Supremes to consider election fraud cases

easyliving45

Active Member
Geez: How many times have we been lad to believe there will be justice in the case of this election.
I am not Nostradamus but I predict nothing will happen.
SCOTUS is a little over month late to be hearing this case.

I am no pessimist, just a realist, and this is just more BS.

Exactly.

Just like you were lied to that mail in votes would lead to fraud.

Just like you were lied to about the 60 other meritless cases.

Just like you were lied to that state could select their own electors

Just like you were lied to that Pence could magically choose the next president by rejecting certification.

Just like you were lied to that if you donated X dollars to Trump you could "stop the steal".

it has all been a long con to get his supporters to donate money.


• President Donald Trump and allied groups have aggressively sought to raise funds after the election, using legal challenges to Joe Biden’s victory in their pitches.

• Trump’s campaign and several allied groups have said they raised $207 million between Election Day and Nov. 23. The number is certainly higher by now, but hard numbers won’t be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission until Jan. 31.

• One of the groups that is not included in these figures, a leadership political action committee called Save America, reported that it had raised $570,000 during its first two weeks of existence, but a fuller accounting won’t be available until Jan. 31.

• Funds raised by Save America can be spent with many fewer restrictions than dollars raised by the other Trump-allied groups.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Exactly.

Just like you were lied to that mail in votes would lead to fraud.

Just like you were lied to about the 60 other meritless cases.

Just like you were lied to that state could select their own electors

Just like you were lied to that Pence could magically choose the next president by rejecting certification.

Just like you were lied to that if you donated X dollars to Trump you could "stop the steal".

it has all been a long con to get his supporters to donate money.


• President Donald Trump and allied groups have aggressively sought to raise funds after the election, using legal challenges to Joe Biden’s victory in their pitches.

• Trump’s campaign and several allied groups have said they raised $207 million between Election Day and Nov. 23. The number is certainly higher by now, but hard numbers won’t be disclosed to the Federal Election Commission until Jan. 31.

• One of the groups that is not included in these figures, a leadership political action committee called Save America, reported that it had raised $570,000 during its first two weeks of existence, but a fuller accounting won’t be available until Jan. 31.

• Funds raised by Save America can be spent with many fewer restrictions than dollars raised by the other Trump-allied groups.
:lmao:
 
See, and I feel like election fraud is important enough that any credible claims should at least be investigated. We do more for suspicious freaking football calls than we do for our elections, and that's wrong. I'm surprised anyone would be happy about that, even if it IS their guy who benefited.
I'm sure some people will be happy that the Supreme Court doesn't agree to hear those cases; but I don't really feel that way. My assessment of whether the Court will hear those cases has nothing to do with whether I'd like the Court to. I would have preferred the Court agree to hear the Texas v Pennsylvania case and settle some legal issues on the merits, but I knew there was essentially no chance it would. The cert petition wasn't even a serious petition seeking a grant. It made some pretty absurd assertions and was a prop more than a serious court filing. But I'd have liked the Court to take up some of the issues from it.

Regarding the three cases which are the subject of this thread, the Court effectively decided that it didn't think there was anything there which should be reviewed when it considered and denied - without voiced dissent - the respective motions to expedite. If the Court thought there were something worthy of deeper consideration in these cases, it would have granted the motions to expedite and considered the cases before it was far too late for it to matter. It could have done that.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
I'm sure some people will be happy that the Supreme Court doesn't agree to hear those cases; but I don't really feel that way. My assessment of whether the Court will hear those cases has nothing to do with whether I'd like the Court to. I would have preferred the Court agree to hear the Texas v Pennsylvania case and settle some legal issues on the merits, but I knew there was essentially no chance it would. The cert petition wasn't even a serious petition seeking a grant. It made some pretty absurd assertions and was a prop more than a serious court filing. But I'd have liked the Court to take up some of the issues from it.

Regarding the three cases which are the subject of this thread, the Court effectively decided that it didn't think there was anything there which should be reviewed when it considered and denied - without voiced dissent - the respective motions to expedite. If the Court thought there were something worthy of deeper consideration in these cases, it would have granted the motions to expedite and considered the cases before it was far too late for it to matter. It could have done that.
You are too kind to the court. They were cowards.
 
I wouldn't get my hopes up for the Supreme Court agreeing to hear any of these 3 cases. It's very unlikely that the Court will. I'd be shocked if it did so in either the Georgia of Michigan case.

The Court receives many thousands of cert petitions each year and grants something like 1% of them. But pretty much all of them are considered at conference. That's where the Justices decide, among other things, whether to hear particular cases. Cert petitions being scheduled for conference is fairly perfunctory. And at a typical Friday conference the Court might be considering a hundred cert petitions. Typically we know the following Monday whether any petitions are granted. Almost all are denied without comment, though every now and then we get a written dissent from denial.

That said, I'm still hopeful that the Court will agree to hear the Republican Party of PA v Boockvar and Scarnati v PA Democratic Party cases. I think the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania got it wrong when it came to counting absentee ballots that arrived late and I think there's an important legal issue that the Court needs to provide clarity on. That said, those petitions have been relisted (i.e., scheduled for an additional conference after having already been scheduled for one) a couple of times now. That could mean that the Court has decided to deny cert in those cases but someone wants time to write a dissent from the denial. I could see Justices Thomas and Alito dissenting from such a denial.
The Supreme Court denied cert, without noted dissent, in these 3 cases - i.e., Trump v Degraffenreid, Wood v Raffensperger, and King v Whitmer - this morning.

The Court also denied cert in the 2 Pennsylvania cases I referred to. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from the denial in those cases. That means that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett voted to deny cert. Only 4 votes are needed to grant cert.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The Supreme Court denied cert, without noted dissent, in these 3 cases - i.e., Trump v Degraffenreid, Wood v Raffensperger, and King v Whitmer - this morning.

The Court also denied cert in the 2 Pennsylvania cases I referred to. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from the denial in those cases. That means that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett voted to deny cert. Only 4 votes are needed to grant cert.
We don't have much with this Roberts court. Chicken shts'
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
The Supreme Court denied cert, without noted dissent, in these 3 cases - i.e., Trump v Degraffenreid, Wood v Raffensperger, and King v Whitmer - this morning.

The Court also denied cert in the 2 Pennsylvania cases I referred to. Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissented from the denial in those cases. That means that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett voted to deny cert. Only 4 votes are needed to grant cert.
Not surprising considering the established three-part test for standing. The biggest hurdle is the third, that being "It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury." In this instance it would require the removal of the President and installation of Trump, and that ain't gonna happen.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Not surprising considering the established three-part test for standing. The biggest hurdle is the third, that being "It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury." In this instance it would require the removal of the President and installation of Trump, and that ain't gonna happen.
And that is exactly what should happen if the fraud was proven.
The problem is they would rather have peace and quiet, and a demented old man and a Concubine as President and VP than cause trouble by having to make a courageous ruling. If the crooks keep pushing they may get the trouble they are frightened of anyway.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Not surprising considering the established three-part test for standing. The biggest hurdle is the third, that being "It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury." In this instance it would require the removal of the President and installation of Trump, and that ain't gonna happen.
Isn't the injury to each and every voter who chose to vote legally? Isn't the injury the legislature, who had their power usurped?
 

Bare-ya-cuda

Well-Known Member
Thomas is a joke and he should removed from the bench. His wife paid for and encouraged those Stop the Steal lunatics who maimed and killed police officers at the Capitol.

So you want to talk maiming and killing. Here you go:
 

Ken King

A little rusty but not crusty
PREMO Member
Isn't the injury to each and every voter who chose to vote legally? Isn't the injury the legislature, who had their power usurped?
Yes, an injury must be actual or imminent (which is one of the other parts of the three required for standing). But what could the court, by law, do to redress that injury at this point?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Yes, an injury must be actual or imminent (which is one of the other parts of the three required for standing). But what could the court, by law, do to redress that injury at this point?
Establish that the state (court/executive branch) does not have the authority it took so that future elections will not be usurped.

Whether or not the most recent election is changed is not the point of the SCOTUS. The point is to fix the systemic problem created.
 
Top