Bump
No judge, or justice, will face the certain execution of a loved one to interfere with the manufactured vote.
These State Vs. State cases were the exact reason the Supreme Court exists at all!
Where’s Chris? Where’s Billy? Where’s Ann? She wrote the book, the NY Times bestseller, TREASON.
TREASON - Liberal Treachery from the cold war to the war on terrorism. Also...SLANDER - Liberal Lies about the American Right. Also, HIGH CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS - The Case Against Bill Clinton.
Crown Forum, New York copyright @ 2003
For My Father, John V. Coulter
The New Blacklist: Acknowedgements.
Weigh in, Ann. Have a cheeseburger & a shake first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyV41-tFPcQ
This is a compelling opinion.
If a political party can convince the media, tech, law enforcement, and judges that it is OK to cheat in an election then the Constitution be damned. It is, as the democrats say, just a piece of paper that contains several arbitrary guidelines.
I would hope that somehow the Supreme Court revisit the election fraud and stop it in its tracks otherwise they will be complicit in the events that are sure to come after President Fraud is sworn in.
The Seven are guilty of dereliction of duty if not outright collaboration with enemies of the Constitution.
Imagine the enemy penetrating an Army fort in wartime and the guard saying I exercised my discretion not to check ID's and inspect entering vehicles. If people died, key information was compromised or a position was over-run the battlefield justice would be swift and final.
To encourage the others.
bookmark
elector’s clause
It is clear that we have 9 government employees that are experts at finding ways to NOT do their job. Since they won’t defend the US Constitution then who will? And by the way, Texas is not a person? What an insult, this is sounding like “depends on what the definition of is is”.
This has the stench of Roberts all over it!
How the hell did the Northern States have “standing” to keep the Southern States in the union? /not sarcasm
So the election WAS STOLEN. Read paragraph B-2 in the linked report! Ramsland’s team concluded that Dominion’s system “intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors” to facilitate fraud! Please COPY and REPOST or SHARE
https://beta.documentcloud.org/documents/20423772-antrim-county-forensics-report?fbclid=IwAR0oH5pVxej5ULygif3fJ6Yvmo9RNqfel2RS888CDirH0SjBFYkVL6yh0C0
Given that the Congress will likely never resolve this . . . I believe that the USSC can help by setting minimum standards for:
- what a lawful and legal ballot is
- when is such a ballot due
- when, exactly, is the Election (instead of any ol’ time over three weeks) re “Election Day”
- when absentee and otherwise mailed-in ballots must be counted
- what is the basic date time stamp for a ballot
- what is the basic date time stamp for a ballot envelope when mailed
- what is the basic date time stamp for a ballot envelope when received
- in person, at the polling place, -marked ballots must always be kept separate from all other ballots
- hand delivered ballots (such as by dropbox) must also be kept separate from all other ballots
- mailed-in ballots and their envelopes, must also be kept separate from all other ballots
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.
“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.