020, 06:33 PM
it’s frankly a sign of stupidity to type like you do
assuming the air of knowledge without any of the substance of it
a young Georgia legislator said as much after his discussions with older legislators who expressed fear of being personally attacked, doxed, their cars trashed, their families attacked their homes surrounded and Atlanta burned
He said these people will not call for a special session for fear
They told him the better plan was accept the theft, win the senate runoff and watch out next time
assuming the air of knowledge without any of the substance of it
a young Georgia legislator said as much after his discussions with older legislators who expressed fear of being personally attacked, doxed, their cars trashed, their families attacked their homes surrounded and Atlanta burned
He said these people will not call for a special session for fear
They told him the better plan was accept the theft, win the senate runoff and watch out next time
- 1blackman1
- 12-08-2020, 06:53 PM
Like I said. Stupidest thing I’ve read today.
- bambino
- 12-08-2020, 07:08 PM
- 1blackman1
- 12-08-2020, 07:25 PM
https://api.parler.com/l/rLp8b Originally Posted by bambinoSecond stupidest thing. No wonder y’all are so dumb.
- dilbert firestorm
- 12-08-2020, 10:36 PM
Now I am hearing that previous SCOTUS cases provide a precedent.
However, the court might be able to just not take the case I as hearing.
I don't pretend to fully understand some of what is being reported.
We will just have to wait and see what happens. Originally Posted by ICU 812
it appears to be process failures on rules & regulations that violated the state's own constitution and their judges appear to be looking the other way.
- HoeHummer
- 12-08-2020, 10:53 PM
Nothing surprises me in the Great White South!
- Yssup Rider
- 12-08-2020, 11:50 PM
it appears to be process failures on rules & regulations that violated the state's own constitution and their judges appear to be looking the other way. Originally Posted by dilbert firestormWhy are all the judges looking the other way, BP?
Hmmm, that’s a real brain buster.
Maybe because it’s all BULLSHIT!
Twitler has directly appealed to lawmakers in three states to overturn the election results. Who does shit like that?
Criminals.
- winn dixie
- 12-08-2020, 11:57 PM
- dilbert firestorm
- 12-09-2020, 12:20 AM
Yesterday, 07:25 PM Remove user from ignore list
1blackman1
This message is hidden because 1blackman1 is on your ignore list.
Yesterday, 04:34 PM Remove user from ignore list
Yssup Rider
This message is hidden because Yssup Rider is on your ignore list.
1blackman1
This message is hidden because 1blackman1 is on your ignore list.
Yesterday, 04:34 PM Remove user from ignore list
Yssup Rider
This message is hidden because Yssup Rider is on your ignore list.
- ICU 812
- 12-09-2020, 06:09 AM
Interesting to note that those who post here in opposition to the Texas suit are nearly hysterical in their personal attacks, but lack any substance.
Lashing out in anger without substance just tells us that you are actually scared that SCOTUS may act in support of the Constitution and to the determent of the Biden campaign.
Issues one might raise: Does Texas have standing to even bring this suit? Is there a genuine abrogation of some portion of the Constitution? Is there a question of fact to be resolved? There are other questions anyone who opposes the Texas suit might bring . . . .but none have been posed here in this thread.
This could go either wau, only time will tell. But calling someone names like we're all on the playground at recess won;t settle anything.
Lashing out in anger without substance just tells us that you are actually scared that SCOTUS may act in support of the Constitution and to the determent of the Biden campaign.
Issues one might raise: Does Texas have standing to even bring this suit? Is there a genuine abrogation of some portion of the Constitution? Is there a question of fact to be resolved? There are other questions anyone who opposes the Texas suit might bring . . . .but none have been posed here in this thread.
This could go either wau, only time will tell. But calling someone names like we're all on the playground at recess won;t settle anything.
- 1blackman1
- 12-09-2020, 07:09 AM
No one is angry. It’s more time it’s for you suckers believing your right wing media and hanging your hopes on things that will obviously fail. I’m lying it’s not pity. I’m laughing at y’all.
The SC is not going to get into this nor will they invalidate votes so the end result won’t change. Texas and other Republican states are not in a dispute with Penn, Wis, Mich, AZ or GA hence they can’t state a claim. A 12b dismissal is likely forthcoming. Courts don’t generally dismiss cases sui spontae so it’ll be dismissed once a responsive pleading is filed.
Injunctions are different. As I’ve note previously, in order to get an injunction you have to show that 1) awaiting an ordinary proceeding will fail to provide you the relief needed (ie gotta stop this house sale because if it’s sold my suit will be moot) and 2) there is a significant chance of prevailing at trial (ie if the court doesn’t believe you’ll prevail they’ll deny the injunction). In the PA case the injunction was denied so PA legislators failed on 1 or both of above.
That brings us to Texas, if PA legislators couldn’t show either 1 or both of the requirements above, how could TX LA etc. if anyone is adversely affected by the acts of PA’ legislature or SC, it’s Pennsylvanians. How elections are conducted are state issues and no state can tell other states how to conduct their elections. There is no constitutional issue that’s arisen nor is there a federal statutory issue which places the states at odds. In fact, all 50 states have their own rules and states don’t get to complain about how each other makes elections.
Let’s make it really simple. Texas is responsible for Texas but doesn’t owe an obligation to PA, and vice versa. Hence TX’s suit can’t allege a cause of action that’s supportable by the constitution or statutes.
The SC is not going to get into this nor will they invalidate votes so the end result won’t change. Texas and other Republican states are not in a dispute with Penn, Wis, Mich, AZ or GA hence they can’t state a claim. A 12b dismissal is likely forthcoming. Courts don’t generally dismiss cases sui spontae so it’ll be dismissed once a responsive pleading is filed.
Injunctions are different. As I’ve note previously, in order to get an injunction you have to show that 1) awaiting an ordinary proceeding will fail to provide you the relief needed (ie gotta stop this house sale because if it’s sold my suit will be moot) and 2) there is a significant chance of prevailing at trial (ie if the court doesn’t believe you’ll prevail they’ll deny the injunction). In the PA case the injunction was denied so PA legislators failed on 1 or both of above.
That brings us to Texas, if PA legislators couldn’t show either 1 or both of the requirements above, how could TX LA etc. if anyone is adversely affected by the acts of PA’ legislature or SC, it’s Pennsylvanians. How elections are conducted are state issues and no state can tell other states how to conduct their elections. There is no constitutional issue that’s arisen nor is there a federal statutory issue which places the states at odds. In fact, all 50 states have their own rules and states don’t get to complain about how each other makes elections.
Let’s make it really simple. Texas is responsible for Texas but doesn’t owe an obligation to PA, and vice versa. Hence TX’s suit can’t allege a cause of action that’s supportable by the constitution or statutes.
- dilbert firestorm
- 12-09-2020, 07:09 AM
Interesting to note that those who post here in opposition to the Texas suit are nearly hysterical in their personal attacks, but lack any substance.
Lashing out in anger without substance just tells us that you are actually scared that SCOTUS may act in support of the Constitution and to the determent of the Biden campaign.
Issues one might raise: Does Texas have standing to even bring this suit? Is there a genuine abrogation of some portion of the Constitution? Is there a question of fact to be resolved? There are other questions anyone who opposes the Texas suit might bring . . . .but none have been posed here in this thread.
This could go either wau, only time will tell. But calling someone names like we're all on the playground at recess won;t settle anything. Originally Posted by ICU 812
Louisiana joined the lawsuit with texas. I don't know if any other states joined.
- bambino
- 12-09-2020, 08:22 AM