Case That Could Overturn 2020 Election To Be Reviewed By Supreme Court

The docket has been updated and this case is scheduled for Conference for, wait for it, January 6th.

Before anyone goes reading too far into the date, that is SCOTUS' first day back from vacation. Based on that date, we should know whether or not they have agreed to hear the case on January 9th.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: network dude

Yep. Trump's attempt to get the stay in the documents case overturned got one and SCOTUS chose to not to hear that case.

Just couldn't do it could you you had to bring up Orange Man.

Question do I bring up Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama every other time I post something ? And of course the courts are not going to take it serious ...Why would they ?

The very election being challenged is the very election that put most of them in power or got them appointed , People in power are not in the habit of giving it up easily .

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I brought up an example that everyone would know to illustrate how it's common practice to give any petition that comes in a docket regardless of whether or not the Court decides to hear arguments.

But feel free to keep getting triggered anytime someone brings up Trump's legal woes.

a reply to: MetalThunder

"Fraud vitiates everything.”

Yes, if you can prove actual fraud.

A big "if".

Over here anyway.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

I know a guy who knows a guy who knows a guy who knows Trump , So if you want I could get is Autograph for you

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Good update!

If the case is accepted, I hope the person arguing it, is a devout Christian.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: MetalThunder

"Fraud vitiates everything.”

Yes, if you can prove actual fraud.

A big "if".

Over here anyway.

It's nearly impossible to prove voter/election fraud and you know this and the courts know this , the very courts who would be used to prove fraud are the very courts whom would suffer should the fraud be proved.

Election and Voting procedures are purposefully insulated to protect the Privacy and Rights of the people voting but this in turn is what makes it almost impossible to prove fraud. You've seen 2,000 mules I assume ? What more proof do you need combine that with the 2022 midterms and yeah our Election system is very broken.

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I don't really have a dog on this fight so, just saying.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I don't really have a dog on this fight so, just saying.

But yet, you're here anyway, just yapping. Why?

I have high hopes for this case actually getting somewhere.

a reply to: TrulyColorBlind

My sincere apologies.

Was anything I actually said not accurate or not on topic?

I am sorry that I offended your delicate sensibilities in some way.

Let me know how your high hopes pan out.

Best of luck with that.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

I don't really have a dog on this fight so, just saying.

Whaaaat , mate you may not live here but God knows you are very full of opinions so don't use your little knee jerk cop-out when you get cornered by some truth.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Xcalibur254

Good update!

If the case is accepted, I hope the person arguing it, is a devout Christian.

I hope who ever is arguing it, is a devout, WARRIOR! We need someone with a really sharp sword And a dead eye with a sling shot lol

a reply to: All Seeing Eye

God's Blessings to you old friend on this Christmas Season and all good things for the new year...

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Was my opinion wrong, then?

Cornered by what "truth"?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Was my opinion wrong, then?

Cornered by what "truth"?

your opinion is a common one and no your not wrong at least from a very technical stand point .

But can you at least agree that to prove Voter/Election Fraud would be almost impossible given the Election laws and regulations in the United States ?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Of course I agree.

Why wouldn't I?

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Your legal system never ceases to amaze me eg:


BBC News - Florida woman sues Kraft mac and cheese over preparation time
www.bbc.co.uk...

The claim is for $5M!

a reply to: Oldcarpy2

I get something in the mail every few months inviting me to join a class action lawsuit. The most recent was for Baby Powder I bought in 2002...when one son was still in diapers.

a reply to: carewemust

Bloody lawyers!

It's 99% of them that give the rest of us a bad name.

🤥

a reply to: All Seeing Eye
a reply to: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Hey guys, I noticed the side argument about the difficulty of proving fraud, so I wanted to chime in and clarify this for you.

The criminal activity that is alleged by the petitioner is not the fraud that likely occurred in the 2020 election. It is the fact that when 100 congresspeople raised legitimate concerns about the integrity of the election, that instead of allowing those claims to be given consideration as tradition and law allow, the defendants actively thwarted such efforts. The plaintiffs allege that this is treason, as the defendants adhered to enemies of the republic by doing so.

As far as I can tell then, the plaintiff's burden of proof is not that there was fraud, only that there were legitimate concerns that fraud may have occurred. This might be as simple as showing that observers were interfered with. The bar of proof might even be as low as simply showing the fact of the interference in the legitimate process of objecting to the electoral count based on those concerns, which certainly seems to have occurred.

Nananananana, looking in my crystal ball, seeing an engineered interference by civilian third parties on January 6th, followed by lots of legislators saying things like "well we were going to hear objections, but since some civilians who were not elected officials made it onto the capitol building without our permission, and were mean to us, all of that goes right out the window, and we're going to certify this election without giving the legitimate complaints of shady activity the consideration that they are due."

That is not how that process is supposed to work as far as I know. Seems to this layman as though due process was subverted right there. Perhaps even treasonously so. Anyhow, that is what the plaintiffs are alleging. Not so much that there was fraud, but that the legislators and executives in question failed to carry out their oaths of office. They have all sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, but instead subverted it in that situation.