Posted on 12/14/2020 8:20:49 AM PST by Kaslin
They screwed over 74 million people, at the very least.
Mafia.referred to as Cosa Nostra (Italian: [ˈkɔːza ˈnɔstra, ˈkɔːsa -], Sicilian: [ˈkɔːsa ˈnɔʂː(ɽ)a]; “our thing”) Antichrists, we’ll never follow them False government
False Government
All branches the Mafia and frequently referred to as Cosa Nostra (Italian: [ˈkɔːza ˈnɔstra, ˈkɔːsa -], Sicilian: [ˈkɔːsa ˈnɔʂː(ɽ)a]; “our thing”) b
In refusing to hear the case, the sole reason given was that Texas lacked “standing.” In doing so, all nine justices committed a wrong against: (i) Texas and the 17 states that supported its suit; (ii) the United States; (iii) the President; and (iv) the People.
The Court’s Many Wrongs in Texas v. Pennsylvania.
As Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist No. 78, courts have “neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment.” As such, in deciding cases courts have a duty to explain their decisions so the rest of us may know if they constitute arbitrary exercises of political power, or reasoned decisions of judicial power which the People can trust. In Texas v. Pennsylvania, all that the justices felt obligated to do was to state its — “lack of standing” — supported by a one sentence justification: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its election.” Resolving a case of this magnitude with one conclusory sentence is completely unacceptable. ...
The Supreme Court’s reliance on standing as its excuse has had one positive result — provoking many to study the origins of that doctrine who may be surprised to learn that the word “standing” nowhere appears in the Constitution. There is compelling evidence to demonstrate it was birthed by big-government Justices during the FDR Administration to shield New Deal legislation, and to insulate the Administrative State from challenges by the People. Those who favored the Texas decision argue that standing is a conservative doctrine as it limits the power of the courts — but the true constitutionalist uses only tests grounded in its text. The true threshold constitutional test is whether a genuine and serious “controversy” exists between the States that could be resolved by a court.
There is only one rational explanation for the way all of the legal challenges to this fraudulant election have been railroaded. Our legal system has become a sham and part of the big show meant only to manipulate public opinion and reaction, not administer justice, or follow the constitution.
Actually there are two possible explanations;
A) Doug Ducey, Brian Kemp, the statewide Republican officeholders in several states, Alito, Barrett, Kavaunaugh, Thomas and Gorsuch, AG Barr, former cyber security chief Krebs, etc. are all part of a deep state conspiracy involving North Koreans, Venezuelans, Hugo Chavez (who’s dead), China and the FBI.
B)Trump and his allies are lying about voter fraud, vote manipulation, vote malfeasance to keep Trump as President when he actually lost the election fair and square.
Occam’s razor can give us a clue as to which one of those scenarios are most likely.
Neither of your possible expanations does a very good job or explaining anything. Occam’s razor is not a reliable indicator of anything to do with politics at all.
Looking over your recent posting history... all of your posts on this subject basically claim that there was no fraud in this election. Congratulations you are either living in an alternate reality that has been provided to you by big tech, the media, Democrats, Communists, etc... or you are an infiltraitor here, or your just an idiot. Occam’s Razor says you are an idiot.
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.