Nobody should be able to make millions in politics.
We'll find out for real within a couple weeks. Nothing good we can do about it now.
How likely is it that SCOTUS is going to bundle up multiple cases? Or is it likely that we'll be seeing them several times over the next two weeks?
And speaking of the constitutional clock, while it's ticking, are we doing decently well enough in terms of time?
That's one step away from an important act that I hope won't be required, but I do hope he's willing if it becomes necessary.
Nice work. Let's hope you pull this off.
Only if President Trump wins, which is why the question exists. It will hopefully scare SCOTUS enough to tilt a bit more in our favor.
Again, the runoff is in January and we don't actually have to lose. The threat is the advantage.
More or less.
Like I mentioned in another response, RINOs are of no consequence in this scenario, because this threat can only exist if the Dems own both the Senate and the White House. And right now, they look like a bit of a package deal, meaning the SC might also have self-preservation on the brain.
But yes, I agree that they should do the right thing anyway regardless. But that's an additional feather in our cap.
I actually think RINOs strengthen our case. Put yourself into the mind of a justice, and let's assume that they don't care about legislation. The possibility of a dem-controlled White House and Senate is a huge threat to their power. And we don't actually have to lose the runoff (since the justices know that losing the presidency will not bode well for the runoff). The fact that they can rule themselves into a corner might be one of our biggest boons in this situation.
One of the judges said that we had no proof, even though we didn't get to present the proof we had documented and in a motion to dismiss, judges are required to assume that all you've filed is true. So it's another corrupt judge.
You need to ask about the story of this place at some point. It's been a wild ride since 2015/2016.
Based on the article linked in the tweet, I'm thinking the constitutional question would be something along the lines of "When choosing electors, are state legislatures bound by the limitations of their state constitutions?"
Definitely not a lawyer and learning a lot of civics this month. As an auxiliary question, I've been getting the impression recently that the SC acts almost as an oracle for federal questions, which are then used to justify decisions based on how to deal with harm or potential harm to the plaintiff. Is that an accurate picture of the situation, or am I misreading how the "Supreme Court federal question" works?
Well, we've got two weeks.
That's Hawaii-judge level mockery.
Yes there's a boatload of proof, but this isn't one of our cases. It's an important one, but it's not about voter fraud. This case is about Pennsylvania violating its own laws.
We're almost definitely going to need SCOTUS to bail us out of this one.
Keep calling, but don't expect this route to pan out by itself. It's great PR, but the odds of succeeding without a court decision are near-zero. This is a major support move that bolsters us in court.
News on this? I'd almost consider it if it meant we could end this nightmarescape.
This question keeps dancing in the back of my mind. Historically, SCOTUS has been petrified of court packing, and we all know Joe's going to go for it. Are they really going to spring their own trap?
This can go to the SC if they turn it into a federal question. See https://uncoverdc.com/2020/11/28/case-dismissed-analysis-of-decision-in-pennsylvanias-parnell-case/
Same to you u/ProdigalSon1997 and u/richy0012.
It's not. We're all doomed without someone to save us. That's why Christ died for our sins.
In 2016, the people elected an outsider to turn this nation around and abandon the path of evil that it was walking. This outsider chose one of the strongest believers in government for the second highest political office in the land.
Over the next four years, these two have been doing everything within their power to get this nation back on a path toward goodness and to remove those who wish to destroy us from authority.
In 2020, one of the most powerful individuals in the country dies, one who sacrificed millions upon millions of the most innocent lives through her wicked decisions. She is replaced by one who seeks what is good and cherishes life.
That same year, those same people, driven by the good these leaders have done over the past four years, rush in droves to elect them again. The nation wanted to turn back to what is good, and so did those in command.
A small wicked few taint the efforts of both leadership and their constituents and attempt to install someone who lives on and wishes to return to the path of evil.
Is God really going to give the nation whose people and highest leaders are working to turn the nation back to the path of righteousness into the hands of those who wish to do us harm? Is he really going to deliver us from the mouth of the lion and into the hands of the bear? Were we spared four years ago for nothing?
I don't claim to know God's will or his plan. But I do believe that it's in his character to save our nation when we're lurching toward him in every way but are being blocked by the actions of an evil few.
1 Corinthians 1:26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
As of right now, we don't have any evidence other than hearsay that Hammer and Scorecard exist.