WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE POST 2020 ELECTION FORSENIC AUDITS PROVE BIDEN CHEATED

[Into the Night]

So then tell us when those trump cases are going to be decided by the SCOTUS


Since you claim the SCOTUS never turned them down flat


Give us a date

SCOTUS does not have authority to change the Constitution. Only the State legislatures have the authority to choose the electors for that State.

 

[Into the Night]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday disposed of the last of three cases brought to the justices by former President Donald Trump challenging his election loss, bringing a muted end to his futile quest in the courts to hold onto power.

The court without comment rejected Trump's appeal challenging thousands of absentee ballots filed in Wisconsin, an election battleground that the Republican businessman-turned-politician lost to Democrat Joe Biden by more than 20,000 votes. Biden became president on Jan. 20.

Irrelevant. You can't wish away the evidence, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

They asked for a prima facie case. That means they just needed some evidence to proceed. The alt right had no evidence.

You can't wish away the evidence, dude.

 

[Into the Night]

Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the fact that appeals to the US Supreme Court require a legal decision by a lower court before the appeal can be filed. But then it is unlikely anyone would accuse you of being well informed.

WRONG. See the authority and powers given to the Supreme Court by Article III of the Constitution of the United States.

 

[Into the Night]

It's not an impression that I have. It is a legal standard that has been in place for over 200 years.

WRONG. See Article III.

 

[Walt]

You can't wish away the evidence, dude.

No evidence yet, so the real story here is you cannot wish the evidence into existence.

 

[Into the Night]

Here is the legal decision by the US Supreme Court to not grant certiorari. It backs up the news story you don't seem to think cites a legal decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030821zor_8n59.pdf

WRONG. This document does indeed grant certiorari. You are still WRONG. This document does not describe the authority of the Supreme Court. Article III of the Constitution, and ONLY Article III of the Constitution DOES.

 

[Into the Night]

They filed under the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under its authority to hear disputes between two states. This was not a dispute between states--there was no disagreement between TX and GA (like a boundary dispute)

If it is a dispute between citizens of GA and TX that should have been filed in the lower federal courts.

How GA chooses and certifies its electoral votes is under the authority of the state. The decision they made do not hurt the citizens of TX or keep TX from certifying its electoral votes under its own authority. [/SIZE]

No evidence was shown of anybody being robbed of anything. There was no video evidence unless you believe what somebody else was telling you happened on a YouTube video and ignore the explanations of the state of GA in its response to that suit.

Conservatives did not want activist judges and that is exactly what they got. They chose not to interfere in the constitutional duty of each state who had the authority to determine if their state acted constitutionally.

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Texas filed in the correct venue.

 

[Into the Night]

It's ironic that so many black and brown people risk their lives every day to gain illegal entry to a nation that DEMOCRATS claim is systemically racist, isn't it?

I said nothing about illegal immigration or even mentioned race at all.

 

[Into the Night]

No evidence yet, so the real story here is you cannot wish the evidence into existence.

I have already presented you with the evidence. So have others. RQAA.

 

[Walt]

I have already presented you with the evidence.

If they found the evidence in one of the six previous audits, why are Republicans doing a seventh audit? Why have they not presented the evidence to the courts, or even to the public?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

For those fools, idiots, and trolls that claim that the courts never heard a single case, let me present a case or two that was clearly heard and Trump lost in court.

https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315395

The Campaign's request to strike indefinitely confined voters in Dane and Milwaukee Counties as a class without regard to whether any individual voter was in fact indefinitely confined has no basis in reason or law;it is wholly without merit.

The court clearly looked at the evidence presented and said the remedy was without merit both in the law and in reason.


Then there is this one where once again, the court clearly looked at the evidence presented and found it lacking.
https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/2020AP1930-OAfinal-12-4-20.pdf

We should, we are told, enjoin the Wisconsin Elections Commission from certifying the election so that Wisconsin’s presidential electors can be chosen by the legislature instead, and then compel the Governor to certify those electors. At least no one can accuse the petitioners of timidity. Such a move would appear to be unprecedented in American history. One might expect that this solemn request would be paired with evidence of serious errors tied to a substantial and demonstrated set of illegal votes. Instead, the evidentiary support rests almost entirely on the unsworn expert report1 of a former campaign employee that offers statistical estimates based on call center samples and social media research.

 

[Legion]

I said nothing about illegal immigration or even mentioned race at all.

I know, and I didn't say that you had.

 

[Legion]

The court clearly looked at the evidence presented and said the remedy was without merit both in the law and in reason.

Did they?

The court clearly looked at the evidence presented and found it lacking.

Is that so?

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Did they?




Is that so?

It is Certain.

 

[Legion]

It is Certain.

Is it?

 

[christiefan915]

Ad populum fallacy.

ANY number of judges can dismiss a case over a frivolous technicality and it still not indicate a single thing about the digital forensics evidence, the Democrat witnesses confirming Democrat cheating, the video evidence of coordinated voter fraud, the Democrat officials changing election rules in the middle of counting in open defiance of the law, etc.

You're dishonestly trying to use technicalities and biased swamp Obama appointees to pretend the independently verifiable proof isn't overwhelming.

Have some integrity. If Democrat DNA doesn't forbid that kind of thing entirely.

Law students learn about jurisdiction, standing and civil procedure in their first year. All those lawyers whose cases got tossed for one of these must be as dumb as stumps.

 

[christiefan915]

Notice the fallacy being used by christiefan915 here.

President Trump: I'm going to drain the swamp

Democrats: Launch a thousand hoaxes, coup attempts, riots, declare secession, burn everything down, and eventually still have to come in manually and steal the election outright in broad daylight to stop him (the Made in China swamp really wanted its country back from the American people)

Democrats: President Trump didn't keep his promise to drain the swamp.​

Well yeah, obviously, because YOU committed every felony humanly possible to destroy him. That tends to be what happens, genius.

Anybody with an ounce of brains knows that trump grew the swamp and filled it with his corrupt cronies, major donors and other unsuitable hacks. trump didn't give a rat's ass about government and how to run it; all he wanted was absolute loyalty from his selections. Good people didn't want to work for him and bad people stuck around forever. No wonder this country went to hell in a handbasket during his administration; how could it not?

 

[christiefan915]

Say the conspiracy theorists still screaming at the sky in their vagina hats over imaginary secret Russian agents.

And even Democrats think Biden stole the presidency. So you're not even right about that part either.

^ LINK

 

[Flash]

See Article III of the Constitution of the United States. Texas filed in the correct venue.

Texas had no dispute with any of those states. All nine justices found nothing to support the plaintiff. Only two thought the case should be heard because they thought they were obligated to hear cases under its original jurisdiction.

"The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

Even if the SC had voted to hear the case Texas had no evidence to support their case. The statistical analysis filed to support the case was found to have no credibility, logic, and be statistically incompetent.