El Correcto
god is dead
What did they report correctly about covid-19?
Storming the Capitol
- Thread starter Operational needs
- Start date
fishtm2001
Banned
Trying to restrict the counting of ballots because your candidate lost is not in the constitution. Valid ballots were obviously going to be late in arriving due to no fault of the voter. Even the conservative SC agreed.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Constitutional authority?
You're in over your head.
No State or Federal Constitution allows for any provision you attempt to offer.
You're a lost ball in high weeds, get an education first.
If you are sincere in finding the truth I might walk you through it.
fishtm2001
Banned
You are wrong and your own SC agreed. Despite DeJoy's best efforts to ensure that mail in ballots would be late, PA did the right thing. BTW, what unconstitutional thing did GA do?
floridays
Well-Known Member
Your assertion is incorrect, no state attempted to restrict counting of ballots.
The Supreme Court made no ruling and issued no opinion. What you said is a factual untruth, I don't want to call you a liar.
fishtm2001
Banned
I get it. When there is no proven voter fraud you try to win on technicalities.
fishtm2001
Banned
"The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice [Samuel] Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied," said the court's one-sentence order, which did not suggest any dissent among the nine justices.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Georgia, consent agreement signed with the democrat party by the secretary of state to alter/change state election law.
Under the Georgia constitution the secretary of state does not have that authority.
I don't like to argue with incompetent illiterates, it is clear you have no clue.
floridays
Well-Known Member
You like democracy?
fishtm2001
Banned
Yes. Your candidate lost by nearly 7,000,000 votes. He claimed months before the election that if he won it would be legal but if he lost it would be rigged. Sound like Democracy to you?
floridays
Well-Known Member
Cite the motion where I can respond.
You're over your head, bring it.
fishtm2001
Banned
The PA SC's response was even better:
"Unsatisfied with the results of that wager, they would now flip over the table, scattering to the shadows the votes of millions of Pennsylvanians," Justice David Wecht wrote in a statement concurring with the three-page order. "It is not our role to lend legitimacy to such transparent and untimely efforts to subvert the will of Pennsylvania voters."
fishtm2001
Banned
Or how about the Federal Appeals Court?
"Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy," wrote Judge Stephanos Bibas, a former member of the Federalist Society whom President Trump nominated to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2017. "Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so."
That little conspiracy theory quickly died following a head on collision with reality. And that's why you don't hear it anymore. With no credible evidence it was one of law enforcements easiest shootdowns.
The Driver
I drive.
That it would spread like fire through the states. That it wouldn’t go away by April 2020 because of the “heat.” That you can’t inject disinfectant or shine light under your skin to kill it. That we wouldn’t have vaccines distributed in October 2020. And on and on and on.
Was the media perfect? Is it ever perfect? Hell no.
floridays
Well-Known Member
I hate democracy. In democracy what ever the majority decides, is law, regardless of existing law. Are you so ignorant you can't understand the concept, actually the truth? Democracy is rule of the masses as long as you have one more
vote. Democracy in the end will always result in the tyranny of the masses.
It's shameful that young skulls full of mush haven't been given a path to or trained in critical thinking, you have no ability to analyze.
The bold and enlarged above is an outright lie. Are you a liar or a sheeple?
The GOP controlled Pa state legislature was a big backer of mail in voting believing that it would be money in the bank for a Trump reelection The were absolutely shocked when Trump lost. Desperate they ran off to the Pa Supreme Court to try and get mail in ballots thrown out despite knowing that the time line to do so had expired.
For decades election rules and processes had remained pretty much the same with few changes. But, after losing an election they were confident it would win the GOP apparatus suddenly becomes the self appointed guardian of election integrity.
It's not up to you and me to determine whether or not the conduct of the people at the Capital on 1-6 rises to the level of federal charges. It would appear however that those who have been granted the authority to make that decision believe that it does rise to that level.
That and a whole lot more.
floridays
Well-Known Member
Their only job is to rule on statute at the time, nothing more nothing less.
You do understand that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is elected? You do understand it is a partisan body?
Their duty is to rule on law. In the Pennsylvania Supreme Court you witnessed democracy, not the rule of law.
Explain latches to me. That concept directed their entire train of thought.
Since in this instance a Supreme Court has ruled according to your liking, therefore you believe they are just and righteous, research Dred Scott and Plessy v Ferguson.
Report back to me with your findings.
Similar threads
