Jump to content

Supreme Court Paxon Lawsuit


Big girl

Recommended Posts

They refuse to hear the case with 18 states backing Texas , that doesn’t mean there wasn’t evidence of fraud. Some of the cowardly justices probably didn’t want their families threatened and canceled like the Democrat Left has done when you don’t agree with them. What a thieving embarrassing election this is becoming. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Big girl said:

This is the hidden content, please

I trust these conservative justices.  We know there was massive fraud.  They were not going to debate this aspect of it anyway.  Apparently they are saying this is not the way that this needs to be resolved.  I think everybody knew it was a long shot.   Again --  the fraud is still there!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Reagan said:

I trust these conservative justices.  We know there was massive fraud.  They were not going to debate this aspect of it anyway.  Apparently they are saying this is not the way that this needs to be resolved.  I think everybody knew it was a long shot.   Again --  the fraud is still there!

Texas’s case wasn’t about fraud but the fact the swing states did not follow their own voting laws put forth in the US Constitution which allowed the fraud which in turn diluted Texas’s electoral votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Realville said:

Texas’s case wasn’t about fraud but the fact the swing states did not follow their own voting laws put forth in the US Constitution which allowed the fraud which in turn diluted Texas’s electoral votes.

Realville, my friend, don't fret.  The Justices didn't decide on ANY of the 4 state's illegal activities.  Nothing concerning the fraud or the obvious Constitutional violations.  What they said was:  Texas does not have the standing/authority to be concerned about what another state do with their elections.  That's it!  There is no doubt in my mind that law suits that are out there concerning the fraud that we are concerned about will end up before the Supreme Court.  And I'm sure the Justices realize this.  And I feel strongly that when presented with all the fraud evidence that they will rule in Trump's favor.  

As for as the Constitutional violations of the 4 states, once all this has been settled, the GOP within these states are going to have to file the law suits that could eventually be brought before the Supreme Court.  Keep the faith.  The devils will not prevail!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Realville said:

They refuse to hear the case with 18 states backing Texas , that doesn’t mean there wasn’t evidence of fraud. Some of the cowardly justices probably didn’t want their families threatened and canceled like the Democrat Left has done when you don’t agree with them. What a thieving embarrassing election this is becoming. 

It's over. The fat lady sang. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trump was right.

Democrats used the pandemic for their mail-in voting scam. Anyone who can't see this is blinded by their ideology, or an utter fool.
 

Try watching some the eyewitness testimony of people under oath at the hearings in front of the swing state State Legislatures that the National Media covered up. The outright fraud and bullying was ridiculous. Wether your Democrat or Republican it would  piss you off after hearing the eyewitness testimonies at these hearings unless your feelings are always hurt by Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BLUEDOVE3 said:

December 13. 2a20 - 1 0:46 AM EST 

Chris Christie calls Trump's 
legal team's legal theory an 
'absurdity ' 

The RINO must not be paying attention.  BTW -- I heard a little while ago that Sydney Powell said that the Supreme Court has her lawsuits of fraud by these 4 states.  Getting interesting.   Dove -- I know it looks like you got what you wanted.  But if this election was compromised with fraud -- does this, would this, bother you? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Member Statistics

    45,977
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    cfbswami
    Newest Member
    cfbswami
    Joined


  • Posts

    • We'll see. I don't trust us. 
    • Starting pitching has been shaky the last few weeks due to some injuries outside of Hagen Smith.  He goes tomorrow, so y’all should be fine 
    • Manchin may get it but any mention of the radical left that wanted to get rid of the filibuster and end almost 220 years of history because the Democrats are mad?  The House and Senate are obviously different legislative bodies with entirely different election processes and rules for a reason. The House can vote on laws with a simple majority vote. The Senate put rules in place that it would make it much tougher to pass laws. Laws should be difficult to pass. The Senate is often the holdup of the right and left. It takes 60 votes to break the filibuster so any law will almost certainly require agreement at least in part, from opposing sides of an issue. Because they can’t get laws passed, the radical left is like a baby having a tantrum and wants to change over 200 years of history and make it potentially ridiculously easy to pass laws. I have seen current poll maps and it is possible for the Republicans to sweep into complete power in November but by the tiniest margin. That would possibly mean that a single vote margin in both houses could enact what you might call the radical right laws. There would be nothing that the Democrats could do to stop any legislation whatsoever if the left (they are all radical, minus Manchin) got their filibuster rule changed.  That is where the current filibuster comes into play as any new law would require several Democrats to agree with the majority Republicans and vice versa.  Do you want the potential for your radical right to have free rein as the radical left wants by killing the filibuster or is the radical left just as (if not more) dangerous? Let’s see if we have a history in this area? Oh yeah, the Democrats changed the rules in the Senate to allow federal judges to not have to overcome the filibuster. Obama was not getting his federal judge nominations passed and being angry, they changed the rules instead of nominating more moderate justices. They were warned that it would come back to bite them. They didn’t care and chose the nuclear option to change the rules. Oops! Any guess how Trump got all of his Supreme Court nominees passed against strong Democrat opposition? The Democrats got rid of the filibuster for federal judges after another tantrum   So when you are so worried about the radical right, are you equally concerned in what the radical left is always doing by changing rules and history which were put into place just for situations like we are in? So while Manchin gets it, what about his other 50 colleagues (49 + Harris)?  What concerns you more, Abbott and Paxton or the Democrats who want to make it to where if the Republicans do take over, they can go wild… at least in your mind? 
    • MODS please remove that ISD twitter link! I had no idea it would copy the whole posting. I only highlighted the portion about the venue change. Sorry about that!
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...