As titled; the US house of usurpers just passed an act attacking the original Electoral Count Act of 1887, apparently at the behest of their fraudulent "January 6 committee" and they did this specifically to "prevent another Jan. 6."
The senate also has their own version...AND 10 "REPUBLICAN" SENATORS SUPPORTING IT!!!!!!!!
This is absolute fucking lunacy and sheer evil. I'm fucking enraged.
If these faggots "won fair & square in the most secure, free & fair election in history" WHY THE FUCK ARE THEY LITERALLY CHANGING OUR ENTIRE VOTING SYSTEM???
That's not to even mention the fact they unleashed an entire God damned biowewapon upon the planet to give them an excuse to ram through mail-in voting and drastically alter how votes are counted and ballots are handled.
WINNERS DO NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE RULES OF THE GAME!!!!!!!
LINKS:
(Sorry; IDK if we are not supposed to use archive.org, but I tried archive.is and both times I tried, it literally said I was 1,500 in queue..... no joke.....)
Another archive with more info, specifically about the senate's version:
######## ..
EDITED TO ADD::
***Hey shoot frens; you know what; I just realized that I accidentally used the word "COLLEGE" in the title, where it should have been "COUNT". ***
The title SHOULD have read "Electoral COUNT Act" and NOT "Electoral COLLEGE Act."
This was an honest mistake on my part.
I see where the title is different from the article & I apologize; it was absolutely NOT intentional and NOT an attempt to get clicks / mislead / mis-inform; just an honest brain fart.
Obviously I was thinking about the Electoral COLLEGE, and typed that instead of "Count."
This IS still extremely significant, however....... none of my other sentiments change based on this one word.
X
Never claimed that judges never rule in partisan fashion. But the body is by design supposed to be impartial, and far more often than Congress, acts as much. Since 2008, there have been double the amount of unanimous SOCTUS cases (40%) than there were 5-4 rulings (20%). But the media doesn't cover the "boring" cases, only the divisive high profile cases. This distraction of an argument dodges the reality that Congress is THE MOST partisan political body in government.
The system has the safeguard of a threat of removal as a penalty for abuse of office. Never suggested removal before a vote. Rather, if abuse occurs, then Congress can certainly deal with abusive judges. It's silly to think that this ever looming threat of removal doesn't keep most judges in check.
Why is impeachment silly? Congress has this explicit power. The only way to get rid of Congressmen is through elections, which we know full well are prone to abuse. And this assumes that the more righteous candidate is actually the person desired by the voters.
Again, removal of 1 abuser is easier than removal of 10, 15, 20, 40, 100, 200... the randomness of the number I choose matters not, because it's always still going to be bigger than 1. It's silly arguing percentages of the body as if that has any relevance to the arguments being debated. Sure, 1/9 of Congressional seats might have changed, but are you accounting for retirements, incumbents losing primaries only to be replaced by another member of their Party, or the possibility that the succeeding member of the opposition Party being just as much of a corrupt shit? How do you explain the longevity of such criminals like Pelosi? It's not just purging some or even the bulk of scum, but removal of the leadership of said scum. But they are protected by a corrupted elections system or at the least, a corrupted electorate. At least in the case of an impeachment, there's the potential for a counterbalancing vote to offset that of the corrupt vote. No judge has been removed, but not because of the prohibition of it being possible. One could argue that the fact that hundreds of Congressmen have been "removed" (via elections) compared to no judges, actually indicates a far less abusive Court compared to Congress...
Only in cases explicitly defined, such as judges of elections of their own body membership, and impeachment. No such power of presidential Electoral dispute adjudication is explicitly enumerated.
And every time I refuted your purported evidence, demonstrating clearly how they failed to support the argument you're trying to make. You're choosing to ignore the facts, in favor of your flawed interpretation of them.
Previous Courts did hear election cases. Apparently the current Court didn't have the balls to do so, or were ignorant of constitutional law. They should have heard the cases. Humans err. Or perhaps they were instructed (by whoever is in charge of this "operation") to not hear the cases, because that inaction was necessary to produce more impactful reactions, and/or prevent reactions from Democrats who, like in 1876, made very credible threats of violence in response?
In any case, just because those who [currently] do the job appear to not hold the correct view of the Constitution, doesn't make the correct view, incorrect. What they do or don't do, doesn't change what the Constitution says or doesn't say. Again, you're trying to say it says something that it doesn't actually say. And that's the heart of this entire debate, which until you're willing to admit, will prevent any progress in agreement as how to fix the flaws in the system. The flaw, and lawful process to remedy it, must first be agreed to before we can proceed.