Remember me
▼ Content

GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!!!!



Page 1 of 7123>>>
GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!!!!09-12-2020 03:15
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit
Edited on 09-12-2020 03:15
09-12-2020 05:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit


The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS how their republic was harmed by the actions of the rogue states.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-12-2020 06:12
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
It appears Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota will be joining the lawsuit.

This is going to get real. I am optimistic. However, to the ignorant, this will still look like trump used the courts to steal the election.

I saw today that a forensic investigation of 22 Michigan Dominion machines had been ordered today. Anyone heard a time frame when that is expected completed? This would be the ultimate bombshell, IMHO.
Edited on 09-12-2020 06:15
09-12-2020 06:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
GasGuzzler wrote:
It appears Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota will be joining the lawsuit.

This is going to get real. I am optimistic. However, to the ignorant, this will still look like trump used the courts to steal the election.

I saw today that a forensic investigation of 22 Michigan Dominion machines had been ordered today. Anyone heard a time frame when that is expected completed? This would be the ultimate bombshell, IMHO.


Going back to one of your previous questions, yes, poll workers can "make manual adjustments" as needed on any and all ballots using Dominion machines. It is a built-in "feature" that enables quick fixes for ballots with "errors" because poll workers don't have time to dedicate to additional formal processes when they are swamped and possibly short-handed.

It's why Dominion machines are banned in many places.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-12-2020 11:14
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit


The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS how their republic was harmed by the actions of the rogue states.

.

BINGO! And those States are absolutely correct that they are being harmed by the rogue States (more specifically, the rogue Governors, Attorney Generals, Mayors, election commissions/officials, activist judges, etc) ... This brings everything full circle, and the genius is that this goes directly to SCOTUS due to it being a State (with other States joining in) suing other States.

The fight for our Republic continues!!!
09-12-2020 11:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
GasGuzzler wrote:
It appears Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina, South Dakota will be joining the lawsuit.

This is going to get real. I am optimistic.

Me too. This is a huge step forward in winning the fight for our Republic. I would think that all of those States would join in, and hopefully a bunch more as well. It's a cut and dry lawsuit, and the more States that join in on it the better.

GasGuzzler wrote:
However, to the ignorant, this will still look like trump used the courts to steal the election.

Of course the fake news activists will spin it, and the Demokkkrats will unleash their "brown shirts" in the large cities once again... They will say that Trump stole the SCOTUS seats to steal the election (they will make sure to use and abuse the words 'coup' and 'dictator'/'tyrant' (Hitler?) in their gaslighting). They always blame conservatives for the things that THEY are actually doing. They are individuals whose spirits are filled with the sick, evil, dishonest, twisted ways of Satan.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I saw today that a forensic investigation of 22 Michigan Dominion machines had been ordered today. Anyone heard a time frame when that is expected completed? This would be the ultimate bombshell, IMHO.

I haven't been following it that closely, but I do hope that it turns up something juicy. It would be an ultimate bombshell indeed...
Edited on 09-12-2020 11:35
09-12-2020 11:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
IBdaMann wrote:
The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS ...


Do you think SCOTUS will take this one? Or do you think they will be "required" to ? (again)

I sure hope they will. It is in everyone's best interest to feel that the process was complete.
09-12-2020 11:42
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS ...


Do you think SCOTUS will take this one?

Yes.

tmiddles wrote:
Or do you think they will be "required" to ? (again)

They are required to take it, and a lawsuit between States goes directly to them.

Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.

tmiddles wrote:
I sure hope they will. It is in everyone's best interest to feel that the process was complete.

It is most definitely in the best interest of our Republic, that's for damn sure.
09-12-2020 11:50
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.
This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!
Edited on 09-12-2020 12:30
09-12-2020 15:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit


So I have a little more information on the Texas lawsuit.

I recommend tempering expectations on the outcome of this lawsuit and mentally separating this lawsuit from efforts to stop the steal of this election. This lawsuit will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court but will likely be limited in scope to procedures for future elections. SCOTUS will not be interfering in any State's sovereign ability to choose its Presidential electors, even if they want to hold sham elections for their own amusement. The States who are parties to the lawsuit will have to narrowly focus their arguments to the harm caused to the country by non-legislative bodies, i.e. Secretaries of State by allowing a political party to usurp/hijack the State legislature's ability to listen to the people of the State.

As such, this might result in screwing the Democrats out of being able to cheat in future elections (which hits them where it hurts because Democrats depend on lying/cheating/stealing to win instead of presenting ideas for issues) but it cannot affect what has already occurred in this election. This election can only serve as an example of what might/will happen every election hereafter if SCOTUS does not provide relief/remedy.

We the People need to focus our efforts on pressuring our State legislatures to stop the steal and to do the right thing by selecting the appropriate electors.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-12-2020 16:35
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Demokkkrats are fugged... ROYALLY fugged......

Numerous other conservative States are either joining in on the lawsuit as we speak or will eventually join in... this is BIG...

Treehouse post about it containing an embedded copy of the lawsuit


So I have a little more information on the Texas lawsuit.

I recommend tempering expectations on the outcome of this lawsuit and mentally separating this lawsuit from efforts to stop the steal of this election. This lawsuit will likely be heard by the US Supreme Court but will likely be limited in scope to procedures for future elections. SCOTUS will not be interfering in any State's sovereign ability to choose its Presidential electors, even if they want to hold sham elections for their own amusement. The States who are parties to the lawsuit will have to narrowly focus their arguments to the harm caused to the country by non-legislative bodies, i.e. Secretaries of State by allowing a political party to usurp/hijack the State legislature's ability to listen to the people of the State.

As such, this might result in screwing the Democrats out of being able to cheat in future elections (which hits them where it hurts because Democrats depend on lying/cheating/stealing to win instead of presenting ideas for issues) but it cannot affect what has already occurred in this election. This election can only serve as an example of what might/will happen every election hereafter if SCOTUS does not provide relief/remedy.

We the People need to focus our efforts on pressuring our State legislatures to stop the steal and to do the right thing by selecting the appropriate electors.

.

Good points. It very well could play out that way in court, so it is indeed very important to keep pressuring the State legislatures to not certify the fraudulent results of their elections.
09-12-2020 16:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.
This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

Read the bolded. Only injunctive relief was denied.
09-12-2020 17:18
James___
★★★★★
(5093)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.
This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!


I think in reality that a citizen of that stated would need to be aggrieved by the actions of the election board. I think it will be found that Texas cannot challenge another state's laws. This would violate state's rights. Basically speaking it could be seen as Texas trying to define another state's law and forcing it's opinion on that state or states. States have their own Supreme Court for this purpose.
This is just another example of Republicans trying to pervert the law. When they get away with it, we're screwed.
09-12-2020 17:43
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.
This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!


I think in reality that a citizen of that stated would need to be aggrieved by the actions of the election board. I think it will be found that Texas cannot challenge another state's laws. This would violate state's rights. Basically speaking it could be seen as Texas trying to define another state's law and forcing it's opinion on that state or states. States have their own Supreme Court for this purpose.
This is just another example of Republicans trying to pervert the law. When they get away with it, we're screwed.


But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue. Suppose one state passed a law, where all homeless, illegal immigrants, or felons released from prison, are shipped over the state line, and not to return. Wouldn't that law, harm other states, burdening them with the cost of dealing with those problems? The election issues being challenged, is that states that ran a fair election, got screwed, by the states that played the mail-in ballots fast and lose. Absentee ballots need to be requested individually, and for a specific reason. Those states just mailed them out to every registered voter, dead or alive, or whether they planned to also vote in person. Ballots were mailed out to the address on record. I don't live in a mail-in state, so don't know if any effort was made to confirm that a voter still lived, lived at the address on record, or even wanted to mail-in their vote. I do know there are currently a lot of people living in Florida, from other states, to escape the pandemic mandates and restrictions, job opportunities, cost of living.
09-12-2020 18:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
HarveyH55 wrote: But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue.

Exactly. That is what the Constitution reads:

US Constitution: Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Controversies between two or more States


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-12-2020 21:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
The States, who own the Constitution, will explain to SCOTUS ...


Do you think SCOTUS will take this one? Or do you think they will be "required" to ? (again)

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
09-12-2020 21:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.
This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!

BOTH cases are now in the Supreme Court.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
09-12-2020 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Btw, SCOTUS did not reject the PA case... that is, once again, fake news purposely glossing over importantly crucial details as part of their psyops against the citizenry.
This is fake news?:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020
ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20A98
KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

That's the court order directly from SCOTUS.

So how is that "fake news"?

Not fake news:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html
This says that there is a motion by Texas and that the accused states can respond to the motion by 3pm Thursday. So far no indication yet that the court will take the case. As this is state on state action it seems like it would have a better chance. Let's all hope so!


I think in reality that a citizen of that stated would need to be aggrieved by the actions of the election board. I think it will be found that Texas cannot challenge another state's laws.

Texas is not challenging the law of any other State. It is instead demanding that those States FOLLOW THEIR OWN LAWS and the Constitution of the United States.
James___ wrote:
This would violate state's rights.

No. It is one State suing others because the others broke their own laws and affected a federal election.
James___ wrote:
Basically speaking it could be seen as Texas trying to define another state's law and forcing it's opinion on that state or states.

It is not defining any law in any other State.
James___ wrote:
States have their own Supreme Court for this purpose.

State supreme courts do not have jurisdiction outside of that State. The Supreme Court does.
James___ wrote:
This is just another example of Republicans trying to pervert the law.

No. Texas is trying to ENFORCE the law.
James___ wrote:
When they get away with it, we're screwed.

We are already screwed. The election has faulted. Ten States are standing up and demanding that these legislatures of these defendants either act, or lose their electoral votes.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
10-12-2020 02:13
James___
★★★★★
(5093)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue.

Exactly. That is what the Constitution reads:

US Constitution: Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Controversies between two or more States


.



Nah, you guys are like the ones in China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc. that fought for a government take over of a country. As you guys say, it doesn't matter how it happens but Trump should be ruler regardless of what election laws allow for.
Kind of why his cases keep getting dismissed and Trumpsters become more vigalante than citizen.
10-12-2020 02:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: But when one state's laws, screw over another state, that's when it becomes a federal issue.

Exactly. That is what the Constitution reads:

US Constitution: Article III. Section. 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Controversies between two or more States


.



Nah, you guys are like the ones in China, Russia, Germany, Italy, etc. that fought for a government take over of a country. As you guys say, it doesn't matter how it happens but Trump should be ruler regardless of what election laws allow for.
Kind of why his cases keep getting dismissed and Trumpsters become more vigalante than citizen.

Denial of the Constitution of the United States. Denial of history.
Denial of evidence. The coup attempt is by the Democrats, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 10-12-2020 02:38
10-12-2020 02:58
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
I doubt seriously there is going to be violence in the streets, that's more of a democrat thing. We do our fighting in court, because we believe in the Constitution, and the courts. It was expected that many cases would get tossed out of the lower courts, that's how they get moved up to the higher courts. Just how the system works. Just the formalities of the system. The left media, just wants to continue push their narrative, and give the appearance that is over. Would have been nice to win the lower courts, and put the democrats on the defensive, but not required. Republicans won't take to violence, even if it isn't resolved by Jan. 20th, because there is still 2024... There is a much greater likelihood of violence, when Trump wins, and Biden is a three-time-loser. Butt-hurt democrats always vandalize, loot, and burn things, when they don't get their way.
10-12-2020 03:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
gfm7175 wrote:...Only injunctive relief was denied.
So you believe this case is still pending before the Supreme Court?

My understanding is that it was an application for injunctive relief and they passed.

IBD was apparently in the room though so maybe he can fill us in.
10-12-2020 14:50
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...Only injunctive relief was denied.
So you believe this case is still pending before the Supreme Court?

RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:
My understanding is that it was an application for injunctive relief and they passed.

IBD was apparently in the room though so maybe he can fill us in.

Your understanding is, as usual, incorrect, for reasons already mentioned.
10-12-2020 19:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:...Only injunctive relief was denied.
So you believe this case is still pending before the Supreme Court?

My understanding is that it was an application for injunctive relief and they passed.

IBD was apparently in the room though so maybe he can fill us in.

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-12-2020 02:43
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case on the account that Texas does not have standing. Alito and Thomas dissented.

Looks like the State Legislatures is where it is at. Otherwise, say hello to the CCPUSA... but it sounds like the WI Supreme Court is taking up the Trump case in the State...
12-12-2020 03:18
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2152)
On 11-21-2020 GasGuzzler wrote:

I'm an outsider on this one.

I don't have much faith in the courts. Judges are human and the LAST thing they want is to be seen as is picking a president. They know Antifa and BLM will burn and loot every American city. Without mayors and governors willing to squash it, innocent people will die.

I have no doubt there was a lot of voting BS that went on. However, as someone else pointed out, time is the biggest hurdle. Unless the evidence is irrefutable, I don't think the supreme court is going near it.

Full investigation and finding that kind of evidence in a couple weeks time seems unlikely to me, but I'm not giving up.


This is one time in my life that I hate being right. :

Edited on 12-12-2020 03:18
12-12-2020 03:21
James___
★★★★★
(5093)
gfm7175 wrote:
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case on the account that Texas does not have standing. Alito and Thomas dissented.

Looks like the State Legislatures is where it is at. Otherwise, say hello to the CCPUSA... but it sounds like the WI Supreme Court is taking up the Trump case in the State...



Kind of like Jesus was a good Jew and never broke Jewish law. Jewish law during his time required him to marry and have children. I think I know now why people avoid church. Christians love Trump who is a disruptive person yet believes he should be given authority the law does not allow for.
And with Christians, they want to tell people how to live because of their belief which is their interpretation of the Bible.
12-12-2020 03:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
GasGuzzler wrote:This is one time in my life that I hate being right. :

To be honest, this is the correct decision. The Supreme Court has no ability to provide any sort of relief in this case. There is nothing they can do.

This is entirely a matter for the State legislatures and there is still time for each State to do the right thing.

I like Into the Night's wording, that any Presidential election in any State is merely a suggestion/recommendation by the residents of a State to their State legislature as to which electors to send, but only State legislatures have ever had the final say on the chosen electors.

It might be the case that State legislators were paid off NOT do the right thing and to look the other way. If so, the Presidency will have been bought and forthwith paid.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2020 13:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
gfm7175 wrote:
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case ...

It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case. Check with ITN there must be an error in reality.

Never fear ITN insists the prior case is still pending:
Into the Night wrote:
The court has not rejected the case. The only thing denied was the emergency relief request. The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html
So we'll keep checking on that.

How do you guys "know" things? Fascinating, the mind of madness.

GasGuzzler wrote:
I have no doubt there was a lot of voting BS ... finding that kind of evidence in a couple weeks time seems unlikely to me, ...

Now I take issue with your recipe there GG.

I suggest:
Step 1: Evidence
Step 2: Confidence

If you're confident before the evidence you're lost.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 12-12-2020 14:23
12-12-2020 15:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

Either you are being dishonest or you are a moron, but when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered. There is no decision if they haven't heard the case.

So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?


Note: All of the cases still exist with the Supreme Court and can be modified or used to support any future case.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-12-2020 16:29
James___
★★★★★
(5093)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

Either you are being dishonest or you are a moron, but when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered. There is no decision if they haven't heard the case.

So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?


Note: All of the cases still exist with the Supreme Court and can be modified or used to support any future case.

.



The SCOTUS did not hear the case. They simply denied it based on it violating the Constitution. It was like I said, Texas has no right to tell another state how to hold its election(s).

The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

Yep, leave it to Republicans to try to define what the Constitution states for their own wants. Simply put, judicially cognizable interest.
What those last 3 words means is that Texas doesn't have the authority to determine if how other states holds their elections is a violation of that state's law or laws. That's for the respective state courts and then federal court if they choose to hear the appeal to decide.


As to IBDM saying;
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.


I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.


What this last part allowed for was it gave SCOTUS the opportunity to say that the state of Texas actions were not allowed by the Constitution. Then in the future when the Republican party tries to employ similar tactics, a decision has been rendered on those tactics as being unconstitutional.
And as anyone can read, except for the issue of what Texas was doing was unconstitutional, nothing else was considered.
Edited on 12-12-2020 16:36
12-12-2020 16:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3744)
IBdaMann wrote:
...when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered.

Ah your favorite refuge IBD: Vocabulary fantasy camp.

Oh so the court unanimously rejected both cases on the merits so far huh?

Wow that's even worse for Trump.

Into the Night wrote:
The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

So by "hear" or "take up" the case you're all including rejecting hearing the case.

Well you'll need to work on your understanding of the law. To "hear", to "take up" a case means the court has actually considered the argument made in the case and not simply if they will hear it.

SCOTUS "hears" about 150 out of 7000 cases. That means ~6850 are denied just as Trumps cases have been.

ITN is simply crazy and:https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

Is not pending. Its one of the ~6850 cases to be refused by the court. Along with the Texas case it will not be "taken up" or "heard" by the court.

But whats nice about this topic is we are dealing with human action. There can be no excuse for using vocabulary differently than Scotus itself.

" The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions a year. The Justices use the "Rule of Four" to decide if they will take the case. If four of the nine Justices feel the case has value, they will issue a writ of certiorari. "
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/

Guess what? They didn't "take" either case.
12-12-2020 16:42
James___
★★★★★
(5093)
This is a good one. Even with what Pennsylvania said, is it treasonous for government officials to try and overthrow an election? It can be considered as an act of rebellion against the US when false claims are pursued because a party chooses not to accept certified election results or a state court's decision.
And representatives should abide by the constitution instead of saying their candidate should be president.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html
Edited on 12-12-2020 16:43
12-12-2020 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:This is one time in my life that I hate being right. :

To be honest, this is the correct decision. The Supreme Court has no ability to provide any sort of relief in this case. There is nothing they can do.

Actually, there is. It could order the legislatures of these States to act or abstain.
IBdaMann wrote:
This is entirely a matter for the State legislatures and there is still time for each State to do the right thing.

True. They have until Jan 6th. Hopefully, they will act.
IBdaMann wrote:
I like Into the Night's wording, that any Presidential election in any State is merely a suggestion/recommendation by the residents of a State to their State legislature as to which electors to send, but only State legislatures have ever had the final say on the chosen electors.

Thank you.
IBdaMann wrote:
It might be the case that State legislators were paid off NOT do the right thing and to look the other way. If so, the Presidency will have been bought and forthwith paid.

That remains to be seen and could possibly be another lawsuit or investigation to expose this.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-12-2020 20:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Update: SCOTUS refuses to hear the case ...

It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case. Check with ITN there must be an error in reality.

Never fear ITN insists the prior case is still pending:

Trump's prior case is still pending. The Texas case has been heard, and the court made a terrible decision.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The court has not rejected the case. The only thing denied was the emergency relief request. The case is still pending in the Supreme Court.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html
So we'll keep checking on that.

How do you guys "know" things? Fascinating, the mind of madness.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I have no doubt there was a lot of voting BS ... finding that kind of evidence in a couple weeks time seems unlikely to me, ...

Now I take issue with your recipe there GG.

I suggest:
Step 1: Evidence

Evidence exists.
tmiddles wrote:
Step 2: Confidence

If you're confident before the evidence you're lost.

Evidence already exists, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-12-2020 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.

Either you are being dishonest or you are a moron, but when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered. There is no decision if they haven't heard the case.

So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?


Note: All of the cases still exist with the Supreme Court and can be modified or used to support any future case.

.



The SCOTUS did not hear the case.

Yes they did.
James___ wrote:
They simply denied it based on it violating the Constitution.

You can't deny what you haven't heard.
James___ wrote:
It was like I said, Texas has no right to tell another state how to hold its election(s).

Texas is not trying to do that. They are insisting that the elections in these four States is irrelevant, and is requesting the legislatures of these States need to act.
James___ wrote:
The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

They have. This opinion is ridiculous.
James___ wrote:
Yep, leave it to Republicans to try to define what the Constitution states for their own wants. Simply put, judicially cognizable interest.

The Constitution defines what is in the Constitution, nothing else.
James___ wrote:
What those last 3 words means is that Texas doesn't have the authority to determine if how other states holds their elections is a violation of that state's law or laws. That's for the respective state courts and then federal court if they choose to hear the appeal to decide.

Texas is not trying to decide how another State holds their election or chooses their electors. It is simply insisting that these States follow their own laws.
James___ wrote:
As to IBDM saying;
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:It would seem this is not possible. It has been insisted on here SCOTUS is required to hear the case.

Which they did.


I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.


What this last part allowed for was it gave SCOTUS the opportunity to say that the state of Texas actions were not allowed by the Constitution.

The are allowed by the Constitution.
James___ wrote:
Then in the future when the Republican party tries to employ similar tactics, a decision has been rendered on those tactics as being unconstitutional.

They are constitutional.
James___ wrote:
And as anyone can read, except for the issue of what Texas was doing was unconstitutional, nothing else was considered.

Texas' actions ARE constitutional. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-12-2020 20:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16122)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...when a court renders a decision such as "denied" then they have "heard" the case, consideration was given and a decision rendered.

Ah your favorite refuge IBD: Vocabulary fantasy camp.

Oh so the court unanimously rejected both cases on the merits so far huh?

Wow that's even worse for Trump.

Into the Night wrote:
The supreme court is REQUIRED to take up this case.

So by "hear" or "take up" the case you're all including rejecting hearing the case.

Well you'll need to work on your understanding of the law. To "hear", to "take up" a case means the court has actually considered the argument made in the case and not simply if they will hear it.

SCOTUS "hears" about 150 out of 7000 cases. That means ~6850 are denied just as Trumps cases have been.

ITN is simply crazy and:https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a98.html

Is not pending. Its one of the ~6850 cases to be refused by the court. Along with the Texas case it will not be "taken up" or "heard" by the court.

But whats nice about this topic is we are dealing with human action. There can be no excuse for using vocabulary differently than Scotus itself.

" The Supreme Court receives about 10,000 petitions a year. The Justices use the "Rule of Four" to decide if they will take the case. If four of the nine Justices feel the case has value, they will issue a writ of certiorari. "
https://judiciallearningcenter.org/the-us-supreme-court/

Guess what? They didn't "take" either case.

Lying again, eh? Trump's lawsuit is still pending, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
12-12-2020 21:09
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3643)
James___ wrote:
This is a good one. Even with what Pennsylvania said, is it treasonous for government officials to try and overthrow an election? It can be considered as an act of rebellion against the US when false claims are pursued because a party chooses not to accept certified election results or a state court's decision.
And representatives should abide by the constitution instead of saying their candidate should be president.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html


So, questioning the results is an act of treason? A lot of questionable things happened this year. If you believe there is an issue, you take it to court. That's what this country was founded on. The courts are available to everyone, to resolve disputes. Just because the left, and the media, claim victory, doesn't mean we all have to blindly accept. Why even hold elections, if you are going to faithfully accept everything your masters tell you, without question?

The disputes will serve another purpose, even if they fail in court, there will be changes made, to ensure nothing like this happens next election. Nobody wants to have to fight out every election in court, and some strong arguments were made. Some only failed, because they weren't worded, or presented properly, evidence not presented properly. There was a lot of weird stuff going on during this election, and ballot counting, but ho to present it to the courts, as required, and present it to illustrate why it's supports our case, is difficult. Unusual, doesn't make it blatantly illegal, or you'd be posting from a jail cell...
12-12-2020 21:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10005)
IBdaMann wrote:So which is it? "Dishonest" or "Moron"?
tmiddles wrote:Ah your favorite refuge IBD: Vocabulary fantasy camp.

So the correct answer is "Moron." Got it.

tmiddles wrote:Oh so the court unanimously rejected both cases on the merits so far huh?

Again you are pretending that I haven't answered this question throroughly already.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 12-12-2020 21:15
12-12-2020 21:15
James___
★★★★★
(5093)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
This is a good one. Even with what Pennsylvania said, is it treasonous for government officials to try and overthrow an election? It can be considered as an act of rebellion against the US when false claims are pursued because a party chooses not to accept certified election results or a state court's decision.
And representatives should abide by the constitution instead of saying their candidate should be president.

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html


So, questioning the results is an act of treason? A lot of questionable things happened this year. If you believe there is an issue, you take it to court. That's what this country was founded on. The courts are available to everyone, to resolve disputes. Just because the left, and the media, claim victory, doesn't mean we all have to blindly accept. Why even hold elections, if you are going to faithfully accept everything your masters tell you, without question?

The disputes will serve another purpose, even if they fail in court, there will be changes made, to ensure nothing like this happens next election. Nobody wants to have to fight out every election in court, and some strong arguments were made. Some only failed, because they weren't worded, or presented properly, evidence not presented properly. There was a lot of weird stuff going on during this election, and ballot counting, but ho to present it to the courts, as required, and present it to illustrate why it's supports our case, is difficult. Unusual, doesn't make it blatantly illegal, or you'd be posting from a jail cell...



It was not up to congressional representatives to challenge certified election results. On a ship their actions would be considered as mutiny. There was nothing questionable about the election as the lawsuits kept being dismissed as baseless claims. No evidence to support the claims made has ever been shown.
It is time to start viewing the attempts to overthrow a lawful election as treason.
Edited on 12-12-2020 21:17
Page 1 of 7123>>>





Join the debate GOD BLESS TEXAS!!!!!!:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Divine Program Make Human God Again Help You Live To Thousands Years Is Open Free For All008-10-2021 10:06
The Savior Introduce Make Human God Again The New Ultimate Religion Of Life On Earth007-10-2021 12:27
Energy Prices Rising In Texas....Again816-07-2021 19:15
God Exists! Security video proves it...1801-05-2021 07:13
The Savior Offer A Special Program To Help You Unlock Your God Body & Live Like Gods124-02-2021 06:15
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact