It's going to take a lot more bravery to remove hundreds of members of congress, let alone the sitting president and vp, than it would to hear an election fraud case.
The relief sought in the case is too drastic and the SCOTUS justices are not courageous enough to grant such a resolution, especially when there has been no precedent to base the ruling on. This is not the same as overturning Roe vs Wade.
This is not something the courts should be involved in. This is something the congress should be doing. The different branches of government should not be fixing what the branch itself should be fixing.
Of course the congress will not fix it but that is besides the point. Once the courts have that power over congress it could lead to some really dark areas.
The Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress with any power (or responsibility) to adjudicate Electoral appointment disputes. If Congress or the President of the Senate attempted such action, and usurp the Constitution, that would ironically have been a violation of their oaths to protect and defend said Constitution.
the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates
Open. Pretty straightforward meaning to that word. You are asserting additional connotation not explicitly or contextually evidenced.
The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish [...] The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States...
You are constitutionally illiterate. But feel free to stick around shill. Might actually learn something.
But for real. Calling people a Fed, or a shill because of their opinion and not because you have ANY evidence whatsoever is something that makes this place less credible in its claims. Which is a problem MAGA wide.
If the people here are ostensibly for stopping the rape and murder dungeons, and that depends on normies believing what is going on, then it follows that maintaining credibility is paramount.
Yes. This has always been a reason for lack of standing. They should have figured that out. Kari Lake did, and she specifically stated that the cheating affected her specific outcome and had enough proof of the number of ballots to flip it.
And the real issue with standing, is that no citizen has any constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP. As a point of fact, we don't actually vote for either. We vote for ELECTORS, who then vote for POTUS/VP. Electors DO have an explicit constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP, a right which many states have suppressed for a very long time by passing and enforcing laws requiring Electors to essentially be messengers, couriers, merely conveying a vote, as opposed to exercising free agency which is essential to the nature of voting. Of course, SCOTUS recently fucked this in their 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo in 2021.
The only parties with absolute standing in these cases, are 1.) the Electors who were denied their office as the result of unlawful appointments, the result of fraudulent elections and 2.) The candidate who was denied the office he sought by the state officials who conducted unlawful elections and unlawfully appointed his opponent's pledged Electors on the basis of fraudulent elections.
States must still conduct their elections in compliance with the Constitution and valid federal statutes that regulate said elections. Yes, Congress does have some constitutional authority over federal elections,conducted by the states.
The disputed matter is of a constitutional nature (at state and federal levels) but not how Brunson attempted to argue. This "violation of oath" to exercise alleged authority that doesn't actually exist, was nonsense.
Does not hinge on there actually being election fraud. It hinges on the warning of 153 congressmen that the presence of fraud needed to investigated - discovered if indeed it was present - and the violation of the oath of office by anyone who obstructed that investigation.
SCOTUS denied election fraud cases. Don't see why they'd accept this case.
It's going to take a lot more bravery to remove hundreds of members of congress, let alone the sitting president and vp, than it would to hear an election fraud case.
The relief sought in the case is too drastic and the SCOTUS justices are not courageous enough to grant such a resolution, especially when there has been no precedent to base the ruling on. This is not the same as overturning Roe vs Wade.
Well if they aren’t willing to do their jobs………
This is not something the courts should be involved in. This is something the congress should be doing. The different branches of government should not be fixing what the branch itself should be fixing.
Of course the congress will not fix it but that is besides the point. Once the courts have that power over congress it could lead to some really dark areas.
BS. It’s exactly made for the courts to resolve.
The Constitution does not explicitly authorize Congress with any power (or responsibility) to adjudicate Electoral appointment disputes. If Congress or the President of the Senate attempted such action, and usurp the Constitution, that would ironically have been a violation of their oaths to protect and defend said Constitution.
You are wrong:
"the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates"
Those were not legally valid certificates and Pence could and should have refused until further clarification.
Now go glow somewhere else, fed.
Open. Pretty straightforward meaning to that word. You are asserting additional connotation not explicitly or contextually evidenced.
You are constitutionally illiterate. But feel free to stick around shill. Might actually learn something.
You r wrong. Get a job, hippie.
But for real. Calling people a Fed, or a shill because of their opinion and not because you have ANY evidence whatsoever is something that makes this place less credible in its claims. Which is a problem MAGA wide. If the people here are ostensibly for stopping the rape and murder dungeons, and that depends on normies believing what is going on, then it follows that maintaining credibility is paramount.
What was the basis for the denial?
lack of standing; supposedly he didn't prove that he had a "personal stake in the outcome of the action"
https://www.ntd.com/supreme-court-rejects-case-seeking-to-overturn-2020-election_894187.html
Yes. This has always been a reason for lack of standing. They should have figured that out. Kari Lake did, and she specifically stated that the cheating affected her specific outcome and had enough proof of the number of ballots to flip it.
The way I see it is that this case is utter BS.
They asking for a remedy that’s unconstitutional; that SCOTUS fires almost the entire Congress, POTUS and the VP.
SCOTUS can’t unseat elected officials, and that’s a good thing when you think about it.
This is so frustrating! We the people have standing, ffs.
They have an oath. Without an oath, what are they?
Tyrants.
And the real issue with standing, is that no citizen has any constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP. As a point of fact, we don't actually vote for either. We vote for ELECTORS, who then vote for POTUS/VP. Electors DO have an explicit constitutional right to vote for POTUS/VP, a right which many states have suppressed for a very long time by passing and enforcing laws requiring Electors to essentially be messengers, couriers, merely conveying a vote, as opposed to exercising free agency which is essential to the nature of voting. Of course, SCOTUS recently fucked this in their 9-0 ruling in Chiafalo in 2021.
The only parties with absolute standing in these cases, are 1.) the Electors who were denied their office as the result of unlawful appointments, the result of fraudulent elections and 2.) The candidate who was denied the office he sought by the state officials who conducted unlawful elections and unlawfully appointed his opponent's pledged Electors on the basis of fraudulent elections.
States determine the manner of their elections, election fraud must be handled at the state level. Brunson is a federal issue - violation of Oath.
States must still conduct their elections in compliance with the Constitution and valid federal statutes that regulate said elections. Yes, Congress does have some constitutional authority over federal elections,conducted by the states.
The disputed matter is of a constitutional nature (at state and federal levels) but not how Brunson attempted to argue. This "violation of oath" to exercise alleged authority that doesn't actually exist, was nonsense.
The people responding to you are not looking at this objectively. They are just arguing their point with no regard to what you’re actually saying.
Does not hinge on there actually being election fraud. It hinges on the warning of 153 congressmen that the presence of fraud needed to investigated - discovered if indeed it was present - and the violation of the oath of office by anyone who obstructed that investigation.
That wasn't the point I was making
The hopium was unreal over the past few weeks on this case. I bit my tongue but people on this board should have realistic expectations..
and the dates that just don't make sense by adding up unscrupulous numbers hurts my head.
Triggering snowflakes in their safe space is a no no. Coddling is the order of the day!