The Media Aggressively ‘Others’ Trump Voters by David Catron

[roamer_1]

The conservatives are not happy that the Rodents stole the election.

If a person cannot admit the election was stolen, they're clearly not a conservative.

Yeah... And all you need is proof. In a court of law or a certified audit.

[roamer_1]

^^^ Definitely NOT a conservative ^^^

Conservatism barely touches politics. Conservatism is a way of life.

[roamer_1]

The United States Supreme Court has jurisdiction on a arguments between the states.

Not where the states don't have standing.

When a group of states violates the Constitution and thereby unlawfully alters the outcome of a presidential election, the Supreme Court is the proper venue for the dispute.

Period.

No it is not. Or there is no state sovereignty. the SOLE authority is rested in the states variously

When Bush sued Albore while Albore was using the SCOFLAW of Floriduh to violate Floriduh election laws, specifically to steal the state's electors and hence the White House, the Supreme Court rightly ruled that the fake recounts have to stop.   The Court's jurisdiction over federal elections wasn't diminished in the succeeding twenty years.

I disagree. I think it should have been the legislature that certified or not. Stuffing the SCOTUS in there stepped on Florida's natural sovereignty... And opened a can of worms allowing states to abrogate their duties.

[roamer_1]

Maybe you should read the Constitution some day and realize that the states are not fully sovereign entities.

States can't coin their own money, they can't wage war, they can't have their own armies, they can't do any number of things.

Things not enumerated to the fed are left with the state and the People. HOW the state elects is specifically left to the state legislature. Specifically NOT enumerated to federal authority. A RESERVED right of the sovereign state by way of its legislature.

And one of the things they're not allowed to do is have their executive or judicial branches alter how the states select their presidential electors.

That is not necessarily so - That depends upon what the state legislature has written describing its private election and its various recourse in regard to its agents and their powers... If the state has authorized its governor, that is their business, not the feds, and not yours. It boils down to the agents of the legislature certifying the vote and dispensing their electors. If that has happened there is no recourse. Nor should there be.

[Smokin Joe]

I am more in agreement with SCOTUS than Texas on that one. I don't need liberal states telling Montana how to vote. SCAZ however, has jurisdiction, if any court does.

Whoa, Holdit. It isn't a question of Texans telling Pennsylvanians HOW to vote. All they wanted was for Pennsylvania to follow the Constitution and have their rules made by their State Legislature like the other States Constitutionally are required to do.

The beef? Texas and many other states followed the Constitution (their respective State Legislatures made their rules), PA and many others did NOT, with rules changed by people other than the Legislature at the last minute.
Those rules broke the rules, as set forth in the Constitution, and their respective legislatures commonly didn't have time to do anything about it.

Notably, every one of those rule changes either enabled of facilitated any fraud which may have occurred.

[roamer_1]

Whoa, Holdit. It isn't a question of Texans telling Pennsylvanians HOW to vote. All they wanted was for Pennsylvania to follow the Constitution and have their rules made by their State Legislature like the other States Constitutionally are required to do.

The beef? Texas and many other states followed the Constitution (their respective State Legislatures made their rules), PA and many others did NOT, with rules changed by people other than the Legislature at the last minute.
Those rules broke the rules, as set forth in the Constitution, and their respective legislatures commonly didn't have time to do anything about it.

Notably, every one of those rule changes either enabled of facilitated any fraud which may have occurred.

I understand the beef. It ain't that simple. What is on point is what the legislature authorized its agents to do - What recourse, what leeway, what impact in emergency situations. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but the legislature certified, so according to the legislature, it was legit. And according to the sole authority rule, that is the only opinion that matters.

[Smokin Joe]

I understand the beef. It ain't that simple. What is on point is what the legislature authorized its agents to do - What recourse, what leeway, what impact in emergency situations. I don't know the ins and outs of it, but the legislature certified, so according to the legislature, it was legit. And according to the sole authority rule, that is the only opinion that matters.

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/republican-election-officials-threatened-during-zoom-call-for-refusing-to-certify-michigan-results/news-story/61cde459c0a60f54289206a87f089cd9

Riots in the streets, doxxing, and personal threats? Legit my ass.

Mobocracy.

[roamer_1]

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/republican-election-officials-threatened-during-zoom-call-for-refusing-to-certify-michigan-results/news-story/61cde459c0a60f54289206a87f089cd9

Riots in the streets, doxxing, and personal threats? Legit my ass.

Mobocracy.

meh. I don't trust reporting. In any direction. Wait and see what shakes out.