The left isn’t going to be NAERLY satisfied that biden won.
They want wholesale destruction of the US.
So, looking from their point of view, the SCOTUS MUST be destroyed or rendered ineffective.
Got one dem senator who said he won’t under any circumstances vote for more justices.
So whatever happens in FL, biden won’t get to appoint new judges.
And that will lead to massive ciolence every time the Supremes make an unpopular (to the left) decision
Hmmn.....Politico has not updated it’s election returns site since Election day. Screw you....Politico...you butt wipes and Traitor/Turncoats tpo our great american Republic!!!
When the disinformation campaign cranks up rather than just acting as it is a done deal...someone is getting nervous.
The Constitution outlines all of this.
The riots this year were a warmup.
Steal the election and now the threat of violence if the courts do anything to stop it.
Need to secure the win at SCOTUS and then mass arrests quickly when the riots begin. Shut it down quickly.
This is a continuation of the Color Revolution tools of DS aimed at the United States. Watch the Plot Against the President documentary. This is a continuation of the coup that started when Trump became the nominee.
When it comes to choosing electors for the President, the Constitution declares its the state legislatures that have the final authority. Judges don’t have the final say. Complaining about the Supreme Court’s decision to overrule some judges is wrong.
five of the court’s justices have signed onto opinions endorsing a brand new legal theory—that the Constitution gives state legislatures virtually untrammeled authority to set voting rules for federal elections...
—
“Brand new” to any MSM drone who never actually read the U.S. Constitution.
I’ve always said my only requirement for judges is the ability to read the English language, as written.
Nothing more.
Q: Why couldn’t the legislature been called to a special session to deal with voting during a pandemic?
A: Because Democrats.
It is important to emphasize that disfranchisement of voters happens in TWO ways: one, when a person is denied a vote; and two, when a person’s vote is nullified by an illegal vote. More votes does not mean that fewer people have been disenfranchised.
I have no idea why there is a presumption of legality in a vote or a vote tally.
What about the breathtakingly irresponsible flame-throwing of two nitwit arrogant “journalists” Wendy and Daniel” in delegitimizing the highest court in the land??
What about the breathtaking irresponsibly to incite American citizens into a chaotic spiral of distrust and fear over the Supreme Court when you know Wendy and Daniel are biased leftists having done no deep analytical due diligence in arriving at their emotionally unhinged attack on the the president to rightfully investigate this train wreck of an election.
What about the breathtakingly irresponsible threats on Supreme Court Justice’s lives that could be incited from Wendy girl’s and Danny boy’s fun editorial torpedo?
What unmitigated BS.
The lower courts stupidly allowed an untested, faulty, unsecure and fraudulently error prone system to be enacted in WEEKS and this is somehow “expanding voting rights?” BS. It makes the election unprovable and destroys faith in the accuracy of the count. (Although I’d argue this is what the communists want)
But to then follow up and say that the Supreme Court is going to “restrict” rights by upholding THE CONSTITUTION and allowing the state legislatures to decide their electors is just outright pure ignorance about how our country works (but again, not surprising from these twitter educated idiots).
The President is the president of the STATES - not the PEOPLE.
Can these two statements be proven?
“Trump won the largest non-white vote share for a Republican presidential candidate in 60 years. Biden underperformed Hillary Clinton in every major metro area around the country, save for Milwaukee, Detroit, Atlanta and Philadelphia.”
If so, then there is good reason to doubt the legitimacy of the 2020 Presdiential election.
‘So the most lasting damage to America’s election system is likely to come instead from a series of Supreme Court rulings that appear perfunctory but actually could restrict voters’ rights for years to come....’
Going by the constitution is ‘breathtakingly radical’?
One can tell they are really scared!
And scared they should be!
My word of advice to them is -
enjoy a few more days of your fake president elect. Your lies will come crashing down on you and you will have no place to hide!
This statement just shows the ignorance of the Politico reporters. Here's what Article II of the U.S. Constitution has to say about it: "President of the United States of America ... be elected, as follows: Each State shall appoint, in such manner the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; ..."
When I absolutely need to know the truth, I never turn to Politico. I will be assured that I get the opposite from them.
Second, and even more dangerous, five of the court’s justices have signed onto opinions endorsing a brand new legal theory—that the Constitution gives state legislatures virtually untrammeled authority to set voting rules for federal elections, no matter how arbitrary or unreasonable.
--from Politico [Emphasis on brand new is mine]
I don't consider 1787 to be brand new...but hey I am just a deplorable nobody, not like a real honest to God Leftist "journalist".
Weiser and Weiner. You can’t make this shit up.
Indeed don’t they know it’s the news media who make the law.
>>>...responded to the pandemic by expanding voting access...<<<
So flagrant vote fraud is “expanding voting access”.