Posted on 12/14/2020 8:20:49 AM PST by Kaslin
"It'll even scan a batch of blank ballots and vote for whoever you tell it to"
For example: You can collect 960 mailed in ballots for Trump, and [administratively] mess them up enough to *force 'adjudication'* and then shred/trash those Trump ballots . . . and then substitute 960 pre-printed blank ballots and "administratively adjudicate" the blanks, for Biden.
- - - -
As I wrote back on 12/3/2020;
C.J. Roberts has told his 8 Associate Justices that if you rule against the right they will go home, scream at their TV, go to work and talk about it for a week and that is all.
However, should you rule against the Left then all hell will break loose, cities will burn, many will die, your family will not be safe from the mob, the news media will constantly accuse you of selling out the country and there will be no safe place you and your family to go to.
§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time [!!! emphasis added]. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Article I -> Article III
Hilarious. Lifetime appointment to be a gold-bricker.
“Since they won’t defend the US Constitution then who will?”
We the People patriots ARE the Kraken, with many, many millions of eyes, ears, mouths and tentacles. And a ravenous hunger for true justice.
Release the Kracken!
“... or justice, will face the certain execution of a loved one to interfere with the manufactured vote.”
They’d better get it figured out. We send the military to face death defending the constitution. What’s the difference? Whatever the difference is, they’d better make it up and defend the constitution as is their oath
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections,”
Truly moronic statement. Isn’t just breaking the law (doing something unconstitutional in this case sufficient to take on the case regardless of standing?
If I’m down a deserted road at 100mph and a cop happens to see he’ll give me a ticket simply for breaking the law even if no one was damaged.
It is utterly disgusting that those three cowards that Trump worked so hard to get confirmed stabbed him in the back and showed no integrity.
Are they are too dumb or too cowardly to make the simple case that I just made?
Texas lacked “standing” or the right to sue, because Texas, as a state, suffered no injury from the claimed violations.
FALSE they ended up Biden due to rigged election they yellow robes have no shame.
I hate being right all the time
I would argue that the Constitution really hasn’t been in effect for at least a decade or two. Most folks are only waking up to that fact within the last month.
Traitors.
So the Court wouldn't even be deciding the election. It would simply be ensuring the U.S. remains a constitutional democratic republic (something you'd think the "Supreme Court" of the land should and must do). The SCOTUS would effectively still leave it up to the states to clean up their self-inflicted, state-election debacles.
To attorney-freepers: Please correct my non-attorney mistakes regarding the law. Did SCOTUS make the right decision? If not, what should it have decided? Based on what?
The Supreme Court clearly does not have the guts to take on uncovering the giant criminal democratic conspiracy that is their fraud scheme throughout the United States of America
We’ve had some incredible hearings with Rudy Giuliani and 10 ALS with real human beings who stood up and have been harassed intimidated and had their lives turned upside down and ruined by leftist attacking them and their family and some of even been hurt
Clearly the constitution states this is the job of the republican legislators in the above states to do their job
And watching them during the hearings apparently some of them are scared little chickenshit and some of them have guts
Given the level of violence that the left is willing to perpetrate to keep their hopes going and keep their power going I’m not surprised that people would shy away at doing their job in the face of this
If we had this Supreme Court in 2000. Al Gore would have been President.
However, should you rule against the Left then all hell will break loose, cities will burn, many will die, your family will not be safe from the mob, the news media will constantly accuse you of selling out the country and there will be no safe place you and your family to go to.
And after Kamala/biden take control, the Left will still see to it that "all hell will break loose, cities will burn, many will die, your family will not be safe from the mob, the news media will constantly accuse you of selling out the country and there will be no safe place you and your family to go to."
After all, it was Kamala herself who warned Stephen Colbert on his show back in the summer that BLM/Antifa is "not gonna stop, they're not gonna stop ... they're not gonna stop ... everyone beware! ... because they're not gonna stop before Election Day in November and they're not gonna stop after Election Day!" (VP/Presidential candidate Kamala is part of the Democrat Party Cabal, so if anyone should know the inside scoop on violent BLM/Antifa activities, it's her.)
BTW, Colbert & Kamala were really laughing it up throughout that interview, and Colbert even began laughing when she first said "they're not gonna stop." But as she kept saying it over and over again, concluding that BLM/Antifa will "not ... stop after Election Day," Colbert instantly got this really Grim look on his face. Dire. Because Colbert immediately realized that Kamala is knee-deep in the Democrat Party Cabal, so if anyone knows what the violent Marxist BLM/Antifa mob rioters are going to do next, it's the Democrat Party Cabal (which actually pulls all the strings and issues all the orders).
If we had the modern electoral fraud, Gore would have won 403 EV’s
Just like abortion being a state issue; SCOTUS had no jurisdiction in hearing the case. Since they did; I hey have no recourse but to hear this case.
Cowards. So much for their miserable scribblings. When push came to shove they betrayed the Republic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.