And that's a lie.
That's the dismissal of the emergency injunction, not the dismissal of the case, this has already been explained to you multiple times.
Election 2020 Election Fraud: Let's face it, this year will be a shitshow
- Thread starter MelancholicMechanicus
- Start date
ShieldWife
Marchioness
I haven’t sent Trump or his team any money. Honestly, they haven’t convinced me of anything, I'm skeptical of both sides, but the left and their behavior regarding Trump in general and accusations of election fraud in particular has done more to make me suspect shenanigans are afoot than anything that Trump or his team have said or done.
Look they dismissed the entire case there isn't anything left to be litigated in that particular case.
Kelly v. Pennsylvania - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court
Greengrass
Well-known member
They haven't filed for cert, except for where they asked for this petition to be taken as an application for certification. The application was denied, the Supreme Court has dismissed literally everything they can from the case at the moment. There's nothing pending that is waiting for a ruling in the PA case.
Last edited:
Terthna
Professional Lurker
It doesn't really matter how many people are willing to get off their asses and do something; history has taught us that a surprisingly small group of people can accomplish a great deal, depending on how far they're willing to go.
Bigking321
Well-known member
Well, let's all hope we never have to find out.
Yes... But as has been explained to you multiple times, that was just the application for injunctive relief.Look they dismissed the entire case there isn't anything left to be litigated in that particular case.
Kelly v. Pennsylvania - SCOTUSblog
Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Courtwww.scotusblog.com
Whats funny is I was never talking about that case. Only the Texas one...yet he constantly brings up the Kelly case.
You do know most of the people that will commit violence have already been doing so right? Most people would go against those mobs. A
And they are asking for nothing else, there is nothing being litaiged since that was shot down. They aren't asking for monetary damages so there's not litigation over that.
They were asking for the injunction to make sure the election could not be certified....but even then the case is going through. Do you not understand this?
With the election certified their case is moot since they didn't demand anything else.
Archmagnus
Well-known member
A close look at how Dominion voting machines work. They are designed to cheat. They can switch votes. They can count the same ballot multiple times. They can count blank ballots.
link
Any state using them should have their votes totally discarded. Anyone who agreed to have them installed should be in jail.
link
Any state using them should have their votes totally discarded. Anyone who agreed to have them installed should be in jail.
Anderson v Celebrezze was under completely different circumstances, however, and the line you quote was establishing that there was *federal* jurisdiction over the matter, not *interstate standing*.
There are no precedents for a state challenging the sovereign actions of another state with regard to elections, and the rationale which Texas uses to argue for standing is extremely thin and shaky, considering that the exact same rationale would equally justify every state challenging every other state over any state law that sets the conditions of elections.
If *President Trump* filed the same suits, he would have a much, much more solid claim of standing, because federal standing against a state's election laws is clearly established by Anderson v. Celebrezze, but state to state standing would be an entirely new matter.
There is also an issue of joinder.
If the election as a whole is invalidated, then the Constitution clearly specifies that the House of Representatives would vote, not that the sitting President would get a "free" term. You may regard that as equivalent since the Republicans hold the majority in the House, but I would argue that it's important to be precise.
It ain't over till its over bud
Greengrass
Well-known member
Factually, there is nothing left to rule on in the PA case right now.
The application for injunctive relief also explicitly included a petition for certiorari and a petition that SCOTUS rule on the merits of the case at hand.
Edit: My bad, I mistook part of respondent's brief for the SCOTUS decision. Nonetheless, the petition included all of the above, and SCOTUS unanimously rejected it all.
Last edited:
The Phule
The Phule on the Hill
Point of order: Republican majority is in Senate, not House... Did you mean that the Senate votes on the new president, or is it in fact the house, which means invalidating the election would hand it back to the Democrats?
State wise they hold more states, the house may have more Dem members. In the House iirc she is talking about how there is enough Rep states in the house as every state gets one vote
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
Currently on the kraken's list.
Megadeath
Well-known member
So... Not the Clinton's or Soros, not Pelosi or Biden/Kamala, not in fact any of the obvious "suspects". Instead, it was some random Venezuelans who were organising "fake" pipe breakages and "secret" deliveries of ballots in clearly marked vans, the perfect lock step messaging of the media and every big tech company?
Geez, you'd think if a couple of random nobodies in a failed South American country had that kinda power they'd be running it themselves and living in a nicer country. That's just such a bizarre pick for the crazy conspiracy ringleader claim.
Is there even any legal cases left trying to argue this incomprehensible gibberish? I know Trump has swung from messaging about the mountains of fraud evidence and how he looks forward to presenting it in court, to saying the Texas case is the "big one" despite its focus on issues of beuracratic constitutionality rather than anything even bordering on fraud.