5
BackQuack 5 points ago +5 / -0

I don't personally know anyone who's gotten COVID and I work in a hospital.

10
BackQuack 10 points ago +10 / -0

The blonde hair on his legs would stand up so kids could rub them. I wouldn't sit on his lap though...BZZZZZZ.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only problem I see with this is setting precedent. Also, this can work the opposite way as well. In swing states with a Democratic legislature, Dems could flood with illegal mail-in ballots for Trump, show the "fraud", courts let it go to the Democrat State legislature where Biden would win regardless of whether he had the majority of legit votes..

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Unreal. "The nature of the epidemic, the spikes, the uncertainties, and the need for quick action, taken together, mean that the State has countervailing arguments based upon health, safety, and administrative considerations that must be balanced against the applicants’ First Amendment challenges."

2
BackQuack 2 points ago +2 / -0

The "better good" and "extraordinary times" aren't in the Constitution for a reason; those situations don't matter. Our forefathers thought of just about and possible scenario before drafting it. There are no implied exceptions.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Trump: "Biden called them "super predators". MSM: False. Biden called them "predators".

Trump: "Biden finished at the bottom of his class." MSM: False. Biden graduated 76th out of 84.

Trump does this all the time and MSM continues to fall for it.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

"There's no such thing as Obama judges" as soon as he said that when Trump was first elected, I knew 100%.

8
BackQuack 8 points ago +8 / -0

They're whistleblowers that are being ignored while one of their "whistleblowers" was able to impeach the President. Infuriating.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

How am I wrong? This has been the reoccurring theme so far including the recent third district decision. I agree with you, the law's the law and the Constitution should not be violated. However, throwing out a hundred thousand votes because some of them may be illegitimate won't be as easy as you think. But it's not up to us and SCOTUS has been unpredictable as of late.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +6 / -5

If you can prove that Dominion software altered the election, then this is a slam dunk. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be the case right now. The fact that Trump's case will be primarily constitutional based worries me.

4
BackQuack 4 points ago +4 / -0

They've been given a free pass because of COVID. So far, it's been ruled that states can do whatever they want due to COVID, even violating their own laws, so that people get a chance to vote. So it will come down to State Law and/or Constitution vs. the right to allow people to vote. Which take precedent over the other?

3
BackQuack 3 points ago +3 / -0

So far, the excuses by the courts have been the unprecedented COVID plague and not wanting to disenfranchise voters as reasons to basically let states do whatever they please and get away with it.

0
BackQuack 0 points ago +1 / -1

This would set a bad precedent. In purple states, say, Trump was winning but the state legislature was leaning D. All that would need to be done by D's is to commit fraud ultimately sending it to the legislature who will then pick D electors. This is a very hard case for SCOTUS to decide.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

In GA, you have up to two business days after certification to request a recount, so I would indeed agree that certification is only a procedural step.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0

Imagine SCOTUS ruling against Trump, basically saying that violating State law, the Constitution and defying a Supreme Court ruling is permissible. This precedent will not be allowed plain and simple.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +1 / -0 (edited)

The Constitution does not say that states can do whatever they want regarding poll watchers. This provision was specifically put in place to prevent fraud and when poll watchers are denied access (defying a court order) or are not allowed to be close to ballot counters (even when the election committee says otherwise), there should be no question that these violations are egregious. SCOTUS letting states get away with this basically means no poll watchers in the future which they cannot and will not permit. This is going to go to the state legislatures for choosing electors is my guess.

2
BackQuack 2 points ago +2 / -0

Agreed. These cases can stand on their own, there are so many state laws broken and constitutional violations it's ridiculous. They can't set precedent for any party to be able to get away with things like this (and more) in future elections.

1
BackQuack 1 point ago +2 / -1

They just would have cheated another way to make up the difference. The fact that PA openly defied the ruling on October 28th to set aside votes obtained after the deadline should infuriate all of the justices.

view more: Next ›