The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#12,126
#12,126
RockyTop85 said:
And six justices are on record saying it shouldn’t have been heard.

But they’re on record about a completely different case and a different issue (ballot-receipt deadlines), not whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.
Click to expand...
No they are not. They absolutely thought that all the Pennsylvania issues should have been heard. All of them.
It should have been heard.
and honestly you should agree with me on this. Especially if you think it’s a slam dunk.

This is pretty typical of the partisan mind set. When this precedent set is used to bend your tribe over you will be singing a different tune. Like you always do
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, InVOLuntary and hog88
#12,127
#12,127
Orangeslice13 said:
No they are not. They absolutely thought that all the Pennsylvania issues should have been heard. All of them.
It should have been heard.
and honestly you should agree with me on this. Especially if you think it’s a slam dunk.

This is pretty typical of the partisan mind set. When this precedent set is used to bend your tribe over you will be singing a different tune. Like you always do
Click to expand...
Lol. It takes 4 votes to accept a case to the Supreme Court docket. There are 9 justices. The case wasn’t heard. There were 3 dissents. Do the math. 6 justices were fine with the outcome at the PA Supreme Court on that case.
 
#12,130
#12,130
Orangeslice13 said:
Should have been heard
Click to expand...
This would be more persuasive if you hadn’t been completely wrong about whether
1. universal mail-in voting was enacted by law,
2. who made the law,
3. whether the law was unconstitutional,
4. when/why the law was passed, and
5. whether that law was eligible for Supreme Court review; or
6. if you hadn’t tried to cite a totally different case about a different issue that didn’t even involve enough votes to change the outcome, and
7. Still tried a hyperventilating, catastrophizing, absurd analogy based on your completely wrong belief that universal mail-in voting was a unilateral creation of the PA governor in violation of the PA Constitution.
8. Which analogy actually did involve a federal issue (voting rights act).

Anxiously awaiting your pronouncement that there’s a super secret case that only you know about that says you’re right, if only you were willing to post it. 😂😂😂
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#12,131
#12,131
RockyTop85 said:
This would be more persuasive if you hadn’t been completely wrong about whether
1. universal mail-in voting was enacted by law,
2. who made the law,
3. whether the law was unconstitutional,
4. when/why the law was passed, and
5. whether that law was eligible for Supreme Court review; or
6. if you hadn’t tried to cite a totally different case about a different issue that didn’t even involve enough votes to change the outcome, and
7. Still tried a hyperventilating, catastrophizing, absurd analogy based on your completely wrong belief that universal mail-in voting was a unilateral creation of the PA governor in violation of the PA Constitution.
8. Which analogy actually did involve a federal issue (voting rights act).

Anxiously awaiting your pronouncement that there’s a super secret case that only you know about that says you’re right, if only you were willing to post it. 😂😂😂
Click to expand...
It’s a very important case that sets a very important precedent
It should have been heard
 
#12,132
#12,132
RockyTop85 said:
This would be more persuasive if you hadn’t been completely wrong about whether
1. universal mail-in voting was enacted by law,
2. who made the law,
3. whether the law was unconstitutional,
4. when/why the law was passed, and
5. whether that law was eligible for Supreme Court review; or
6. if you hadn’t tried to cite a totally different case about a different issue that didn’t even involve enough votes to change the outcome, and
7. Still tried a hyperventilating, catastrophizing, absurd analogy based on your completely wrong belief that universal mail-in voting was a unilateral creation of the PA governor in violation of the PA Constitution.
8. Which analogy actually did involve a federal issue (voting rights act).

Anxiously awaiting your pronouncement that there’s a super secret case that only you know about that says you’re right, if only you were willing to post it. 😂😂😂
Click to expand...
And this is where you break down to name calling
Why I usually don’t take you seriously.
Let’s see how long it takes you to get to “racist”
 
#12,133
#12,133
Orangeslice13 said:
It’s a very important case that sets a very important precedent
It should have been heard
Click to expand...
It was. By the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Six justices of the Us Supreme Court* saw no need to change or revisit their decision.

*- Damn, I forgot, that’s something else you were wrong about/completely made up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tvolsfan
#12,135
#12,135
RockyTop85 said:
It was. By the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. Six justices of the Us Supreme Court* saw no need to change or revisit their decision.

*- Damn, I forgot, that’s something else you were wrong about/completely made up.
Click to expand...
So
Like I said
They had the authority according to SCOTUS judges to hear the case. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

They should have heard the case.
Clearly you disagree. That’s why you are mad and being disrespectful now (nothings been made up beyond your attempts to move goalposts all over the place)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#12,136
#12,136
Orangeslice13 said:
So
Like I said
They had the authority according to SCOTUS judges to hear the case. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

They should have heard the case.
Clearly you disagree. That’s why you are mad and being disrespectful now
Click to expand...

It is a completely different case and a different issue (ballot-receipt deadlines). That case is not about whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.

The plaintiff’s argument was rejected in a later case.

Other than those MinOr dIfFeReNcES, I suppose it’s just like you said.

I hope this was respectful enough to avoid offending your delicate sensitivities. 🤣
 
#12,137
#12,137
RockyTop85 said:
It is a completely different case and a different issue (ballot-receipt deadlines). That case is not about whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.

Other than those MinOr dIfFeReNcES, I suppose it’s just like you said.

I hope this was respectful enough to avoid offending your delicate sensitivities.
Click to expand...
SCOTUS judges are on record saying they had authority to hear all the cases. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

It should have been heard.
(I’ll just repeat that till you understand what you are arguing about)

(His belief as to cause an effect are irrelevant to the question of the law. It could change future outcomes and should have been addressed)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
#12,138
#12,138
Orangeslice13 said:
SCOTUS judges are on record saying they had authority to hear all the cases. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

It should have been heard.
Click to expand...
Lol. This is like the time you forgot what the word “you” meant.

It is a completely different case and a different issue(ballot-receipt deadlines). That case is not about whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.

The plaintiff’s argument was rejected in a later case.
 
#12,139
#12,139
RockyTop85 said:
Lol. This is like the time you forgot what the word “you” meant.

It is a completely different case and a different issue(ballot-receipt deadlines). That case is not about whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.

The plaintiff’s argument was rejected in a later case.
Click to expand...
See
Saying things that never happened because you aren’t serious about a conversation.


SCOTUS judges are on record saying they had authority to hear all the cases. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

It should have been heard.
(I’ll just repeat that till you understand what you are arguing about)

(His belief as to cause an effect are irrelevant to the question of the law. It could change future outcomes and should have been addressed)
 
#12,141
#12,141
Orangeslice13 said:
See
Saying things that never happened because you aren’t serious about a conversation.


SCOTUS judges are on record saying they had authority to hear all the cases. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

It should have been heard.
(I’ll just repeat that till you understand what you are arguing about)

(His belief as to cause an effect are irrelevant to the question of the law. It could change future outcomes and should have been addressed)
Click to expand...
They’re not.
It is a completely different case and a different issue(ballot-receipt deadlines). That case is not about whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.
The plaintiff’s argument was rejected in a later case.

The “it” that you’re saying should have been heard is a complete fabrication. The governor never created universal mail-in voting. It wasn’t done because of Covid. It wasn’t unconstitutional. And there are no SCOTUS judges on record saying that case should be heard. Because that case doesn’t exist. You made the whole thing up.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: benholt06
#12,142
#12,142
RockyTop85 said:
They’re not.
It is a completely different case and a different issue(ballot-receipt deadlines). That case is not about whether legislation allowing universal vote-by-mail is permissible under the Pennsylvania constitution.

Thomas’s dissent notes that the ballots affected by that case were insufficient to change the outcome of the election.
The plaintiff’s argument was rejected in a later case.

The “it” that you’re saying should have been heard is a complete fabrication. The governor never created universal mail-in voting. It wasn’t done because of Covid. It wasn’t unconstitutional. And there are no SCOTUS judges on record saying that case should be heard. Because that case doesn’t exist. You made the whole thing up.
Click to expand...
All irrelevant

SCOTUS chose not to hear the case
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64 and davethevol
#12,149
#12,149
RockyTop85 said:
www.scotusblog.com

Empirical SCOTUS: The importance of state court cases before the Supreme Court - SCOTUSblog

Supreme Court review is often thought of as mainly monitoring the federal courts and circuit splits. The reasons for this are obvious. Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court broad authority to review questions of federal law, but the court’s power to supervise state courts has been
www.scotusblog.com www.scotusblog.com

“Article III of the Constitution gives the Supreme Court broad authority to review questions of federal law, but the court's power to supervise state courts has been limited since the Judiciary Act of 1789, which made clear that the Supreme Court cannot review state court judgments on questions of purely state law.”
Click to expand...

Maybe we need to address a few issues such as the election of federal issues when deciding what is state and what is federal. When some states decide that election rules are flexible and they don't need to enforce common issues like voter vetting, that affects other states that hold more traditional and more restrictive measures. Interstate commerce is a similar instance - particularly things that allowed some states to interfere by restricting transport common to other states.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top