(Genuine, not rhetorical, question) Has Donald Trump specifically called out any of his appointed SC justices, either by name or collectively all three, for their refusing to hear election challenges?

posted 3 years ago by BasedInFact 3 years ago by BasedInFact +88 / -0

I personally believe if his appointed justices were directly involved in the SC's refusal to hear cases regarding the 2020 Presidential election, PDJT wouldn't hesitate to call them out.

He's certainly fulminated about "the courts" failing to do their job and their duty, but if he's been hesitant to specifically criticize Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, or ACB for their dereliction, I think it makes it more clear that Trump's unhappiness with "the courts" for declining to get involved is a bit of an act; he would know better than anybody if/that the SC declined to hear the cases because these will ultimately (and shortly) be heard by, and decided upon by, military tribunals.

16 comments

16 comments share save hide report block hide replies

You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.

Comments (16)

sorted by:

▲ 14 ▼

– patriots45united 14 points 3 years ago +14 / -0

I've heard different theories on multiple sources. They all make sense to me:

They had to side against hearing the cases, so that all the corrupt players could be exposed. If they threw it back to the states, then the crooks continue to hide behind the curtain and fraud is due to someone or something else being the cause.
The nominees are corrupt and had to be exposed by being placed on the SC, who heard of these judges before they were nominated?
They are playing a role.

Pretty much, all things are possible and only GOD knows.

permalink save report block reply

▲ 5 ▼

– SaveAmerica2021 5 points 3 years ago +5 / -0

Agree they could all be true..its is nice to speculate but at this stage we just dont KNOW.

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– Corse46 3 points 3 years ago +3 / -0

There’s an option 4, which I read an article about recently

SCOTUS declining to take the cases was the best thing that could’ve happened. If they took the cases, they would’ve decided election integrity for all 50 states, and we may not have liked what they decided on. By declining, they allowed the state legislatures to take action and decide their own laws (the way it should be). What the states ultimately pass will likely be much more strict than John Roberts SCOTUS would’ve decided.

I do think at some point, a case will be heard by SCOTUS, but I think it will be regarding the machines when more of that info comes out

permalink parent save report block reply

▲ 3 ▼

– patriots45united 3 points 3 years ago +3 / -0

I like option 4 too.

permalink parent save report block reply

To The Great Awakening

We are researchers who deal in open-source information, reasoned argument, and dank memes. We do battle in the sphere of ideas and ideas only. We neither need nor condone the use of force in our work here. WE ARE THE PUBLIC FACE OF Q. OUR MISSION IS TO RED-PILL NORMIES.

This is a pro-Q community. Please read and respect our rules below before contributing.

WHY Q?

"Those who cannot understand that we cannot simply start arresting w/o first: ensuring the safety & well-being of the population shifting the narrative removing those in DC through resignation to ensure success defeating ISIS/MS13 to prevent fail-safes freezing assets to remove network-to-network abilities kill off COC to prevent top-down comms/org, etc. etc. should not be participating in discussions." Q