The eyes of Texas are upon you
Comments
-
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
-
Godwin.AOG said:
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
-
The states broke the lawAOG said:
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
Sounds like even you realize
The wonders of the pandemic. Fuck off -
Actually it's not, but the low education of yours continues to bite you in the ass. Doesn't mean the SC won't toss the Texas case as well but they are not the "same crap." You should have just said it would have been "fascist" for the Supreme Court to rule otherwise, that's the standard logic you usually bring to the table.AOG said:
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
-
The PA lawsuit was that the state violated the Constitution ("broke the law"). SCOTUS threw that out. In one sentence.RaceBannon said:
The states broke the lawAOG said:
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
Sounds like even you realize
The wonders of the pandemic. Fuck off -
It’s cute how passionately the useful idiots argue in support of corruption on a football bored. You realize you’re the first ones sacrificed by your heroes if things go sideways
-
If?LoneStarDawg said:It’s cute how passionately the useful idiots argue in support of corruption on a football bored. You realize you’re the first ones sacrificed by your heroes if things go sideways
At this juncture looking more like when.
-
But in that one sentence, they didn't say they disagreed with the notion that PA violated election law. If that's not them admitting that PA violated election law by not saying that at all, I don't know what you want. Look for what they don't say instead of what they do say. The message is in the weeds. Are you clever enough to root them out?AOG said:
The PA lawsuit was that the state violated the Constitution ("broke the law"). SCOTUS threw that out. In one sentence.RaceBannon said:
The states broke the lawAOG said:
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
Sounds like even you realize
The wonders of the pandemic. Fuck off -
It's exactly like insinceredawg put it. If SCOTUS says in one sentence "blah blah blah denied" PERIOD that means "FUCK OFF"MelloDawg said:
But in that one sentence, they didn't say they disagreed with the notion that PA violated election law. If that's not them admitting that PA violated election law by not saying that at all, I don't know what you want. Look for what they don't say instead of what they do say. The message is in the weeds. Are you clever enough to root them out?AOG said:
The PA lawsuit was that the state violated the Constitution ("broke the law"). SCOTUS threw that out. In one sentence.RaceBannon said:
The states broke the lawAOG said:
Partly this is the same crap the Supremes just threw out, that PA pushed the limits of law by allowing for a lot of mail in votes. Imagine if you were a judge. Would you really completely defame yourself for all history by throwing out Biden's win for Trump on the grounds that in the year of a pandemic governments made it easy to vote by mail? You have to have SOME brains to see this issue.RaceBannon said:This is really the only thing out there that has even a ghost of a chance because the states clearly did not follow the law in changing the rules for the election in the 4 states. But the law is for the little people. I suspect that it won't even get heard because if they hear it they really need to rule in favor of Texas.
Sounds like even you realize
The wonders of the pandemic. Fuck off -
LiarAOG said:Supreme Court threw out the PA case a moment ago
this was that crackpot "Frankenstein" case thrown out with prejudice by the local judge
