If the Supremes don't act soon, John Roberts will end up the scapegoat

[roamer_1]

Show me the court that can see evidence it flatly refuses to look at even when directly required by the Constitution to do so @roamer_1

I understand what you're saying @Bigun - And I agree  with your idea of original jurisdiction - But I disagree with you regarding standing. Original jurisdiction does not mean inherently that standing does not apply - the two are not mutually exclusive.

[roamer_1]

All the circumstantial evidence is there - obviously massive fraud occurred. But all the hard evidence that resulted in the circumstantial evidence we see has been eliminated. No body, no murder. So Trump's legal team cannot even mention the word 'fraud' in their court briefs or they risk being sanctioned for 'frivolous' charges by the court. They've been screwed, legally speaking. The only remaining option is a political one. And with the rat media and Big Tech seeing that most of the nation remains ignorant as to what obviously happened public pressure will simply not be enough for Trump to prevail. Not to mention dickiebirds like Romney and Murkowski just waiting to slam the lid on his administration.

I'm afraid the best thing we can expect is the entire record is laid out for posterity. Even so alot of good that'll do us.

That's probably right... Falling back to spilled milk and all that eventually. Or war.

[skeeter]

That's probably right... Falling back to spilled milk and all that eventually. Or war.

The state is leaving us with no other alternatives.

[roamer_1]

The state is leaving us with no other alternatives.

There could be quite a ways to go... But this sure ain't helping.

[skeeter]

There could be quite a ways to go... But this sure ain't helping.

Frankly I don't think we have it in us as a people anymore. Too many factions, too comfortable, not enough in common. And our heritage as rugged individuals fiercely jealous of our liberties too far in the rear view mirror.

[roamer_1]

Frankly I don't think we have it in us as a people anymore. Too many factions, too comfortable, not enough in common. And our heritage as rugged individuals fiercely jealous of our liberties too far in the rear view mirror.

Nah. The west still has it in em. But then, we tend to be far more libertarian and federalist than our counterparts in other parts of the nation. Same with the desert Southwest. But I would not put it past the South either, nor the Midwest - Though anymore, their comforts have left them more dependent... And that is what we are talking about, really. A dependent people is a people who can be ruled. Even if they are only dependent upon their conveniences.

If you think they're wild, it's just because they can't be broken - It's a strong and gentle people living there. - John Denver Wrangle Mountain Song

[Bigun]

I understand what you're saying @Bigun - And I agree  with your idea of original jurisdiction - But I disagree with you regarding standing. Original jurisdiction does not mean inherently that standing does not apply - the two are not mutually exclusive.

Two words! Bull shit!  Show me where it says a word about "Standing" in the Constitution!  This idea of "standing" is a 20th-century contrivance of the court itself which they use when they find it convenient. It's total BS!  @roamer_1

[roamer_1]

Two words! Bull shit!  Show me where it says a word about "Standing" in the Constitution!  This idea of "standing" is a 20th-century contrivance of the court itself which they use when they find it convenient. It's total BS!  @roamer_1

IANAL, but I do believe that standing has an ancient derivation. I studied rudimentary law across centuries and the concept of standing is nothing new. Showing injury, imminent injury and causation is part and parcel of civil law. Standing itself has a long history. And with it, jurisdiction.

As it reflects upon the SCOTUS i think is where your complaint must lie... And I will leave arguing that to more prepared minds. As far as the principle of standing being applied from the SCOTUS, I have no argument with that. And the point is moot as far as I am concerned, because the SCOTUS opinion was dead wrong. Jurisdiction and imminent harm can be proven without a doubt. It should have been heard. And in the concept of original jurisdiction, that should be with emphasis - there is no other court to hear it.

@Bigun

[Smokin Joe]

https://youtu.be/IKiyAy9vjrk

https://www.timebomb2000.com/xf/index.php?threads/november-3-the-2020-u-s-election-day-main-thread.588435/page-229

Links to  1400 pages of evidence: https://got-freedom.org/evidence/

[sneakypete]

No, being a scapegoat implies innocence.

@skeeter

BINGO!

[sneakypete]

Dumbya fooled us on a lot of things, didn't he?

@dfwgator

Not really. It was pretty obvious he was a homosexual mama's boy,but most of us ignored that and just hoped he would do better than expected because the other option was even worse.

If we had stood up on our hind legs back then and demanded better,we wouldn't be in the position we are in today,but we didn't.

Hell,we still aren't. Look at all the fools who hate Trump because he has been unfaithful to his wife (and at least it was with an actual woman!) and/or that he has bad manners.

Style before substance got us here,and it's nobody's fault but our own.

[sneakypete]

I'm trying to get people stop worshipping at the altar of a false god.  Trump lost and is now proving what a low character he actually is.

@goatprairie

Confessing that Slow Joe,the retard,and the DNC are the "true Gods" that you worship?

[sneakypete]

All the circumstantial evidence is there - obviously massive fraud occurred. But all the hard evidence that resulted in the circumstantial evidence we see has been eliminated. No body, no murder. So Trump's legal team cannot even mention the word 'fraud' in their court briefs or they risk being sanctioned for 'frivolous' charges by the court. They've been screwed, legally speaking. The only remaining option is a political one. And with the rat media and Big Tech seeing that most of the nation remains ignorant as to what obviously happened public pressure will simply not be enough for Trump to prevail. Not to mention dickiebirds like Romney and Murkowski just waiting to slam the lid on his administration.

I'm afraid the best thing we can expect is the entire record is laid out for posterity. Even so alot of good that'll do us.

@skeeter

You are assuming all this will be mentioned in the history books.

WHY would you assume this?

IF it get mentioned at all,it will be mentioned as "bitter Republicans tried to tell lies in order to keep Biden from assuming his rightful throne.",end of story."

[Bigun]

IANAL, but I do believe that standing has an ancient derivation. I studied rudimentary law across centuries and the concept of standing is nothing new. Showing injury, imminent injury and causation is part and parcel of civil law. Standing itself has a long history. And with it, jurisdiction.

As it reflects upon the SCOTUS i think is where your complaint must lie... And I will leave arguing that to more prepared minds. As far as the principle of standing being applied from the SCOTUS, I have no argument with that. And the point is moot as far as I am concerned, because the SCOTUS opinion was dead wrong. Jurisdiction and imminent harm can be proven without a doubt. It should have been heard. And in the concept of original jurisdiction, that should be with emphasis - there is no other court to hear it.

@Bigun

I'm not speaking about ancient law studies or anything else but current constitutional law in the United States of America @roamer_1 and I defy you, or anyone for that matter,  to show me the case that never got heard because of lack of standing prior to the 1920s in this country.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Two words! Bull shit!  Show me where it says a word about "Standing" in the Constitution!  This idea of "standing" is a 20th-century contrivance of the court itself which they use when they find it convenient. It's total BS!  @roamer_1

[corbe]

   I thought this was about The Supremes.


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1

[roamer_1]

I'm not speaking about ancient law studies or anything else but current constitutional law in the United States of America @roamer_1 and I defy you, or anyone for that matter,  to show me the case that never got heard because of lack of standing prior to the 1920s in this country.

Again, IANAL... But what you seem to be telling me is that there was no means for dealing with frivolous lawsuits prior to the '20s, as that is the purpose of 'standing'... Perhaps that is so - That the bucolic days of yore were more honest and forthright, and our courts were not overburdened...

But standing certainly finds precedent in common law - That precedent being valid in the basis if in nothing else. The demand to show injury and that the court can legally offer redress is no invention of late.

@Bigun

[Smokin Joe]

Again, IANAL... But what you seem to be telling me is that there was no means for dealing with frivolous lawsuits prior to the '20s, as that is the purpose of 'standing'... Perhaps that is so - That the bucolic days of yore were more honest and forthright, and our courts were not overburdened...

But standing certainly finds precedent in common law - That precedent being valid in the basis if in nothing else. The demand to show injury and that the court can legally offer redress is no invention of late.

@Bigun

Consider: 200,000 fraudulent votes basically removes the votes of two thirds of the voters in my State in 2020.
While popular vote is not the determining factor, that was just one State where that many votes were counted that exceeded the number of eligible voters.

We are far enough down the proverbial sunlight pipeline already, but to have some damned urban area back East conjure up enough votes to negate most of the votes in my State is damned repugnant to me, and to have them get away with it, well, that dog don't hunt.

As of today, if it is made in Georgia, originates in Georgia, grown in Georgia, even passes through Georgia, I'm not buying it. Ditto Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

I can't get relief from the courts, I'll just do my little bit.

[roamer_1]

Consider: 200,000 fraudulent votes basically removes the votes of two thirds of the voters in my State in 2020.
While popular vote is not the determining factor, that was just one State where that many votes were counted that exceeded the number of eligible voters.

We are far enough down the proverbial sunlight pipeline already, but to have some damned urban area back East conjure up enough votes to negate most of the votes in my State is damned repugnant to me, and to have them get away with it, well, that dog don't hunt.

As of today, if it is made in Georgia, originates in Georgia, grown in Georgia, even passes through Georgia, I'm not buying it. Ditto Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

I can't get relief from the courts, I'll just do my little bit.

I have already said that the SCOTUS ruling of 'no standing' is dead wrong. It is undoubtedly within their jurisdiction and in fact is a matter of Original Jurisdiction... Thus they are the only ones capable of redress... And imminent injury is apparent.

So I would question where they have determined 'no standing' unless it is indeed the jurisdiction of congress (which it may well be), having found redress in the past by rejecting electors. Maybe that is the thought, and the actual actionable standing is only after congress fails to do its job.

I don't know.

[Bigun]

Again, IANAL... But what you seem to be telling me is that there was no means for dealing with frivolous lawsuits prior to the '20s, as that is the purpose of 'standing'... Perhaps that is so - That the bucolic days of yore were more honest and forthright, and our courts were not overburdened...

But standing certainly finds precedent in common law - That precedent being valid in the basis if in nothing else. The demand to show injury and that the court can legally offer redress is no invention of late.

@Bigun

@roamer_1

You really should take a look at the material you will find at the link below.

https://www.timetoast.com/timelines/supreme-court-cases-1800-1880

Courts back then did not dodge their responsibility as they do now with their own contrivances such as "standing".

And BTW:  I am not a lawyer either but I do read and interpret the English language very well.