did SCOTUS punt again .. The Supreme Court on Monday turned away Republican challenges on Voting

Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,558
Reaction score
36,361
Location
Livingston
"That is a position that received only three votes when the Supreme Court in 2000 decided Bush v. Gore. But, as Gorsuch has written, “The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”
Kavanaugh endorsed that view, as well, in the pre-election challenge. But he did not join the others Monday who wanted to take the Pennsylvania case, which the court’s majority said was moot.

Roberts has set himself apart from the other conservatives, saying state courts have a role to play. And new Justice Amy Coney Barrett has so far not taken a position publicly.

Thomas said it was a mistake to ignore the controversy.


 
Grimscale

Grimscale

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,721
Reaction score
12,776
Location
Rochester
Acer-m14 said:
which the court’s majority said was moot.
Click to expand...


Which means any other case will be subsequently denied. They've decided, for whatever reason, that the election must stand as declared, even in the face of evidence to the contrary.
And if they can fold on so important an issue as secure elections, that does not bode well for decisions on any other case involving our Constitutional Rights.


We're well and truly fucked. I see only bloodshed in America's future.
 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,433
Reaction score
40,280
Location
P
Spineless motherfuckers - Thomas is really the only member of SCROTUM I have respect for.

Kavanaugh and Barrett have really worked out well - NOT!!!

"Barrett is a strict Constitutionalist." - Bullshit!!! We were sold a bill of goods on her, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

The only consistent justices are Thomas and Roberts, and the latter because he will always sell out the Constitution and the people.

Totally corrupt bastards - there must be a lot skeletons in their closets.
 
Steal2B

Steal2B

.700 Nitro Express
Messages
24,480
Reaction score
77,578
Location
Dutchess County
prambo said:
Spineless motherfuckers - Thomas is really the only member of SCROTUM I have respect for.

Kavanaugh and Barrett have really worked out well - NOT!!!

"Barrett is a strict Constitutionalist." - Bullshit!!! We were sold a bill of goods on her, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.

The only consistent justices are Thomas and Roberts, and the latter because he will always sell out the Constitution and the people.

Totally corrupt bastards - there must be a lot skeletons in their closets.
Click to expand...
The word leaked from SCOTUS support staff is that both Thomas and Alito have privately screamed at Roberts for having a blatant inexcusable perverse role in covering up for election fraud and neglecting the Constitution's need for the Court to address these cases.

Leaks have also claimed that Barrett appears to be too timid to take a position on any case with the other eight strong willed judges.
 
prambo

prambo

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,433
Reaction score
40,280
Location
P
Steal2B said:
The word leaked from SCOTUS support staff is that both Thomas and Alito have privately screamed at Roberts for having a blatant inexcusable perverse role in covering up for election fraud and neglecting the Constitution's need for the Court to address these cases.
Click to expand...

I can see Thomas giving Roberts shit - he's the lone voice of the Constitution on SCROTUM and, from I've read, a man of integrity, great intelligence and toughness. It's a surprise he hasn't stepped down - he must be wearing chest waders to keep above the leftist bullshit.

Don't know much about Alito, but he seems to be similar to Thomas in many ways.
 
tirwin1

tirwin1

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
12,733
Reaction score
33,120
Location
rochester
So if I understand the logic correctly - the court decided that because the election was already decided there was no reason to revisit this lawsuit (despite the fact a majority agreed with the initial injunction).

If that doesn't signal loud and clear that cheating is acceptable I don't know what does.
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,160
Reaction score
18,771
Location
Province of Westchester
tirwin1 said:
So if I understand the logic correctly - the court decided that because the election was already decided there was no reason to revisit this lawsuit (despite the fact a majority agreed with the initial injunction).

If that doesn't signal loud and clear that cheating is acceptable I don't know what does.
Click to expand...
Bingo!

Before the election, SCOTUS would not hear the case because there was a lack of standing to bring the action.

During the election, SCOTUS would not hear the case because they did not want to interfere with an ongoing election.

After the election, SCOTUS determined that the issue was moot because the election had been completed.

So...when will the Supreme Court ever hear a case about unconstitutional state actions with regards to elections? Answer...NEVER!
 
Defilade

Defilade

.577 Tyrannosaur.
Messages
23,278
Reaction score
33,477
Location
Elsewhere
400715ec761f0073.png
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

.950 JDJ
Messages
34,558
Reaction score
36,361
Location
Livingston
Phazer said:
After the election, SCOTUS determined that the issue was moot because the election had been completed.
Click to expand...

SCOTUS are chickens and its moot because they cant man and girl up to take a damn case .. or whatever gender they are

they should take on every cast that they receive .. just think if your local courts did this pick n choose cases ..
 
Phazer

Phazer

.338 Win Mag
Messages
9,160
Reaction score
18,771
Location
Province of Westchester
Acer-m14 said:
SCOTUS are chickens and its moot because they cant man and girl up to take a damn case .. or whatever gender they are
Click to expand...
Oh, but they do. Although they seem disinterested in preserving our constitutional republic, SCOTUS is very intent on changing our culture and pushing our national ethos to the hard left. SCOTUS readily takes cases involving radical perceptions of sexuality in order to create rights where none existed before.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top