|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
30 registered members (BAR1225, Mulcher, JAT, dustymac, NoHuntin, Frankie, Shane99, Beadlescomb, TexasHuntress, cullbuck, GmeHunter, Vernon Tull, Narrow Gap, Lonster, sw1002, jawbone, paintrock, handihunter, Whild_Bill, woodduck, RidgeRanger, Gulfcoast, Claims Rep., Gobble4me757, AJones, hyco, Tigger85, Hester, 2 invisible),
530
guests, and 0
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: metalmuncher]
#3359267
02/22/21 09:24 PM
02/22/21 09:24 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 22,129 blount county alabama
jwalker77
Pumpkin
|
Pumpkin
Joined: Dec 2015
Posts: 22,129
blount county alabama
|
The court has become political. I think they did this because they are afraid of the Democrats and know there will be at least some attempt at some level to expand their Court. I would anticipate that they have no plans to do their dam job under Biden. They are going to let the Democrats to whatever whenever until something happens that is so bold faced they have to take it up.
Same way they operated under Obama.
Well, just how much bolder can they get? They stole a presidential election right under our noses, WITH US ALL WATCHING. Yessir. We are in a whole new place. They are telling us that loud and clear. This is not the America you thought you lived in.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: dead_eye]
#3359369
02/23/21 12:13 AM
02/23/21 12:13 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 7,073 Free State of Winston
FreeStateHunter
They Call Me Gator π
|
They Call Me Gator π
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 7,073
Free State of Winston
|
Paging doekiller...oh wait. Yalls ass dun ran him off Actually Doekiller said this is exactly what would happen back in December and everybody gave him so much crap he hasnβt come back. Well it appears he knew exactly what he was talking about.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: WmHunter]
#3359376
02/23/21 01:24 AM
02/23/21 01:24 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,378 Hoover, AL
GmeHunter
8 point
|
8 point
Joined: Nov 2012
Posts: 1,378
Hoover, AL
|
The Supreme Court decision was released today to not review the executive and judicial branches of Pennsylvania changing that state's election laws. The decision was 6-3, which means Roberts and new court member Barrett betrayed the Constitution. I suspect this means all the other pending cases will eventually get the same cold shoulder. https://www.wnd.com/2021/02/3-supre...ctices-result-catastrophic-consequences/Cocaine Mitch screwed us with the Judges. Pedophile Pence screwed us not allowing the States Legislatures to decide the electoral college. The SCOTUS refuses to even entertain the lawsuits or look at the evidence. Fellas, we live in dangerous times. Food and gas prices are about to skyrocket and companies are about to start shedding workers at an alarming rate. I wish I owned about 20 acres of land and had my fields ready to plant and livestock too. We all need to get rid of debt as quick as possible. I watched folks talk on a Rumble where the a source close to the secret service said Trump had a close call with an assasination attempt on his life in December. That is when he was laying low. If by some miracle by the mid-term election, we can get rid of those dominion machines and stop the ballot harvesting post election - we all need to pray that Trump can help candidates who won't cow tow to the deep state.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: WmHunter]
#3359483
02/23/21 09:47 AM
02/23/21 09:47 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,230 Semmes, AL
HippieKiller
10 point
|
10 point
Joined: Oct 2013
Posts: 3,230
Semmes, AL
|
Or maybe... just maybe... there isn't as much "verifiable proof" as we've been told.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: FreeStateHunter]
#3359499
02/23/21 10:20 AM
02/23/21 10:20 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 16,822 Banana Republic
jb20
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 16,822
Banana Republic
|
Or maybe... just maybe... there isn't as much "verifiable proof" as we've been told. Um... evidence is very clear that they changed election laws....
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: jb20]
#3359519
02/23/21 10:35 AM
02/23/21 10:35 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 7,073 Free State of Winston
FreeStateHunter
They Call Me Gator π
|
They Call Me Gator π
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 7,073
Free State of Winston
|
Or maybe... just maybe... there isn't as much "verifiable proof" as we've been told. Um... evidence is very clear that they changed election laws.... So here's my point in quoting hippiekiller on that...... do we know that what they did even broke the law? You seem sure of it so cite the PA code that was broken. I personally don't because i'm not a lawyer. Doekiller was a lawyer and was pretty certain there was no evidence, which every court in the land has agreed to. Doekiller wasn't a commie liberal, just a lawyer who knows how to read evidence. I'm going to side with the fact there probably wasn't enough evidence of a crime committed to bring it to court.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: WmHunter]
#3359522
02/23/21 10:41 AM
02/23/21 10:41 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,157 B'ham
Goatkiller
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,157
B'ham
|
Doekiller is not a lawyer that specializes in election law.... so his opinion doesn't carry any water for me. That's like asking an Electrical Engineer a Civil Engineering question.
At some level people need to realize they don't want to know the Truth or objectively think for themselves.
The fact that the Democrat election officials in many districts changed the rules which is a violation of the United States Constitution should be enough. They can't do that. It was against Federal Law not even their respective State's laws. They did it. The evidence of this cannot be refuted.
SCOTUS... they ignored it.
What are they going to ignore next? Are they going to ignore violation of our 1st Amendment, 2nd Amendement, etc.?
No government employees were harmed in the making of this mess.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: FreeStateHunter]
#3359526
02/23/21 10:44 AM
02/23/21 10:44 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 16,822 Banana Republic
jb20
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 16,822
Banana Republic
|
Or maybe... just maybe... there isn't as much "verifiable proof" as we've been told. Um... evidence is very clear that they changed election laws.... So here's my point in quoting hippiekiller on that...... do we know that what they did even broke the law? You seem sure of it so cite the PA code that was broken. I personally don't because i'm not a lawyer. Doekiller was a lawyer and was pretty certain there was no evidence, which every court in the land has agreed to. Doekiller wasn't a commie liberal, just a lawyer who knows how to read evidence. I'm going to side with the fact there probably wasn't enough evidence of a crime committed to bring it to court. I don't know the law but I do know common sense...im all for states to set their own laws but whenever those laws have consequences for the rest of America federal laws need to be followed...the problem and downfall of America is being tied up in political correctness and and legal wording vs right and wrong
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: Goatkiller]
#3359531
02/23/21 10:49 AM
02/23/21 10:49 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 7,073 Free State of Winston
FreeStateHunter
They Call Me Gator π
|
They Call Me Gator π
Joined: Mar 2020
Posts: 7,073
Free State of Winston
|
Doekiller is not a lawyer that specializes in election law.... so his opinion doesn't carry any water for me. That's like asking an Electrical Engineer a Civil Engineering question.
So you would rather ask a liberal arts major a Civil Engineering question versus an Electrical Engineer because that's the equivalent of taking the advice/counsel of a bunch of non-lawyer members of this board and the press over a lawyer. That makes no sense. If his opinion doesn't carry any water for you that's great, but his opinion has been correct so far. Everyone else's on this board hasn't. That's worth looking at. That doesn't take away from the fact that we've got to figure out a way to not let this happen again. It's not going to happen through the courts. The dems did it through having the volunteer numbers at every poll and at every location they could have volunteers all the way through the system. They worked the ground game in getting people out to vote, etc. If we don't do that for the next and every election there after we're screwed.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: WmHunter]
#3359538
02/23/21 10:57 AM
02/23/21 10:57 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,157 B'ham
Goatkiller
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,157
B'ham
|
Common sense isn't so common.
No government employees were harmed in the making of this mess.
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: FreeStateHunter]
#3359544
02/23/21 11:03 AM
02/23/21 11:03 AM
|
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 16,822 Banana Republic
jb20
Old Mossy Horns
|
Old Mossy Horns
Joined: Mar 2018
Posts: 16,822
Banana Republic
|
Common sense isn't so common.
so you can't point it out? I think you've actually proven my point That was my point...we've thrown it out the window due to political correctness and legal wording...they should have made a case and outlawed what happened but since they didn't it won't stop anytime soon
They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Ben Franklin
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: SouthBamaSlayer]
#3359545
02/23/21 11:03 AM
02/23/21 11:03 AM
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 12,918 Old Florida
Geno
Booner
|
Booner
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 12,918
Old Florida
|
I think this has less to do with them being a conservative/non-conservative court and more to do with them not wanting to be viewed as ruling from the judicial branch. Let's say they took the case(s) and ruled for Trump (which believe me, there's nothing I would have wanted more) and overturned the election results. People would lose their minds and there would be complete upheaval not just here at home but abroad as well, what kind of message would that send? The dems cheated, they got away with it and we must do whatever it takes to ensure it never happens again. That is obviously not going to be done at the Supreme court so start getting creative. Who cares what they wanted to avoid? Itβs not their job to worry about implications. Itβs their job to rule on what is legal/constitutional.
Whoever is happy will make others happy too. Anne Frank
|
|
|
Re: SCOTUS won't review 2020 election
[Re: FreeStateHunter]
#3359554
02/23/21 11:20 AM
02/23/21 11:20 AM
|
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,157 B'ham
Goatkiller
14 point
|
14 point
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,157
B'ham
|
The interpretation of Article 1 Section 4 is called the Elections Clause. I can't teach a political science class on here but if you don't know what you are talking about I can't help you with the subject at hand, in particular if you don't want to hear facts. Based on the comments re: position on Doekiller's opinon the assumption is that I am taking as evidence people's personal opinions from board. What? My evidence is jb20's post of some other member? What? This argument shows me a lack of critical thinking. Thus, no reason to continue.
No government employees were harmed in the making of this mess.
|
|
|
|