Bigger problem is, the supreme court doesn't like to set too much precedent if it doesn't have to. The fact that he was so willing to take it up Means one of two things:
The evidence is so clear that it is plain on its face constitutionally what it means, so he wants to make it known what is supposed to happen.
The evidence is clear against what we believe to be accurate as far as a technicality of the law, he wants to jump to it and get it cleared up.
In the past, the supreme court has made it very clear that they do not want to be the ones to Determine the results of an election. That has been the direction of most suits asking them to overturn given x election.
I think of all the cases that have come to them about elections so far, this has been a fairly clear-cut one. With reasonable requests. it provides a fact of law that does not overturn an election per se, And allows for a very clean remedy to the issue period that is the kind of stuff that the Supreme Court likes period
The very existence of FISA and the justices participation in the administration of general warrants disqualifies these traitors from any pretense of credibility.
That statement is assinine on its face. If you have a problem with FISA, which I doubt you even knew existed until the last few years, why haven't you been petitioning it's removal since 1978 when it was enacted by Congress?
Or, preferably why not challenge its existence through the courts and get it ruled unconstitutional? They would do it you know, if it was in fact, unconstitutional.
Bigger problem is, the supreme court doesn't like to set too much precedent if it doesn't have to. The fact that he was so willing to take it up Means one of two things:
The evidence is so clear that it is plain on its face constitutionally what it means, so he wants to make it known what is supposed to happen.
The evidence is clear against what we believe to be accurate as far as a technicality of the law, he wants to jump to it and get it cleared up.
In the past, the supreme court has made it very clear that they do not want to be the ones to Determine the results of an election. That has been the direction of most suits asking them to overturn given x election.
I think of all the cases that have come to them about elections so far, this has been a fairly clear-cut one. With reasonable requests. it provides a fact of law that does not overturn an election per se, And allows for a very clean remedy to the issue period that is the kind of stuff that the Supreme Court likes period
The court has no interest in justice, But keeping the status quo intact.
Who are you talking about, specifically?
SCOTUS isn't some ruling council that can push edicts from on high. Are you sure you understand what they are allowed to do Constitutionally?
So far they have been fantastic the last few years. A couple rulings that seem to have not gone our way were, in fact ruled correctly for the cases.
They can't just make stuff up, or go off on tangents, or stuff not specifically related to the cases presented.
The very existence of FISA and the justices participation in the administration of general warrants disqualifies these traitors from any pretense of credibility.
That statement is assinine on its face. If you have a problem with FISA, which I doubt you even knew existed until the last few years, why haven't you been petitioning it's removal since 1978 when it was enacted by Congress?
Or, preferably why not challenge its existence through the courts and get it ruled unconstitutional? They would do it you know, if it was in fact, unconstitutional.