Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Did The High Court Stick It To Senile Joe Biden?

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default Did The High Court Stick It To Senile Joe Biden?

    The answer to the question is open for discussion.

    The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

    The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by voters.

    Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
    By Harper Neidig
    07/06/20 10:21 AM EDT

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...hless-electors

    Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

    Bottom line: When Trump wins, brain dead Biden lost his last hope of Democrat electors overturning Trump’s landslide victory.

    There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:

    Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

    Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3676836

    p.s. The XVII Amendment sent the worst kind of scum to the U.S. Senate since 1913. Senile Joe Biden was one of them for 34 years.
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (07-09-2020)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    QUESTION: Why did nine justices make the ruling so complicated?


    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 9-0 that states can require Electoral College voters to select the presidential candidate they pledged to support and be punished for not complying.

    "The Constitution's text and the nation's history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee — and the state voters' choice — for President," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

    ANSWER: Legitimating a rigged vote count was the deciding factor. It is illogical to believe that liberal justices would rule against Democrats stealing an election.


    The cases, one from Washington state and another from Colorado, came after a group calling themselves "Hamilton electors" voted for moderate Republicans instead of Hillary Clinton in an effort to disrupt the election and send it to the House of Representatives.

    In Colorado, one elector voted for John Kasich, instead of Clinton, who won the state's popular vote.


    Supreme ruling on 'faithless' electors tampering with presidential vote
    By WND Staff
    Published July 6, 2020 at 11:23am

    https://www.wnd.com/2020/07/supreme-...tial-election/

    And is it not odd that the ruling was unanimous? Surely, if original intent has any meaning at least one or two justices would have dissented. Not one dissent told me that every justice must believe that the Founding Fathers intended crooks to steal elections.

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:


    Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

    Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.

    Finally, Democrats have been trying to abolish the Electoral Collage since Al Gore got caught with his hand in the cookie jar:




    Bottom line: Today’s Court would have elected Presidents Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had their ruling been handed down before November 2000.

    p.s. Do not look for any SCOTUS to rule against illegal aliens and dead ‘voters.’
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (07-09-2020)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    3,668
    Thanks
    1,022
    Thanked 445 Times in 401 Posts
    Groans
    51
    Groaned 102 Times in 89 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    And is it not odd that the ruling was unanimous? Surely, if original intent has any meaning at least one or two justices would have dissented. Not one dissent told me that every justice must believe that the Founding Fathers intended crooks to steal elections.
    Now that the Supreme Court has vouchsafed the power of a state to require its presidential electors to vote in line with their state’s popular vote, a new question glimmers in the constitutional mist: Could a state require its electors to vote against the wishes of the state’s own voters? That might seem a ridiculous question. Feature, though, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

    It’s a workaround designed to commit the states to use the Electoral College to deliver the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. It’s the first thing that came to mind when the Supreme Court today unanimously concluded that states have the power to punish faithless electors. Most justices credited the language in Article 2, which grants states the power to appoint electors.

    The key phrase is that each state shall appoint its electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, reckons this gives the states the power to attach conditions to the electors it appoints, such as the requirement that they vote for the candidate their home-state voters prefer. It can punish them if they don’t.

    The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though, is a scheme under which states agree to instruct their electors to ignore what their own state’s voters want and, instead, vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect when it has been ratified by states whose combined electoral vote count is 270, i.e., enough to choose a president.

    So far, some 15 states, with a total electoral vote of 196, have signed the confounded compact. The Sun is against it on the grounds that an Electoral College that handed up Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan, among others, ought not to be trifled with. We can see, though, that it’s newsworthy.

    Which is why we’ve written about this issue half a dozen or so times in recent years. And why, after today’s ruling, the Wall Street Journal plated its vast array of presses with an editorial marking the issue. For the court’s decision on faithless electors suggests the Nine might well let a state legislature require the state’s electors to ignore the state’s own voters.

    Just to mark the point, what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would have done, were it in effect in, say, New York in 2004, is require the Empire State’s votes in the Electoral College to be cast for George W. Bush — even though the Texas Republican lost the popular vote in New York State to Senator John Kerry by a whopping 16 percentage points.

    The Journal covers one caveat, which is that the Constitution forbids any state from entering any compact or other agreement with any other state absent the approval of Congress. That prohibition, the Journal warns, could spell heavy sledding at the Supreme Court were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ever enacted by enough states to put it into effect.

    One reason all this has been on the boil in the past generation is that 2000 and 2016 were both years in which the Electoral College chose a president who’d lost the national popular vote — and, in Mr. Trump’s case, by a substantial tally. That may be the constitutional way of doing things, but it’s not surprising it produces a certain amount of sturm and drang.

    So why not simply amend the Constitution to provide for electing presidents by the national popular vote? It seems that such an amendment wouldn’t stand a chance. The Democratic states like, say, New York and California may favor it. The compact, though, makes a mockery of the idea that America is, in part, a confederation of sovereign states. So the big test of whether the Supreme Court is committed to the Electoral College is yet to come.

    The Big Test of Electoral College Is Yet To Come
    Editorial of The New York Sun
    July 7, 2020

    https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the...college/91182/

    A brief recap of Socialism/Communism


    Socialists/Communists (DEMOCRATS) are determined to abolish the Electoral College by giving the SCOTUS the unconstitutional authority to legislate. They will do anything except call for a constitutional amendment. That is the same incremental strategy Socialists developed in the late 19th century.


    Early Socialist planners planted the misconception in the late 19th century when they set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...53#post2885553

    Note that frustration drove Socialists to adopt violent revolution. Television’s liars tell us about the violence every day without ever connecting the violence in our cities to the never-ending Communist Revolution.

    Start the clock in 1913 and you see that incrementalism won victory after victory throughout the judiciary, and in the federal bureaucracies —— most notably transforming this country into democracy’s tyranny one small bite at a time. Basically, countless top Democrats tell us that “We must save our democracy.” They never say ‘We must save our Republic.’ nor will they ever say ‘We must save our individual freedoms.’

    On the plus side, Socialist incrementalism ran into a roadblock after decades of trying to make the Second Amendment obsolete; hence, frustration. In short: So long as the Second Amendment is enforced Socialists/Communists everywhere are in danger of losing more than a century of nibbling around the edges.

    Finally, I wonder of this sick do-gooder knows she is defending Socialism’s incrementalism:

    We feel like we have been Awakened, but this is just one step. There are countless more that need to be taken.

    Just Say ‘No’ to the Revolution
    Tue Jul 7, 2020
    Mark Tapson

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/202...n-mark-tapson/
    The basic test of freedom is perhaps less in what we are free to do than in what we are free not to do. It is the freedom to refrain, withdraw and abstain which makes a totalitarian regime impossible. Eric Hoffer

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Flanders For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (07-09-2020)

  7. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The answer to the question is open for discussion.

    The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

    The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by voters.

    Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
    By Harper Neidig
    07/06/20 10:21 AM EDT

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...hless-electors

    Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

    Bottom line: When Trump wins, brain dead Biden lost his last hope of Democrat electors overturning Trump’s landslide victory.

    There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:

    Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

    Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3676836

    p.s. The XVII Amendment sent the worst kind of scum to the U.S. Senate since 1913. Senile Joe Biden was one of them for 34 years.
    Good question. Thanks for your post.

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Flanders (07-09-2020)

  9. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    QUESTION: Why did nine justices make the ruling so complicated?


    The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday ruled 9-0 that states can require Electoral College voters to select the presidential candidate they pledged to support and be punished for not complying.

    "The Constitution's text and the nation's history both support allowing a state to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee — and the state voters' choice — for President," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

    ANSWER: Legitimating a rigged vote count was the deciding factor. It is illogical to believe that liberal justices would rule against Democrats stealing an election.


    The cases, one from Washington state and another from Colorado, came after a group calling themselves "Hamilton electors" voted for moderate Republicans instead of Hillary Clinton in an effort to disrupt the election and send it to the House of Representatives.

    In Colorado, one elector voted for John Kasich, instead of Clinton, who won the state's popular vote.


    Supreme ruling on 'faithless' electors tampering with presidential vote
    By WND Staff
    Published July 6, 2020 at 11:23am

    https://www.wnd.com/2020/07/supreme-...tial-election/

    And is it not odd that the ruling was unanimous? Surely, if original intent has any meaning at least one or two justices would have dissented. Not one dissent told me that every justice must believe that the Founding Fathers intended crooks to steal elections.


    Finally, Democrats have been trying to abolish the Electoral Collage since Al Gore got caught with his hand in the cookie jar:




    Bottom line: Today’s Court would have elected Presidents Al Gore and Hillary Clinton had their ruling been handed down before November 2000.

    p.s. Do not look for any SCOTUS to rule against illegal aliens and dead ‘voters.’
    Thank you for another fine post.

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Flanders (07-09-2020)

  11. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    Now that the Supreme Court has vouchsafed the power of a state to require its presidential electors to vote in line with their state’s popular vote, a new question glimmers in the constitutional mist: Could a state require its electors to vote against the wishes of the state’s own voters? That might seem a ridiculous question. Feature, though, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.

    It’s a workaround designed to commit the states to use the Electoral College to deliver the presidency to the winner of the national popular vote. It’s the first thing that came to mind when the Supreme Court today unanimously concluded that states have the power to punish faithless electors. Most justices credited the language in Article 2, which grants states the power to appoint electors.

    The key phrase is that each state shall appoint its electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.” The court, in an opinion by Justice Kagan, reckons this gives the states the power to attach conditions to the electors it appoints, such as the requirement that they vote for the candidate their home-state voters prefer. It can punish them if they don’t.

    The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, though, is a scheme under which states agree to instruct their electors to ignore what their own state’s voters want and, instead, vote for the winner of the national popular vote. The compact goes into effect when it has been ratified by states whose combined electoral vote count is 270, i.e., enough to choose a president.

    So far, some 15 states, with a total electoral vote of 196, have signed the confounded compact. The Sun is against it on the grounds that an Electoral College that handed up Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Jackson, Lincoln, the Roosevelts, Calvin Coolidge, and Ronald Reagan, among others, ought not to be trifled with. We can see, though, that it’s newsworthy.

    Which is why we’ve written about this issue half a dozen or so times in recent years. And why, after today’s ruling, the Wall Street Journal plated its vast array of presses with an editorial marking the issue. For the court’s decision on faithless electors suggests the Nine might well let a state legislature require the state’s electors to ignore the state’s own voters.

    Just to mark the point, what the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would have done, were it in effect in, say, New York in 2004, is require the Empire State’s votes in the Electoral College to be cast for George W. Bush — even though the Texas Republican lost the popular vote in New York State to Senator John Kerry by a whopping 16 percentage points.

    The Journal covers one caveat, which is that the Constitution forbids any state from entering any compact or other agreement with any other state absent the approval of Congress. That prohibition, the Journal warns, could spell heavy sledding at the Supreme Court were the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact ever enacted by enough states to put it into effect.

    One reason all this has been on the boil in the past generation is that 2000 and 2016 were both years in which the Electoral College chose a president who’d lost the national popular vote — and, in Mr. Trump’s case, by a substantial tally. That may be the constitutional way of doing things, but it’s not surprising it produces a certain amount of sturm and drang.

    So why not simply amend the Constitution to provide for electing presidents by the national popular vote? It seems that such an amendment wouldn’t stand a chance. The Democratic states like, say, New York and California may favor it. The compact, though, makes a mockery of the idea that America is, in part, a confederation of sovereign states. So the big test of whether the Supreme Court is committed to the Electoral College is yet to come.

    The Big Test of Electoral College Is Yet To Come
    Editorial of The New York Sun
    July 7, 2020

    https://www.nysun.com/editorials/the...college/91182/

    A brief recap of Socialism/Communism


    Socialists/Communists (DEMOCRATS) are determined to abolish the Electoral College by giving the SCOTUS the unconstitutional authority to legislate. They will do anything except call for a constitutional amendment. That is the same incremental strategy Socialists developed in the late 19th century.


    Early Socialist planners planted the misconception in the late 19th century when they set out to acquire political power incrementally, while Communists preferred violent revolution.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...53#post2885553

    Note that frustration drove Socialists to adopt violent revolution. Television’s liars tell us about the violence every day without ever connecting the violence in our cities to the never-ending Communist Revolution.

    Start the clock in 1913 and you see that incrementalism won victory after victory throughout the judiciary, and in the federal bureaucracies —— most notably transforming this country into democracy’s tyranny one small bite at a time. Basically, countless top Democrats tell us that “We must save our democracy.” They never say ‘We must save our Republic.’ nor will they ever say ‘We must save our individual freedoms.’

    On the plus side, Socialist incrementalism ran into a roadblock after decades of trying to make the Second Amendment obsolete; hence, frustration. In short: So long as the Second Amendment is enforced Socialists/Communists everywhere are in danger of losing more than a century of nibbling around the edges.

    Finally, I wonder of this sick do-gooder knows she is defending Socialism’s incrementalism:

    We feel like we have been Awakened, but this is just one step. There are countless more that need to be taken.

    Just Say ‘No’ to the Revolution
    Tue Jul 7, 2020
    Mark Tapson

    https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/202...n-mark-tapson/
    Yet ANOTHER fine post. Thanks, again, Flanders.

  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Flanders (07-09-2020)

  13. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.
    What a specious argument on your part.
    https://www.270towin.com/

    The current map shows 4 toss up states. Trump needs to win all 4 to win the Electoral College. Current polling shows Trump trailing by 4 points or more in all 4 of those states. The likelihood of Trump winning all 4 is about 1 in 1,000 at this point. It would take a major change in the electorate. Something that isn't likely to happen as we see the surge in Covid 19 deaths occurring in the red states that followed Trump's lead and opened up before they should have.

    All the ruling means is that electors for Alabama or other states can't defect from Trump. Those electors won't matter when it comes down to who wins the election.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  14. The Following User Groans At Poor Richard Saunders For This Awful Post:

    Flanders (07-09-2020)

  15. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    What a specious argument on your part.
    https://www.270towin.com/

    The current map shows 4 toss up states. Trump needs to win all 4 to win the Electoral College. Current polling shows Trump trailing by 4 points or more in all 4 of those states. The likelihood of Trump winning all 4 is about 1 in 1,000 at this point. It would take a major change in the electorate. Something that isn't likely to happen as we see the surge in Covid 19 deaths occurring in the red states that followed Trump's lead and opened up before they should have.

    All the ruling means is that electors for Alabama or other states can't defect from Trump. Those electors won't matter when it comes down to who wins the election.
    He WILL win all four of those states, Richie. Thank you.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Flanders (07-09-2020)

  17. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    He WILL win all four of those states, Richie. Thank you.
    How much money you willing to place on that ill conceived notion of yours?

    I offered to bet Truth Detector $1,000.00 and he ran and hid. How about you?
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  18. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    How much money you willing to place on that ill conceived notion of yours?

    I offered to bet Truth Detector $1,000.00 and he ran and hid. How about you?
    100 bucks. It's ON, Dickie.

  19. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    100 bucks. It's ON, Dickie.
    A whole $100...... Wow. you are actually willing to give up 4 trips to McDonalds.

    You win if Trump wins Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina. I win if he loses any one of them. See you in November when it's time for me to collect.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  20. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Poor Richard Saunders View Post
    A whole $100...... Wow. you are actually willing to give up 4 trips to McDonalds.

    You win if Trump wins Florida, Arizona, Wisconsin and North Carolina. I win if he loses any one of them. See you in November when it's time for me to collect.
    You WILL lose, asshole Dickie, you WILL lose.

  21. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Location
    Valparaiso, Indiana USA
    Posts
    12,308
    Thanks
    12,429
    Thanked 3,406 Times in 2,917 Posts
    Groans
    5,261
    Groaned 325 Times in 306 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    You WILL lose, asshole Dickie, you WILL lose.
    And if I WERE somehow TO miraculously lose this bet, I WILL pay you. I've NEVER reneged on a SINGLE BET in my life. We'll arrange something so the loser can pay the winner. I have a sneaky feeling, you being a Loser Liberal Lunatic, you will REFUSE to pay up if you LOSE.

  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Cancel 2020.2 For This Post:

    Flanders (07-10-2020)

  23. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2018
    Posts
    10,829
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 4,989 Times in 3,362 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 637 Times in 605 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven VanderMolen View Post
    And if I WERE somehow TO miraculously lose this bet, I WILL pay you. I've NEVER reneged on a SINGLE BET in my life. We'll arrange something so the loser can pay the winner. I have a sneaky feeling, you being a Loser Liberal Lunatic, you will REFUSE to pay up if you LOSE.
    This post is priceless. I will save it for November.
    "We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid."

    "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

  24. The Following User Says Thank You to Poor Richard Saunders For This Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (07-10-2020)

  25. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    23,366
    Thanks
    4,242
    Thanked 10,178 Times in 7,089 Posts
    Groans
    3
    Groaned 1,196 Times in 1,111 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flanders View Post
    The answer to the question is open for discussion.

    The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.

    The unanimous decision, arising out of a case from Washington state, essentially gives states the right to outlaw "faithless electors" who cast their votes for people other than those chosen by voters.

    Supreme Court rules states can remove 'faithless electors'
    By Harper Neidig
    07/06/20 10:21 AM EDT

    https://thehill.com/regulation/court...hless-electors

    Nine justices seemingly denied Biden the one and only chance he had of becoming president.

    Bottom line: When Trump wins, brain dead Biden lost his last hope of Democrat electors overturning Trump’s landslide victory.

    There is one obvious flaw in the Court’s ruling that can put a corpse in the Oval Office:

    Adding mail-in votes to Biden’s anemic total will be a piece of cake for television’s liars.

    Even if forged ballots make their way up to the Supreme Court in a year or two there is not a chance 5 justices will overturn a presidential election. In fact, the entire court will legitimate the voting rights of every box of bones in every cemetery —— in addition to creating the Right to Vote for millions of illegal aliens.

    https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...36#post3676836

    p.s. The XVII Amendment sent the worst kind of scum to the U.S. Senate since 1913. Senile Joe Biden was one of them for 34 years.
    Fucking hilarious shit coming out of you right thar! I am embarrassed for you!


  26. The Following User Groans At Geeko Sportivo For This Awful Post:

    Cancel 2020.2 (07-10-2020)

Similar Threads

  1. Senile old pussy-grabbing pedophile Biden in the news
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-30-2020, 08:45 AM
  2. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 04-19-2020, 10:24 AM
  3. The facts brook no denial: Joe Biden is senile
    By The Anonymous in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-27-2020, 09:02 PM
  4. Trump more senile than Biden
    By Jarod in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 107
    Last Post: 03-17-2020, 03:10 PM
  5. LOL, Biden so Senile and Moronic thinks websites have numbers
    By KingCondanomation in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 61
    Last Post: 02-26-2009, 08:27 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •