Discussion:
Democrats are scared
(too old to reply)
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-12 14:06:17 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:00:56 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 08:27:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
I will bet $1000 and give you 10-to-1
odds that SCOTUS does not rule in favor of Texas.
So you're betting that the SCOTUS does not rule in favor of the
Constitution..
You made a funny.
It was rejected on technical grounds. Texas did not have a legitimate
interest. It did not simply rule against it. What those four states
did was unconstitutional and was not disproven.
Actually since it's NOT an appellate case and it's a direct case for the
SUPREME COURT between States, they can't turn it down unless they say it
outside their jurisdiction. Because they are the first level of action.

That have to make a decision that it's either actionable and set a date
for the trial or it's outside their jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.
They have no other choices.

Article III
Section 2. The judicial Power shall *extend to all Cases* , *in Law and*
*Equity* , arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to
Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — *to*
*Controversies between* *two or more States* ; — *between a State and*
*Citizens of* *another State* ; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] —
*between Citizens* *of different States* ; — between Citizens of the
same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, *and between
a State, or the* *Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or
Subjects* .

No where does it say the Supreme Court can *choose to NOT do* their
mandated job of hearing the case if it's in their jurisdiction.

And the Constitution says that;
*Controversies between two or more States*

The election fraud is a controversy between two or more States.

There is no if in that mandate by the Constitution, the USSC can't deny
the case being heard.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
BeamMeUpScotty
2020-12-12 18:20:44 UTC
Permalink
On 12/12/2020 6:06 AM, #ReamMeUpTheAssSnotty, brain-damaged fucktard who
rode his scooter into a tree while not wearing a helmet, stupidly bawled
Post by BeamMeUpScotty
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 15:00:56 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
On Fri, 11 Dec 2020 08:27:49 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
I will bet $1000 and give you 10-to-1
odds that SCOTUS does not rule in favor of Texas.
So you're betting that the SCOTUS does not rule in favor of the
Constitution..
You made a funny.
It was rejected on technical grounds. Texas did not have a legitimate
interest. It did not simply rule against it.  What those four states
did was unconstitutional and was not disproven.
Actually since it's NOT an appellate case and it's a direct case for
the SUPREME COURT between States, they can't turn it down unless they
say it outside their jurisdiction. Because they are the first level of
action.
That have to make a decision that it's either actionable and set a
date for the trial or it's outside their jurisdiction of the Supreme
Court. They have no other choices.
Article III
Section 2. The judicial Power shall *extend to all Cases* , *in Law
and* *Equity* , arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the
United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public
Ministers and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime
Jurisdiction; — to Controversies to which the United States shall be a
Party; — *to* *Controversies between* *two or more States* ; —
*between a State and* *Citizens of* *another State* ; [Note: modified
by Amendment XI] — *between Citizens* *of different States* ; —
between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of
different States, *and between a State, or the* *Citizens thereof, and
foreign States, Citizens or Subjects* .
No standing, no controversy
   Standing
   A threshold concern for all federal courts is the presence, or
absence, of
   constitutional standing.
....to *Controversies* to which the United States shall be a Party; — to
*Controversies* between two or more States;

Either one works as Texas and other States are having their Legislatures
LEGAL and CONSTITUTIONAL U.S. ELECTORAL COLLEGE votes undermined by fraud.

And there you have the Constitutional standing.

The constitution says the standing that it has to rise to is
"CONTROVERSIES" between two or more states. And that condition was
already met when the brief was filed that suggested a Controversy.

Texas and other States lost their right to have their votes be
effectively counted. The State of Texas and others lost accurate
representation of their electoral college votes and thereby lost the
value of the legislatures ability to have their Constitutional mandated
legal and Constitutional outcome of the election to count, as promised
to them by the U.S. Constitution. Due to the ELECTION FRAUD in the other
named states... which is NOT really the reason for the Courts to hear
the case, the true reason is that it's mandated in the Constitution and
that is all the standing they needed.

The USSC was only going to tell the States that they can't commit fraud
against their fellow States under the U.S. Constitution.

As the Justices failed to do their JOB they took an oath to do, they now
need to be impeached. Remember that Justice Roberts made up law and
resurrected ObamaCare as Constitutional when Roberts didn't even have
the power to make law. It would seem possible that Roberts would see an
"argument that he thinks does have standing" and would have used that
given the USSC loose adherence to the Constitution. .

After all, they don't seem to follow the Constitution so they they
should apply their unConstitutional behavior equally, to at least create
a FACADE of equal justice. Even if it's unconstitutional FAKE JUSTICE.




Article III
["""Section 2. The judicial Power shall *extend to all Cases* , *in Law*
and *Equity* , arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United
States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their
Authority; — to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers
and Consuls; — to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; — to
Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; — *to*
*Controversies between* *two or more States* ; — *between a State and*
*Citizens of* *another State* ; [Note: modified by Amendment XI] —
*between Citizens* *of different States*


In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,
and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have
original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the
supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and
Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress
shall make.

I see nothing to override what I quoted in anything you posted.
Try again. The Constitution is the supreme law and it specifically
discusses *Controversies between two or more States* as being the
"shall" when it comes to *ORIGINAL JURISDICTION* and the level of any
standing... it was mandated as *CONTROVERSIES* by the Constitution.
They give no options or other choices when the particular case of States
being the ones bringing the law suit for law and equity.
--
TAKE THE RED PILL

https://www.oann.com/ https://americasvoice.news/
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/ https://www.zerohedge.com/
https://www.infowars.com/ https://www.tatumreport.com/
https://thenationalpulse.com/ https://www.breitbart.com/
https://www.parler.com/ https://rumble.com/
https://banned.video/ https://www.mrctv.org/
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...