Yeah, it's almost like someone has given them assurance that whatever threats they've been recipients of have been mitigated or illuminated. Like they're free to be judges again.
If "losing"apart the election was part of the plan, theb so would preventing SC the turning over the results.
Perhaps ACB wasn't chosen because she was the best judge, but perhaps because Q monitored her for years, and decided they could trust her to follow their orders regardless of what's actually going on, while still honoring the SC seat and the law.
For some reason I worry that the Court is intentionally building up a store of good optics so they can feel like they're balanced when they refuse to do anything about the 2020 election.
This decision is a major blow to the democrats lawfare tactics to defeat new voting laws. Gorsuch raised the issue of standing and whether private activists such as the DNC, NAACP, ACLU or private citizens have the standing to challenge state's laws under Section 2 of the Voter's Rights Act. If they don't have standing then only the DOJ can bring such suits, instead of them joining a lawfare suit, and the DOJ moves very slowly. Gorsuch in his concurrence seemed to invite any state sued by lawfare groups to raise the issue of standing.
I know you're all just as shocked and appalled as I am, that a liberal called something that prevents cheating, "tragic."
Kagan is such an angry middle aged man.
LOL!!
Yeah, and Justices are supposed to be IMPARTIAL and non-Partisan. Seriously ?
Seems like we're having a lot of wins at the S.C. lately. Is this to save face or is this something else?
Yeah, it's almost like someone has given them assurance that whatever threats they've been recipients of have been mitigated or illuminated. Like they're free to be judges again.
Agreed!
They're saving face. As soon as another case comes around that will change the direction of the country they'll go deep state again.
I think you're right. I think the military is the only way forward.
Would be nice if the military just came out with their position already then.
They did.who pays more gets em
If "losing"apart the election was part of the plan, theb so would preventing SC the turning over the results.
Perhaps ACB wasn't chosen because she was the best judge, but perhaps because Q monitored her for years, and decided they could trust her to follow their orders regardless of what's actually going on, while still honoring the SC seat and the law.
Nice... Well good for S.C...
For some reason I worry that the Court is intentionally building up a store of good optics so they can feel like they're balanced when they refuse to do anything about the 2020 election.
Same worry here!
For this to require the supreme court tells everyone everything they need to know about just how "BLUE" States turn blue.
This should be inherently illegal to begin with, why do we need a SCOTUS ruling to affirm that?
"Baseless allegations of voter fraud"... USA Today is another rag that wouldn't tell the truth even if they had a cocked gun at their heads...
This decision is a major blow to the democrats lawfare tactics to defeat new voting laws. Gorsuch raised the issue of standing and whether private activists such as the DNC, NAACP, ACLU or private citizens have the standing to challenge state's laws under Section 2 of the Voter's Rights Act. If they don't have standing then only the DOJ can bring such suits, instead of them joining a lawfare suit, and the DOJ moves very slowly. Gorsuch in his concurrence seemed to invite any state sued by lawfare groups to raise the issue of standing.
Ballots harvest is only allowed in NY.
And in CA