Dinesh D’Souza is an intellectually honest patriot of temperate disposition. In this brief video D’Souza provides a short encapsulation about how the Supreme Court decision against Texas doesn’t make any sense. If the Supreme Court will not take up a state’s right to stop wide-scale election fraud in another state then what exactly is SCOTUS role in the framework of a three co-equal branches inside our constitutional republic.
I doubt attendees to the constitutional convention would have ratified any agreement that said intentional corruption and manipulation in one state election system can nullify the senate votes of another – and there is no legal redress or grievance venue.
If SCOTUS continues to deny their institutional responsibility to defend the constitutional framework of the republic, then why the hell are they empowered as ‘co-equal’.
.
Surely the Supreme Court is awake to the reality if they shirk their duty, then rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes…. ‘surely‘
Wasn’t it wonderful the way the democrats ok’d ACB?
I am sorry acn is above average but is not and never was a strong nationalist with a backbone to stand up to obvious illegal democrat shenanigans.
She is not incompetent but she was appointed for style points and because Democrats knew shes wishy washy.
ACB is a Libtard soccer mom. Intelligent as hell, but the commonsense of a fools hen.
Trump got to pick three Supreme Court Justices but what he got are a Libtard and two Pussies.
Saw it a mile away but what are ya gonna do ?
Not much you can do when folks are too busy polishing Trump’s knob to see what’s really going on.
And that there is the problem. Anyone who dared criticize Trump’s choices was called a troll and berated. No matter how many poor decisions he made, far too many blindly trusted “the plan” or reasoned it away as VSG Trump knowing more than us and we should shut up.
bulwarker, spot on. That’s EXACTLY what happened, too. Still does. I got the sheet viciously kicked out of me on another site for merely posting a link to an article by one of the few conservatives with the courage to call out the con. I was called everything from a libtard to a racist. I would have bit back, but I happen to know the guy is suffering from cancer and the effects of steroids, so I just withdrew.
It’s so interesting to me that many so-called “conservatives” just LOVE to adopt the tactics of the left and run it on others who are essentially on their side. It’s every bit as bad. Worse, actually.
You’re an obvious troll and an obvious neverTrumper. It’s people like you who have made the republican party the puppet of the Democrats. Trump was limited in who he could pick fr any position by who he could get past the left-wing “republican” Senate. The notion that a Clarence Thmas style judge could get confirmed by McConnell and company is ludicrous.
Baloney. McConnell would be a pariah in his own party if he sabotaged one of PDJT’s SC picks. You put the ball in their court, not the other way around.
The “only ACB” crowd would not listen to any dissenting opinions about her. A bit too late now, eh?
ACB did what Pope Francis wanted her to do.
Well, there ya go. You just proved bulwarker’s point to a T.
“Trump was limited in who he could pick fr any position by who he could get past the left-wing “republican” Senate.”
Wish I had a nickel (not a wooden one, lol) for every time I’ve heard “Trump can’t because…” over the past four years.
Well then overthrow the government and anoint a king. It appears as though that’s what you want. Otherwise the President had to work through the Senate. That means they had to get past Mitr, Collins, Mirkowski, Alexander, Graham, and numerous others.
Good comment John55.
These posters Margot and her? friend pick on Trump but when the choice is to voter for Biden and Harris and the CCP they are the mentally ill ones.
Give me a break Margot.
Still waiting for the Durham report are you?
Nice. Any other words of wisdom?
I, for one, would like to be able to see who upvotes what.
I upvoted Buck, JustDoItNow, bulwarker and Magabear. And you. I don’t really care who upvotes what, though. But since you are curious, I thought I’d go on record.
that latest ? was me ?.
Me too PJ, I really miss that here.
Yes. Don’t take any wooden nickels.
I smelled the rat a year ago when everone on the right was singing hosannas of the worlds toughest smartest strongest most bad a*_ justice ever– Saint ACB.
It was another sappy media wondermom story impossible to swallow. But seemed like everyone did.
Last year. Yup she was the best ever so lets not even consider any if hundreds of candidates.
Really? Shes that good? Wow i never heard of her. What was it she did, again?
Shut up what are you some kind of caveman that is looking for a track record and proven credentials? You must not want a woman to be appointed.
No but im not Charlie Brown who is going to kick that football Lucy is holding.
Revolver News sent up the warning smoke signals on ACB. So did a couple of other, more obscure on line personalities.
So Margot why did you not warn all of us of your wisdom back then.
Why did you not show up here on the Treehouse and tell all of us dumb bells how this was going to play out?
I went back to some of the articles on the Treehouse back then and could not find you and your giant brain warning everyone how awful ACB was going to be.
Where were you?
Durham report should be coming any day now.
All the push for ACB was based on one event: her confrontation with Feinstein during her Circuit Court confirmation hearing. That was it, and the drumbeat for her to be picked as the next SC judge never stopped from that point on.
I do not remember you here telling us in all of your wisdom that this horrible terrible woman was going to wreck the constitution as we now it.
I have just gone back to those articles and could not find you anywhere on the thread warning us of Amy CB terrible horrible record.
Where where you and Margot?
Why did you not show up back then to tell all of us what was going to happen?
Speaking for myself, I was actually an ACB fan at the time. And then I read Revolver’s excellent analysis of the judges under consideration. I looked for more information, and changed my mind.
You want her, you got her. How’d that work out for you?
There’s a lot of bitterness (understandable) in the Trumposphere right now. And people like you look for someone to take it out on. Newsflash: I didn’t appoint her. I didn’t appoint Barr, either. Or Wray, for that matter. Or Gina Haspel.
I have no obligation to weigh in on every issue with every opinion of mine and argue my cases, nor do I have the time or inclination to do so. I am an infrequent and selective commenter here.
I told you what i saw a year ago when the acb mania was unleashed. I didnt buy it. If you dont believe me thats fine.
Do you have anything better to do with your time than try to pick arguments at tch? Grow up
Mitch got 3 SCOTUS nominees he filled them but gave Trump kudus for not ruining his little fiefdom.
If I recall correctly, there were two stronger, more solid patriots / Conservatives, who were passed over simply because they happened to be male. ACB was an affirmative action pick that never should have happened.
When exactly did they do that?
The fact that she was hired and worked at Notre Dame let you know she wasn’t a stalwart conservative. Notre Dame is leftist in the extreme with lots of Marxist friendly professors – has been so for decades.
Yes. And saying so at the time — ie, questioning ACB — was enough to get everyone at CTH yelling at you. Sometimes we need to remember here that it is entirely possibly (and even necessary) to be 100% loyal to President Trump, to have full faith in him — and at the same time to question when everyone in the republican party likes what he’s doing. If he’s not pissing off both the Ds and AT LEAST HALF the Rs, we NEED to worry.
As soon as President Trump was elected, it became forbidden to question anything happening at the White House. So while basically everyone around him a was a NeverTrumper who was leaking information and literally plotting against him, if anyone called out what was happening, they were considered a troll and traitor. Some of the most outspoken Trump supporters from the election, like Alex Jones, were banned from social media as “too extreme”, and very few Conservatives defended them. Now it’s people like Alex Jones who are marching in DC and trying to stop the steal.
I guess my original point was we all love ACB’s intelligence. But it must be tempered with a realization that she sees the bench as a logical game of monopoly with rules for everything and anything. But who decides which rules we acknowledge and follow? That uneasy feeling that the democrats went along with her nomination bothered me more than anything.
Stop The Steal doesn’t just apply to the election. The Left has been stealing or riding roughshod over our culture, our educational system, our Federal, state, and local governments, and basically our country for too long. There will be backlash and a reckoning, if not by electoral means, then…?
They’ve been at it a long time, probably as long as there have been Dems. The difference is that this time they overplayed their hand, and so we finally have an opportunity to hold them accountable, if we are able to.
“Stop The Steal”
Lol, I was scrolling through and my dyslexia kicked in and I read that as “Stop The Stool”. I had to back up and look twice.
Excellent explanation from D’Souza.
Yes, and I liked his delivery, too.
LOVE that image.
Modern take, on an “ancient” image.
“…then what exactly is SCOTUS role in the framework of a three co-equal branches inside our constitutional republic?“
The purpose of the Supreme Court, just like Bill Barr over there at the corrupt DOJ, is to preserve the status quo. We will get no justice from a system that is aligned specifically to conceal fraud, cover up corruption, and deny the right of citizens to demand the Government Party redress our grievances. Elections are held, but rarely does anything change unless that change benefits the Government Party. Obamacare is a classic example – it is a complete rejection of Constitutional Rights. The GOP makes a lot of noise but ultimately does nothing that cannot be quickly reversed later. The Supreme Court determines that while mandates are unConstitutional, taxes are not, so the Supreme Court rebadges Obamacare as a tax despite the spoken words of ALL Obamacare proponents that it is “not a tax”.
The status quo is to be preserved except for instances in which Government Power is expanded. When I said I was skeptical about the Court accepting and hearing ANY case, I pointed to the recent religious liberty decision in New York. Ultimately, the court didn’t decide that what NY did was unconstitutional because it violates religious liberty. At the end of the day, their actual ruling is that what NYS did was perfectly fine because states can do whatever they want in the name of a pandemic. It’s just that NYS treated churches unfairly compared to bars and restaurants.
And that decision was 5-4.
Once you accept that the Government Party is aligned specifically to consolidate its own power and maintain the status quo, you accept that continued engagement in the political process in this country is absolutely pointless. We should, instead, be spending our energy helping regular Americans who aren’t there yet mentally to get more and more comfortable rejecting the status quo.
We have to teach them how to rebel. This can be done peacefully, and it need not overturn the Constitutional Republic. But it would require wide swaths of the public to reject the current order and simply ignore the authority of those who would abuse its power.
If we all are born with God-given Rights that cannot be taken away by anyone, exactly how does one peacefully fight back against those that have taken away these Rights…all done under the “color” of Man-made Law. Last time I checked, our own Government decided a long time ago that it is even illegal for any State to peacefully even decide to leave the Union. OK to declare “Independence” from England and have a War over it, but not OK to Legally leave the new Government created as a result? I do not understand anything anymore. Where exactly was the “wisdom” of the Founding Fathers on that contradiction?
The South was within their right to leave the Union……
The founding fathers would have certainly allowed a state to leave. It was Lincoln who enforced the Union above all else. Even started a war to enforce it.
“How does one peacefully fight back against those that have taken away these Rights”?Just don’t do what they say. Don’t close the restaurants, don’t wear a mask, don’t do it. If one person walks in without a mask, “they” can complain, kick you out, get a policeman, arrest you. But what if everyone walks in without a mask? If there are 300 of you without masks they’ll just step aside, what can they do? If a restaurant opens everyone go there. let the police come, etc. There is a point of critical mass where they will back off. They can’t arrest or process that many. That’s why a crowd is so dangerous. They can really do nothing about it. They depend on the illusion of power and authority.
Similarly, what if everyone simultaneously stopped paying their taxes? Stopped enlisting in the military? Stopped joining the police force? What if everyone cut cable? Turned off the TV. Stopped watching sports. Stopped paying tuition. Stopped attending online college at outrageous expense.
There are also affirmative, empowering, things we can do. The Government Party worships consumerism and debt. Ask yourself, “Do I want that or do I need it?” Choose to live a simpler life. Not a life of deprivations, but a life not driven by crap you don’t need. Similarly, pay off all debts. Mortgage, car, credit cards.
Debt is a prison of our own making. It instills fear. “How will I pay all this debt if I lose my job?” It will almost always be the case that you need money for something. But you’re a lot harder to control if your cash flow isn’t consumed by debt.
Affirmatively walking away from the culture serves another purpose: you’re a smaller target. Ditch social media, for example. The less you’re seen, the less they know. That doesn’t mean be silenced. It means speak where your words will actually do some good.
Saying “no” is important. Drawing the line. But acting affirmatively is equally or more important.
Perhaps Retired Realtor but then again maybe not.
If they can leave over slavery they can leave because they do not like some tax law or something else.
Then they will want to come back in then they will want to leave for some other reason.
States will come and go and the idea of a United States will be blown all to……..
We will no longer have a More Perfect Union.
We will have people who are running state who want to come and go at a whim just because they do not like something that does not sit well with them at the particular moment in time.
Just a thought.
So I still do not understand that logic. Ok to forcibly fight to leave English rule and set up new system…create new system but do not tell the common people (actual voters) that once a State joins they can never leave…even by peaceful exercise of “Free will”. And…if a State does exercise “Free will” then the Fed Govt. will forcibly enter that State and Kill & Destroy as many people and property as possible until said Offender State “voluntarily” submits. If, in practical effect, this is what happened…then tell me exactly how is that system any better than a Monarchy?
20,000. hunters with their
orange hunting garb with shotguns at a State Capital would do the trick. 80,000 people with Black Scary Guns if that does not work.
Warning
⚠️ This comment has been flagged as the absolute truth
I’m not against people making themselves visible. But always remember the wickedness of the Left. They will either call your bluff, send one of their own in to start a gun battle which they blame on us, or send terrorists to attack us and say we started it.
Again, not against armed citizens making a statement. But think that through and plan accordingly.
We don’t need guns – yet. But as someone stated already, 20,000 or 80,000 people without masks. The same number refusing to shut down their businesses and their customers coming to do business with them in huge numbers.
The problem is so many seem to be afraid of this stupid virus, more afraid of anything they ever were afraid of before this. How did the rulers convince the people to be so afraid? I think some of it stems from the gradual lowering of the average person’s tolerance for risk. A whole generation who think we should be able to get through life without ever getting sick or injured or having an accident.
“We should, instead, be spending our energy helping regular Americans who aren’t there yet mentally to get more and more comfortable rejecting the status quo.”
If this election and four years of BS from the DO’J’, FBI, CIA, CONgress, RINOs, the MSM, etc. with zero consequences for the perps hasn’t led to them already being there, what in the hell will drive Joe and Jane Six Pack to be “more comfortable rejecting the status quo”?
And here’s how everyone can “reject the status quo” on an individual basis in a very simple and easy way: stop spending money at and end your participation with the businesses behind the corrupt status quo of the UniParty. Social media, Hollywood, ANYTHING labelled “Made in China” that you don’t actually need and can’t get from any other source, etc. If 80+ million people and their minor dependents did that, it would be noticed. Starve the beast.
What I mean is that there are PLENTY of people getting red pilled by the things you cite. The problem is people not knowing what actions they can take.
The Pennsylvania legislature is Republican in both houses;
The Wisconsin legislature is Republican in both houses;
The Michigan legislature is Republican in both houses;
The Georgia legislature is Republican in both houses.
If these state legislatures ignore the evidence of fraud and certify Electors for Biden then there is nothing the Supreme Court can do about it. The Court has no say over the appointment of Electors. We are placing the blame on the wrong people (excuse me, the wrong process).
They could have issued an injunction so the fraud could be investigated. They chose not to. Fraud between States in violation of the Constitution is allowable.
Does that then mean that the Founding Fathers thought a Royal Blood Monarchy to be somehow worse to exist than the Governmental Monarchy that they invented to take its place, under the guise of calling what they were installing a “Representative Republic? Meet the new Boss…same as the old Boss. Our form of “Government” is and has been the biggest Fraud perpetrated in modern history.
It isn’t our form of government that’s the problem. Many of us are not a moral type of people that a Republican form of government should have as constituents. Broken families, drugs (INCLUDE marijuana as the all time great gateway drug) and the banning of Christianity and patriotism are the elephants in this room.
I understand that. But, back in 1860, where did the authority come from for the Federal Government to decide that no State can ever leave the Union…and…if you do attempt to leave, the Federal Government (or Mob of other States that do not like what you did) can simply decide that you cannot do what you did and forcibly kill enough of you until you voluntarily surrender and admit that it was you that was wrong. How was this “system” any better than the system that it forcibly replaced?
You’re right. There was no authority for what Lincoln did.
He started a war to preserve the union by killing massive numbers of people who wanted no part of the union anymore.
It was all about power.
Slavery was not the reason for the war. That’s the pretty lie to make people support it.
Bingo. We’ve been an illegitimate “Republic” for awhile. Yet every child is inculcated with “one nation, under God, indivisible…”
Don’t think the FF intended for Government to be the CF–k it is today. Government was just for our protection….no DOE. DOJ..FBI…StateD….on and on……and there were no taxes on income…..so I don’t think the FF’s are to blame…..
Yes, I believe they delineated the specific areas that Federal Government is responsible for. And they were limited.
It wasn’t the Founders that screwed everything up.
Realtor,
Sadly, I agree. The new monarchy is the permanent Federal buerocracy. And the Article 3 courts are just another branch.
I read the decision Friday night, and as an attorney, I tried to understand it. Often, I am initially buffaloed by what the Court does and have to reason it out after a lot of rereading and reflection. I did those activities that night and by about 7:30 I was seething, as there was no justification, just a bunch of high paid pseudo intellectuals playing Graba$$ with each
other.
The State is a fictitious vessel, it is representative of the people within it who gave up some individual rights pursuant to the Lockean contract. The people of Texas were clearly harmed by the fraud as an honest result would have resonated with their honest choice.
The 7 psuedo intellectuals have left the people with no judicial remedy regarding electoral fraud. That puts the law abiding citizens of the 18 states in a position that they can only recover their rights through violence, which the Lockean Contract, when it operates honestly, avoids by proving a legitimate choice was made by the people. That is obviously not the case here, and the Court’s stature is damaged.
Alito and Thomas recognized original jurisdiction and a duty to hear out the plaintiffs case. They understand the plain meaning of the words in Article 3, and as lawyers we start interpretation by deciphering the plain meaning of language.
It is a pity that 7 “highly educated” people missed that law school 101 concept.
I am reminded of the words of Orwell, that it takes a highly educated person to believe in certain things.
If you think that is a compliment, read his quote carefully.
It’s pathetic that a country lawyer has more of a sense of plain meaning and coequal than the supposedly high grade minds being paid quite handsomely for their legal expertise.
There may be grave consequences to millions of us due to the shirking of responsibility.
Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law
Any lawyer who takes “standing” as a serious & legit legal doctrine is not a lawyer I ever take seriously as a legit legal thinker. Standing is a judicially invented doctrine that is just a bogus excuse to play Pontius Pilate & evade decisions judges want to avoid making.
I believe those legislatures are waiting for the SC to tell them to go forth and do their job. Despite Rudy showing the evidence and informing them they have the right and duty to do that. They are letting their Governors have control.
“If these state legislatures ignore the evidence of fraud and certify Electors for Biden….”
My understanding is that at least in the case of PA, the legislature has ceded its power to certify elections to the executive branch… which in PA is controlled by the Democrats. So it is not the state legislatures certifying Electors. That is precisely what the Texas law suit was about … the fact that these states are not acting in accordance with the US Constitution.
And no, they cannot ‘take back’ that power now, because the governors and courts will not permit that to occur.
The lack of action from Republican majority legislatures to the clear evidence of massive vote fraud in their states is a historical embarrassment. Dominion was known for being both well financed (Chinese money) and in the habit of making sure elected politicians received plenty of campaign donations. I suspect they haven’t done anything to deal with the voter fraus because they are all dirty. There’s a real incentive to quietly support Biden with the knowledge that once he’s sworn in as president, the whole voter fraud/Dominion lobbying issue will be forgotten allowing them to settle into being the ever-so polite “loyal opposition”.
Exactly. This should never have gotten to any court. Its easy to slam 3 SCOTUS judges, but not these state legislatures? I sure as hell will.
We have to learn to accept that “Republican” doesn’t mean “on the people’s side”. Those Legislators have ambitions that don’t involve us. They have – in their sphere – power and influence that is very nearly decoupled from us. Our continued participation in their affairs serves no purpose. They exist because of us. If they’re too stupid to act, and don’t think we care, then they deserve to lose in numbers so staggering that the Republican Party implodes.
That implosion won’t really affect us more than the current system’s implosion of representative government already has.
The Republicans want us to continue believing they serve our interests. This election – and the rampant unchecked fraud allowed by Republicans – is all the proof we need. That they are incapable of looking at what happened, and repudiating the results, means all the phone calls and letters in the world won’t matter.
We need to convince people to walk away and not look back. If the GOP can’t act unless we yell and scream at them, they’re not worth our time, treasure or talent.
Great post and timely post.
I’ve seen one poster here continually say that only the DOJ can intervene in election disputes like we have right now, but there’s a big problem with that position: the DOJ wasn’t created until July 1, 1870! So what mechanism existed until then for states to hold to account for election rigging?
No state would have joined the Union if each state were able to select electors for their state any way they felt like at a given time. The electors clause is in the Constitution for a reason.
The SC’s punting on an issue of this magnitude is exactly what will lead to the Union splitting apart. What would stop a coalition of states that make up 270 or more electoral votes from simply only allowing Democrats to be on the ballot? States rights, people!
And to think the 3 judges PDJT put on the bench could only muster up a two sentence dismissal of this case is mindboggling.
And to think the 3 judges PDJT put on the bench could only muster up a two sentence dismissal of this case is mindboggling.
Shocking. We’ve been betrayed.
Trumps three appointees to the SC let Trump and the nation down. Trump moved heaven and Earth to nominate these people.
So what do they do when a hot potato of nation-wide voter fraud is submitted for review and opinion? And they have a chance to bring order and justice to the stealing of a prez election?
Meh. We cant be bothered leave us alone.
Trumps SC nominees are absolutely pathetic and a major letdown. Maybe the worst part of his presidency. We thought the court was moving right and nationalist. But we got three lefty complete squishes. They will be on the court for decades.
Sad
There’s no need for the dims to stack the court. Remember you vote every day with your wallet. Succession? Is that the logical next step?
How can any State “Secede” when our “Government” has previously decided that it is Illegal to do so…and is willing to kill all of those whom rebel in this fashion with non-peaceful means?
I personally don’t think they have the balls to start mass killing civilians on live streaming worldwide.
A question I had was: If 19 states band together to succeed who would have the standing to sue them or stop them?
See this very apropos tweet today via CTH twitter account –
WOW, that cuts to the quick of it. I wish the Judges had to answer for this crap ruling.
Well, the War between the States is your best most recent example of what our Federal Government will do when any State engages peaceful processes via their Legislatures to do exactly what you now propose. Our “system” is a Representative Republic in Name only. Our Federal Government is nothing more than Mob Rule in practice.
Chaz or Chop was around for weeks without it being ended. I doubt there would be any way to stop 20+ states deciding to succeed in modern times. I suppose a President could send in troops and begin a civil war, but which troops? Troops from those 20+ states? What if those states house nuclear facilities? A new Constitutional convention may also be a consideration going forward. I think people are looking at the Civil War as though it’s mandatory in the event that states simply vote to secede. It’s not mandatory. There has to be the political and functional will and ability to carry it out. In my personal view, civil war is never justified. No group of people should ever be forced with the threat of death, to stay apart of any union.
And when your government comes for your guns that right they did not give you god did are you going to give them to them? Or when they decide the we are now going to be communist since we dems voted it in are you going to stand? When they obliterate your business through phoney shutdowns and you have no voice or choice are you going to stand? So when will you stand for civil war? Asking for a friend.
Antifa started another CHOP in porkland, and they have a large weapons cache.
Why don’t we “succeed” and declare “marshal law?” For goodness sake.
I am not so sure that secession is a goo way to go.
So 19 states decide to secede now.
Then a bit later 5 states become upset and decide to secede from those 19.
And a while later 6 states want to secede from the 31 states that are left from the 19 states who secedes earlier.
Now we have four countries made up of rag tag ticked off states who have secedes from the former 50 United states and no end in sight for them as far as who will leave and who will stay and when the breaking off will stop.
Then some counties within the states might want to secede and start new counties and there will be no end in sight ever.
Again just a thought.
As Lincoln said, A House Divided……….
Forget Dinesh, how about we listen to that American patriot’s comments in the image below the graphic?
Step One: Read CTH….
Step Two: Listen to all voices.
Step Three: Add your own….
Sometimes it seems people don’t read the whole article you wrote with all the captions. ??♂️ ?
Maybe it’s just me. I like to pay attention to all the details.
Whatever it takes!
I read the article fully and watched the vid and reviewed the graphics, as I have done here for almost 5 years.
Sundance, your points all duly noted.
if I had been more clear in my comment, my attempt at humour may have materialised. I realise it didn’t in that post, and I ask forgiveness✌️
Beyond me how the SCOTUS can act immune to the consequences of what they’ve done – this is their country too. Their whole premise of no standing in election cheating is as backwards as Dinesh says.
They don’t care. Only Alito and Thomas give a crap about the country.
Kagan, Sotomayer, and Breyer want a transformed country.
Roberts wants to do what his paynasters tell him too.
And Barret, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch are spoiled hacks who have led a charmed life of private schools, elite professional positions, and affluent (sheltered) neighborhoods. They can’t even conceive of the hell that is coming for all of us when the Republic falls because their lives have always been so easy. They also aren’t tough enough to stand up because they are soft people who had led soft lives. The expression “born on third base and think they hit a homerun” was made for people like them.
Just heard an interesting thought on the recent SC ruling……..
the reason TX has no standing was because at the moment of filing, technically TX had not been harmed since the official filing of electors by the 50 states had not occurred until TOMORROW the 14th.
the rejection was also WITHOUT prejudice, meaning it CAN be refilled. It also supports why Thomas made the strange comment that he supports taking the case but could not grant relief…
Because there technically has been no harm at that point.
Now last night we hear Rudy say they can and will refile. I’m no constitutional attorney but it does make some sense so I guess we will see if PT and TX refile Monday night or early Tuesday.
Then the supremes can say
they filed too late.
Isn’t that how it works?
Right. File before certification it is too early the results are not certified so nothing has actually happened. File after certification, well sorry the results are already certified nothing can be done now. See how that works?
But technically it was filed…..before then after
The globalist mono-Party will also invoke the “too big to fail” axiom.
Overturning an election and/or proving the Fraud that led to a tainted result … would be “too harmful” to our institution of Voting. Therefore, best to pretend nothing illicit happened. Right?
I read about this too. Can’t remember if it was on 8kun or thedonald.win
Well, you might be right.
Texas should refile.
All the work has been done already.
It would just be a filing fee.
Refile.
Make the Supreme Court rule AGAIN, and again embarrass themselves.
At the very least, it would help the people understand who is ruling us.
Refile!
“… the reason TX has no standing was because at the moment of filing, technically TX had not been harmed …”
That’s not what the SCOTUS said. They said Texas has no standing to sue over election fraud in other states, full stop.
All branches of “the state”, both at the Federal and State level, are united against further exposure of the reality of who they are, and their true value to the country, which threatens their very grifting existence. They are all playing “hot potato” with this election fraud scheme until Biden is sworn in, and they can rid themselves of the MAGA presence in D.C. for the comfort and security of “business as usual” by any means necessary.
I think they arrogantly believe if they cut off the head of the snake (Trump) by any means necessary, the MAGA movement will die on the vine.
It is encouraging to see the people at the Trump rallies.
It is discouraging to see my fellow Americans around me every day wearing surgical masks below their frightened eyes.
Which America is the real one?
It was reported recently of SCOTUS John Roberts dislike of Pres Trump by the NYT.
Curious that situation is at the crux of Roberts failure to do his job.
Unfortunently Roberts is indeed a very small man?!
I’ve been told by someone who work for DHS that Roberts is on the flight logs to Pedophile Island multiple times. I don’t think this is secret but it also hasn’t been reported. It’s quite possible he’s being blackmailed or threatened in some way, perhaps because of questionable dealings in the adoption of his children. As dirty as DC is, anything is possible.
Wow. That’s huge.
And now I can say, “I read where someone who had been told by someone who works for DHS that Roberts is on the flight logs…….and he doesn’t think it’s a secret……”
Well. I’m going to rush an email out to my friends … not.
I’m with you. I’m going to spread this. John Roberts is such an unique name it must be the SC Justice…not.
That’s hard to believe because it was well-known that Roberts (who married very late in life and adopted his children) spent his adult years in DC frequenting restaurants and bars that don’t have many female customers. Epstein supposedly only trafficked girls.
John Roberts is such a common name. I lean more to an in the closet gay with adoption problems – which certainly gives people leverage over him UNLESS it comes out in public. If that’s the truth about Roberts it ought to go public.
If it’s a gay issue then I much prefer Ric Grennell – he speaks the truth and who cares? I don’t and he’s hiding nothing.
Aren’t the adopted kids Chinese? Could that be leverage?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination
“2000 adoption by Roberts and his wife of two infants born in Ireland[10] via a Latin American country.”
Not sure what kind of leverage that would provide.
It has indeed been reported that a “John Roberts” is on the Epstein flight logs.
“John Roberts” is a fairly common name.
But on the other hand, Epstein targeted famous people for his flights to the island.
Who knows? Is anyone investigating?
No, of course not.
And what does that tell you?
There was also speculation that the John Roberts on the Epstein flights could have been that Fox reporter who had the on camera meltdown a month or two ago.
A very common name, as others have noted. Would require more evidence to pin down.
Amen! If the supreme court decides they have no role in sorting out national-level differences between states in tough important issues like this, then it seems like sc is shirking a major role for which they were established.
The ‘standing’ issue seems like code for we are spineless jellyfish that have no interest in getting involved in issues that mean anything. We’re going to parse some arcane legal weasel words so we dont have to consider a suit with some heat.
I thought the idea of appointing gorsuch kavanaugh and world wrestling champion olympic gold medalist navy seal astrophysics phd amy cb was to appoint solid conservatives to uphold the law. Election laws were clearly broken, in many ways. G K and ACB crawled under their desks bc theyre scared. How weak and pathetic. We got three more do-nothing bill barrs.
The Plot to Steal America (A 20 minute video by “Man In America”)
https://rumble.com/vbngzz-election-2020-the-true-invisible-enemy.html
One argument I’ve heard is that Texas had not [yet] been ‘harmed’, because the states had not yet cast their electoral ballots. Once the states have done so, then Texas could claim harm, and then would perhaps have standing before SCOTUS should Texas choose to re-file. Or perhaps SCOTUS doesn’t give a damn……
The brave Justices ran away,
Bravely ran away, away.
When massive fraud reared its ugly head, they bravely turned tail and fled.
Yes, the brave Justices turned about
And gallantly, they chickened out.
Bravely taking to their feet,
They beat a very brave retreat,
Bravest of the brave, the brave Justices
I suspect D’Souza hasn’t clued in to the likely gambit here, namely that our friends on the SCOTUS voted as they did in order to position PDJT to invoke insurrection act, suspend habeas corpus, while at the same time not appearing political. There just wasn’t any other way. I may be wrong. But the next 72 hours should be revealing.
I pray that you are correct Trygve! We seem to be running out of options at this point so I sure hope that this EO is not just another “tic-tock”….
(PS – we almost named our firstborn Trygve but figured he would have to spell it and explain it every day to anyone who wasn’t raised in Norway or Ballard!)
Some of my ancestors emigrated to the Seattle area in the (very) early 1900s, so we may be related, who knows!
My husband’s family came in the late 50s from Stavanger – he was the first one in his family to be born here. We were both born and raised in Seattle so if your relatives were in Ballard, we probably knew them!
Dude get that Q garbage out of here!
Actually, I am and have always been anti-Qtard, but I can see where you’re coming from. You may be right. I don’t know. Be well, my friend.
Dude I don’t know who the F …Q is…..but my thinking is the same…..Insurrection act ….sit on it and rotate.
My thoughts too,
If Texas has no standing, then we are not the United States of America.
You figured it out.
Having lived in TX for couple years, I have to agree. I didn’t like it, as it wasn’t as conservative as I’d expected. (Things have changed.)
That said, I did get a remaining sense of individual freedom and American pride that is lacking in other areas. That is the essence of TX which I love. God Bless Texas!
All the damn “foreigners” from lidtard states coming here and not leaving their bad politics at the border and the schools corrupting young minds. At least there’s still a chance here to turn it around.
Well, I wonder exactly how many States would have voted to join the Union if they were told the Truth upfront that, once you vote to join, you have no right to ever leave, and, if you ever try to leave, even peacefully, the Federal Government will kill as many of you as necessary until you voluntarily surrender and admit that you had no Legal right to even try peacefully leaving. Hey, but at least we are not ruling you by Divine Right & Monarchy!
We never were. We simply traded one Monarchy for another.
The tree of liberty might need a very, very big refresher.
Surely the Supreme Court is awake to the reality if they shirk their duty, then rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes…. ‘surely‘
To be honest I’m surprised people in these swing states haven’t showed up with their riffles. Just like they did in Virginia..
Need to stop asking for an audit and demand it. Regardless of how the cards fall.
Michigan needs to also release audit result.
“Surely the Supreme Court is awake to the reality if they shirk their duty, then rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes….
‘surely‘ “
One can only hope because realists realize that at this point
THERE IS NO OTHER REMEDY.
??
Every time I see you post this, I read the words “Are we there Yet? ” ….in my mind.
What, to me, makes sense is that SCOTUS members are being threatened and or blackmailed. As an outsider I am thinking that these 9 lawyers would actually relish an opportunity to sink their teeth into a weighty issue that would ensure their individual and collective legacy and also leave the United States an infinitely better place to live. “No standing”? It’s too bad that all their phones and emails aren’t being tapped.
Doesn’t matter their reason. They’ve betrayed their country.
If anyone was being blackmailed or threatened than they should have gone to law enforcement and or news media, so yeah, you are 100% correct!
Which law enforcement? Swamp FBI? Swamp DOJ? The corrupt MSM that would even mention Hunter Biden’s laptop…
There us a Declaration of Independence, not a Declaration of sit there and take it and pray. When Tyranny becomes law rebellion is duty.
So what do you think would happen today if any State decided to Legislatively, Peacefully, declare their Independence from the greater United States?
Reposting, as applicable here.
M. Armstrong article, “The Supreme Court’s Claim of Discretion is Unconstitutional”.
FTA: They need to go back to the Supreme Court and argue that the Judiciary Actof 1925 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it created discretion to hear cases when theSupreme Court is the ONLY court created by the Constitution.
The Supreme Court made it abundantly clear that “The Supreme Court alone possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it.” Stevenson v Fain, 195 US 165, 167 (1904). In Reid v Covert, 384 US 1, 41 (1987) this Court quoted Lord Coke: “God send me never to live under the law of conveniency or discretion.” The jurisdiction of this Court was created by the Constitution. It requires an amendment to the constitution to alter that jurisdiction, not a statute passed by Congress. Therefore, the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional.
The only court required by the Constitution is the Supreme Court and every Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States are required to take two oaths before they may execute the duties of their appointed office – (1) the Constitutional Oath to defend it and (2) the Judicial Oath.
Therefore, anyone can see on its face that the Judiciary Act of 1925 is unconstitutional for it violates their oath to defend the constitution when they have the discretion to not hear cases. Previously, the Supreme Court ruled and ignored this time when it defined “discretion” by saying “the term ‘discretion’ denotes the absence of a hard and fast rule.” Langnes v Green, 282 US 531, 541 (1931). This means that those in power do not have to obey any law, even the Constitution. The Supreme Court also said, “it is obvious that discretion does not exist where there is no power to act except in one way.” Jones v SEC, 298 US 1, 18 (1936). When judges and politicians claim discretion, they claim to be ABOVE the law of men.
The Supreme Court refused to hear a case that is squarely within its jurisdiction has condemned the nation to the only solution will be violence. They had an obligation to rule. Even a ruling against Trump would calm the situation to some degree. But the refusal to rule means there is no rule of law which is the cornerstone of civilization.
https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/the-supreme-courts-claim-of-discretion-is-unconstitutional/?utm_source=Newsletter&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=RSS
“But the refusal to rule means there is no rule of law which is the cornerstone of civilization.”
That is the bottom line.
Exactly. To each (state) his own…in essence, same as what SD wrote.
I’m afraid that we’ve arrived at a point of civil war,we just don’t know who to shoot at…
Follow the rules set by antifa and BLM…..BURN-LOOT-MURDER
No! We don’t want to burn our beloved country down!
Just the heads of the snakes.
I know who I’d start with…someone really old & evil who has lots of money – but I won’t say his name.
To hell with this jackass Supreme Court. We the People may have to address our Constitutional crisis because we have no other recourse. By the way, a lot of “minority folk agree with me.
The problem is the lack of ammo. No one saw the Antifa/BLM riots coming and the effect that would have on people. Even liberals suddenly got rational and saw the wisdom of gun ownership. But the manufacturers/distributors/gun stores places orders 1-2 years in advance. Now they can’t supply the demand. It’s going to be a very short and unconvincing rebellion if it devolves into shooting.
…assuming no one out there has been stocking up on such things for a number of years…
A VERY misguided assumption.
“The problem is the lack of ammo.”
There is no shortage of ammo in the hands of free and private citizens. 10s of millions of Americans have been “keeping there powder dry” for decades.
Speak for yourself.
Everyone I know has thousands of rounds on hand and ready. We’ve been expecting this since Ozero was coronated.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337604758576615425
Awesome quote, MaineCoon. Thanks so much for that.
Your welcome. If interested, take a look at the document he links. It’s long (still reading), but address the issue.
Robert Barnes is a very good lawyer. Very astute. I believe he was the one who awhile ago mentioned that the judges recommended by the Federalist Society were not that great..even at the state level.
He’s smart. You might find his tweets of interest.
Additionally, the below channel does many live streams of Barnes and the Canadian lawyer discussing everything going on.
He was.
He was also SPOT on.
D’Sousa’s comments parallel my thinking. While being more articulate than I, he hits on two points I’ve been upset by, not only in this case but in the past. 1 – The problem of “standing,” should, as he says, not be denied to any state affected by the outcome in another state. …and 2 – The “process” cannot be divorced from the outcome.
It is my opinion that SCOTUS correctly did not take the case as no state has a say on how other legislatures direct the appointment of their Electors. I also think the Court positioned itself into a box because they suspect the Republican legislators in PA WI MI and GA may appoint Electors for Trump (because of the egregiousness of the fraud). Thus, when states like NY CA NJ et al bring suit to the Supreme Court to stop the appointment of Trump Electors, SCOTUS can say “Hey, we already ruled other states have no standing in how Electors are appointed in other states”.
The only way to make things right is for the Republican legislators in those states to step up and do the right thing. SCOTUS was never going to change the outcome of the election and we are directing our anger in the wrong direction.
This theory has circled and has merit.
However, there is one constitution and the S Ct interprets the document.
If a states’ action or inaction breached the constitution it is their duty to decide.
The fact this is a political question does not dismiss them of their duty.
“It is my opinion that SCOTUS correctly did not take the case as no state has a say on how other legislatures direct the appointment of their Electors.”
You opinion is mistaken, as the Texas lawsuit made no attempt to control how “other legislatures may direct the appointment of their Electors’. On the contrary, the entire issue with the lawsuit is that in the states in question the Electirs are being chosen, for all praatical purposes, by the state courts and executive branch and not by the state legislatures. It’s bizarre that you keep commenting on this topic when you seem to be unaware of the most basic facts about it.
Couldn’t agree more. I still have some patience left as I’m sure you all do as well. I would like to see all the courts eventually come together for the Constitution. I don’t believe they will though and if they continue to shut this down and dismiss all the documentation from Powell, Wood and Rudy then it’s time to break the wheel.
“rifles will end up on the hands of men who will settle cross-state disputes…. ‘surely‘”
They are in their hands now.
That’s not rhetorical.
Perhaps Trump’s next pick for the Supreme Court should be from someplace other than the Federalist Society. They seem to be a breeding ground for establishment republicans.
The constitution was written by learned men, but common men, not lawyers. One of the great things about it is we can all read what it actually says.
The ABA has a monopoly on who can be a “lawyer”. Other monopolies filter up from there. The answer is to put someone on the court who can read plain text.
Someone whose only Law experience has been at the receiving end of it.
rule in plain text, according to and limited by the plain text and SPIRIT (textualism) of the constitution.
Our Founding was based on Common Law.
‘that part of the law of England formulated, developed and administered by the old Common Law courts, based originally on the common customs of the country, and unwritten. It is opposed to equity (the body of rules administered by the Court of Chancery, to statute law (the law laid down in Acts of Parliament), to special law (the law administered in special courts such as ecclesiastical law, and the law merchant), and to the civil law (the law of Rome).’
Or here’s another way of defining it: ‘the common sense of the community, crystallised and formulated by our forefathers’. (Source: Osborne’s Concise Law Dictionary, Ninth edition.)
To my thinking, the Chief Justice is the ONLY one that should be a lawyer.
In the current SC, that would mean Roberts. And he’s already proven himself to be a failed reader of the U.S. Constitution and existing law.
Exhibit A: His outrageous contorted twisting of OzeroCare to read the penalty as a tax. That wasn’t interpretation, that was creative fabrication.
The really important question is this: do the ends justify the memes?
Thomas Wictor
5 entertaining minutes on the Rutherford B Hayes election fiasco.
https://twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1337903459547287554
@MaineCoon
Great tweet. John Nolte (@NolteNC) has been calling Biden “His Fraudulency” for weeks, but I didn’t know the history behind the nickname.
Thanks! Didn’t know that!
Overview of a book entitled, “Fraud of the Century: Rutherford B. Hayes, Samuel Tilden and the Stoel election of 1876” by Roy Morris, Hr.
FTA: In this major work of popular history and scholarship, acclaimed historian and biographer Roy Morris, Jr., tells the extraordinary story of how, in America’s centennial year, the presidency was stolen, the Civil War was almost reignited, and black Americans were consigned to nearly ninety years of legalized segregation in the South.
The bitter 1876 contest between Ohio Republican governor Rutherford B. Hayes and New York Democratic governor Samuel J. Tilden is the most sensational, ethically sordid, and legally questionable presidential election in American history.
…Tilden received some 260,000 more votes than his opponent. But contested returns in Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina ultimately led to Hayes’s being declared the winner by a specially created, Republican-dominated Electoral Commission after four tense months of political intrigue and threats of violence. President Grant took the threats seriously: he ordered armed federal troops into the streets of Washington to keep the peace.
Morris dramatically recreates the suspenseful events of election night, when both candidates went to bed believing Tilden had won, and a one-legged former Union army general, “Devil Dan” Sickles, stumped into Republican headquarters and hastily improvised a devious plan to subvert the election in the three disputed southern states. We watch Hayes outmaneuver the curiously passive Tilden and his supporters in the days following the election, and witness the late-night backroom maneuvering of party leaders in the nation’s capital, where democracy itself was ultimately subverted and the will of the people thwarted.
Secession would be great. Then Liz Cheney could send the Wyoming army to Aghanistan to die for Halliburton.
Yes, that’s pretty much what Bush’s wars were about.
I didn’t see it at the time.
I believed there were “weapons of mass destruction” just ready to be used against us.
Bush lied, and people died.
It was a liberal slogan that I scoffed at — then.
Now I see that Bush was a globalist corportist crony all in favor of big government and war and China “free trade” and nation building to benefit our biggest corporations.
There’s a true free market . . . which we do NOT have. And then there is this corporate capitalist monopoly globalist power BEHEMOTH that owns our government.
Those are different.
I see it now.
Maybe Trump’s “preferred” hope is that the SCOTUS punts the matter.
Then he can use the constitutional powers of the 14th amendment, along with a temporary use of Martial Law and military tribunals, to root out the deep state actors.
If the SCOTUS did rule in Trump’s favor and he was re-elected, all the deep state actors would still be in place to fight/disrupt his second term. With most of the civil courts essentially corrupt, Trump would have limited powers to fight and take them out.
Gorsuch is a Colorado squish who was raised in the swamp and converted to Episcopalian a squishy, leftist denomination (so no strong religious beliefs).
Kavanaugh was raised in the swamp like Gorsuch, but even worse stayed in the swamp and lived in the exclusive Chevy Chase neighborhood of Chris Matthews and other progressives (the worst of the swamp) – probably the only Republican for blocks (Bush Republican).
I tried telling people on Friday night when it was announced. It was more egregious that they rejected it on standing than merit.
But everyone was posting Tracy Beanz’ video that it was nothing.
It was and is a helluva big thing to worry about when your only means of Redress tells you that you have no standing.
This is grounds for dissolving the Union. Election stuff aside, the SCOTUS just ruled that Texas and 20 other states are powerless to protest the actions of other states.
“But everyone was posting Tracy Beanz’ video that it was nothing.”
There’s your trouble, right there. I remember when she was the original Q-pusher.
Today’s video by Thomas Wictor approx 5min. His main point is the only day that matters is Jan 20th. Watch for his explanation and look closely at the graphic at 3:24.
While dismayed that SCOTUS couldn’t bring relief without moving into more likely military justice or militia responses, it was pointed out that the 11th amendment prevented them from the State suing State applications.
There is a reason to be forward looking as SCOTUS, as I’m guessing they were made aware of the aircraft carrier groups now located off the East and West Coasts. I would guess that they know crimes were committed, but the crimes were coordinated by current and former members of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The military option allows them to maintain the Constitution’s integrity after the criminal activity is adjudicated and martial law is rescinded.
I still have hope that legislatures in the 6 swing states stand up against the voter and election fraud. In reality, a full investigation of election fraud in all states must be undertaken with pols in all parties being held to account. This isn’t a R vs D election, this is a constitutional republic vs a collectivist government where rules can change at the whim of the government elite with little consequence.
I think the crucial point is that we vote as a nation for the president and vice president. If a state criminally fails to prosecute fraud, and/or makes unconstitutional changes to the time, manner, and place of the election by non-legislative officers, then those actions could change the outcome of the election. Electoral votes changed by even + or – 3 electoral votes have the very real possibility to cause different candidates to win.
The failure to prosecute these felonies (are they not federal felonies?) has the undeniable potential to spoil the election for the entire nation. What am I missing here? All the voters have standing.
I get that the Supreme court is an appellate court, and not a trial court where fraud would be proven. So the remedy would be to turn the issue back to the state legislatures to clear up their federal election fraud felonies. Who will prosecute these felonies?
Also, all candidates have standing, from every party. That would give the Supremes a non-political stance. There’s a lot of standing, for all the voters and all the candidates.
A shocking level of cowardice on the part of the SCOTUS. All the talk of POTUS putting three strict constructionists on the court was total BS. They put two feminized men and a brainy weak female on the court. Plus Alito and Thomas with the pathetic dissent made me sick to my stomach.
So what happens after tomorrow and all the states certify their electors, IF DNI Ratcliffe comes out with his report indicating THERE WAS foreign election interference?
And then PT rolls out the evidence captured from the servers, packets and communications proving votes were manipulated and shifted from PT to Biden?
And add on top of that the fact all the courts including the SC have ruled against PT and TX with no one interested in seeing the merits or evidence of this massive fraud and coup attempt on the Republic.
What option is left for PT at that point?
Answer: EO13484, Insurrection Act, some form of martial law. And after securing the many traitors, PT takes the evidence directly to the American people
And as a bonus every person who signed off on their electors is 100% responsible and frankly many could be arrested IMO.
The courts are never going to allow PT Team’s claims to be heard. If a foreign power has infiltrated in mass our government, key agencies, key businesses/industries, our judges and state/local officials, PT has only one play and that is using these Constitutional Tools in some form/combination – EO13484, Insurrection Act, martial law.
His team tried the to play nice and do it via the courts but what PT has exposed is the courts/judiciary much like the DOJ, they too are corrupted.
Concede is not an option
The Courts are playing Sgt Shultz
EO13484, Insurrection Act and some for of Martial Law is his only play IMO.
This….
Tomorrow is a fake facade…going nowhere…waiting for a process to work itself out…as lawsuits continue…certifications and be overturned…
Must will fall into VP Pence’s role as President of the Senate the day elector’s votes are put forth. Watch the video. This is the important part.
FTA: Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) says he isn’t ruling out filing an objection to electoral votes during the joint session of Congress on Jan. 6, 2021.
“We’re still looking at all the legal stuff that’s happening with the legal cases and we’ll make our decision after we’ve seen all the legal challenges,” the senator told CNN on Dec. 10.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) recently told reporters that he’s leaving the option open as well. Johnson, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, this week will hold the first congressional hearing on the election, citing “irregularities.”
https://www.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/2nd-senator-expresses-openness-to-filing-objection-to-electoral-results_3616320.html
D’Sousa’s logic, as usual, is unassailable. But SCOTUS, particularly the 5 conservative justices know this. It does not take a SCOTUS caliber thinker to come up with the same analogies D’Souse builds his argument on. SCOTUS rejected TX, not because of its collective inability to develop a set of guideline analogies, rather it did so because the big fix is in. Trump’s brand of America first populism is an existential threat to the elites who want to exercise control over us. It cannot be allowed to take root, bloom and flourish. The election is not over, but at this point it appears that by its silence, SCOTUS is complicit.
John has an explanation for what is happening to the Supremes. He’s been correct with his sources in the past. He claims that SCOTUS has been threatened and illegally surveilled (along with the President’s legal team.) You have to click on the pics to see his posts.
https://twitter.com/Johnheretohelp/status/1337602946213834754?s=20
https://twitter.com/Johnheretohelp/status/1337602960357007362?s=20
What license did he lose that he refers to?
Not sure. I first started following him when corrupt Judge Sullivan started acting up. I think it was some sort of court function like a paralegal or notary. He drops lots of hints about crooked Baltimore politics. He believes Kim Klacik was Dominioned in her election bid because the swamp wanted the currently installed creature.
and this showed up this morning proving John’s point. (Ron is working with Sidney on the technicals.)
https://twitter.com/CodeMonkeyZ/status/1338424559368720385?s=20
Not buying it. Trump supporters will not be hunting normal folk around town. They will be hunting the tyrants and any black-bloc that get in the way. The projections in these docs are misleading at best. There is no surprise to many of the SC claims but the assumption the SC hasn’t been spied on for decades already plays us all for recently awakened fools..
I believe the tip about COVID transmissions as a weapon.
With a 99% survival rate even without HCQ, Plasma and other treatments we have now. There is no reason to fear Chi-rona as a weapon. Remember Antonin Scalia’s oddly timed death. Nothing new in the risk of their positions other than how it’s always been before. I just don’t think they wanted to step in so early is all. We shall see.
Interesting Executive Order issued last Friday. Is Trump feeling the Christmas spirit? Is this normal in the US? Does he want the offices empty for 4 days? Does he want people isolated at home?
Section 1. All executive departments and agencies of the Federal Government shall be closed and their employees excused from duty on Thursday, December 24, 2020, the day before Christmas Day.
Sec. 2. The heads of executive departments and agencies may determine that certain offices and installations of their organizations, or parts thereof, must remain open and that certain employees must report for duty on December 24, 2020, for reasons of national security, defense, or other public need.
Nothing to the EO. Standard gov’t procedure during holidays. Gov’s typically do the same for State Gov offices, as well. It is just getting more attention, because it is Trump. Cheerio
He’s making Christmas Eve a holiday for the executive depts./agencies. Thank you, President Trump.
I’ll repost again something Sundance said in an earlier article
“Texas AG Paxton does not appear to be positioned to re-file after 12/14/20.”
unless they force it through…
United States Supreme CourtSTEVENSON v. FAIN(1904)Argued: Decided: November 7, 1904
The Supreme Court alone “possesses jurisdiction derived immediately from the Constitution, and of which the legislative power cannot deprive it” (United States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch, 32, 3 L. ed. 259), but the jurisdiction of the circuit courts depends upon some act of Congress ( Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 10, 1 L. ed. 718, 719; M’Intire v. Wood, 7 Cranch, 504, 506, 3 L. ed. 420, 421).
The Judiciary Act of 1925 aka Judges’ Bill was a statutory law which is unconstitutional because it circumvents Article III in the constitution which must be Amended. This Act does not Amend the constitution!
This Act allowed discretion, so Alito is right without saying so.
Also,
When reading all the lawsuits (all), not one mentions Stevenson v fain and not one discussed this 1925 Act which would have put the SCOTUS on notice.
My guesses it’s practical and they’d be paid for a legal holiday. People leave work early to travel for Christmas, to go to church, to attend Christmas Eve dinners, shop or deliver gifts. Christmas hasn’t been a “day” for a longtime.
Found you in our bin….. 🙁
I would pay more attention to the other EO about Foreign interference within the election. The DNI report comes out on the 18th and Im pretty sure Trump is coordinating with Ratcliffe to Declare a National emergency, declare sanctions and put the hammer down on the courts who cowardly right off their responsibilities to the the Constitution. I can see him appointing a special counsel under the EO to review the evidence, establish grand jury and subpoena every system and person in question as the democrats did to him in 2016-2019
right off… write off..
I’m looking forward to Fascistbook, Giggle & Tweeker getting their assets frozen for their part in the election interference