2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
Status
Not open for further replies.
The WCT said:
Prior to the Election, SCOTUS made some decisions regarding Mail-In Ballots.
View attachment 1770803View attachment 1770805
View attachment 1770806
Click to expand...
I actually brought this up and @Gehenna made an interesting point:

Gehenna said:
Less black pill than you think. Kavanaugh's support hinged on one thing, and one thing only. The board of elections changed the rule, and the legislature said "no". Kavanaugh sided with the legislature, saying it is their constitutional power alone.
Click to expand...
 
  • Informative
Reactions: MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, spiritofamermaid, Yamma Damma and 1 other person
  • Optimistic
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, secret watcher and GenericReviewerDraco
3119967d0c said:
HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU FUCKING MONGS WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST THING ABOUT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS NEED TO BE TOLD THIS.

YOU CAN'T JUST ADD EVIDENCE IN AN APPEAL YOU FUCKING RETARD.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about the SCOTUS handling it as an appellate case?
"In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."
Click to expand...

And before you whine about it, double jeopardy will not be considered because the 5A refers to individuals, not states.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
Click to expand...
I'm no legal expert and I could be missing something. Feel free to dunk on me if I'm wrong but please explain why.
 
  • Informative
  • Dumb
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, secret watcher and ⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛
PESTPOOM said:
Who said anything about the SCOTUS handling it as an appellate case?


And before you whine about it, double jeopardy will not be considered because the 5A refers to individuals, not states.

I'm no legal expert and I could be missing something. Feel free to dunk on me if I'm wrong but please explain why.
Click to expand...
I don't know what the fuck you are trying to suggest.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Autistic
  • Dumb
Reactions: PepsiVanilla, Michael Jacks0n, GenericReviewerDraco and 2 others
3119967d0c said:
I don't know what the fuck you are trying to suggest.
Click to expand...
Probably because you're mad and you should calm down.

The prosecution can introduce it to the SCOTUS as a new case given that it meets the criteria for going straight to the SCOTUS and not having to arrive there by appeal with writ of certiorari. Thereby giving them the right to introduce new evidence.
 
  • Winner
  • Dumb
  • Informative
Reactions: Sodomizing Ethan, Vyse Inglebard, FAQnews Correspondent and 6 others
WhimsicalTrolli said:


www.yahoo.com

Trump tactics to overturn election could have staying power

Even after he exits the White House, President Donald Trump's efforts to challenge the legitimacy of the election and seeking to overturn the will of voters could have staying power. Trump's tactics are already inspiring other candidates and have been embraced by a wide array of Republicans...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

Prepping the dems for when if it happens?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Lunacy
Reactions: thyme's up, FunPosting101, Syaoran Li and 3 others
JambledUpWords said:
It’s probably because they are newer and therefore, people are less sure of how they’ll judge. At least all the Trump appointees have a consistent legal philosophy. The same can not be said for the Obama appointee Sotomayer.
Click to expand...
Sotomayor has a consistent legal philosophy. It's whatever the Dems want.
 
  • Winner
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: Slimy Time, Confused Doggo, Marchesa of the Vast and 18 others
Dynamite Ninja said:
I was hoping for @It's HK-47 to recap the last few days.
Click to expand...

I'd love another classic informative post from him but I think HK-47 said he's not bothering with fleeting twitter exchanges and government hot potato fuckery games until this shit hits the Supreme Court, which is looking likelier and likelier by the HOUR finally.

From what I can remember:
  • Lin Wood (Nick Sandman's lawyer) was at some rally and tongue lashed the GOP to stand with Trump and average voters or lie and die like dogs when Biden the Dems take over.
  • Trump held another rally and name dropped Dominion and some other stuff, showing this magnificent bastard is not conceding shit.
  • ANTIFAg got bitchslapped by patriots in Washington at a Stop the Steal rally on numerous videos, further proving these sons of bitches will be taken down by normal citizens or their handlers who grew tired of them. Whoever comes first.
  • Rudy Giullani has corona, making this going to Supreme Court a little more interesting to say the least.
That's all I care to remember. Feel free to add what I left out.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
  • Winner
Reactions: GrayWater, Marchesa of the Vast, Circular Tyrant and 22 others
PESTPOOM said:
Probably because you're mad and you should calm down.

The prosecution can introduce it to the SCOTUS as a new case given that it meets the criteria for going straight to the SCOTUS and not having to arrive there by appeal with writ of certiorari. Thereby giving them the right to introduce new evidence.
Click to expand...
You're high.

Why don't you try and explain what cases the SCOTUS can have original jurisdiction over, retard, and I'll make fun of you?
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Dumb
  • Informative
Reactions: PepsiVanilla, Pina Colda 88, GenericReviewerDraco and 4 others
Purdue for some reason didn't show up to debate Ossoff.
EolmzBZUcAA7lv7.jpg
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Informative
Reactions: Puerto Pollo, MarvinTheParanoidAndroid, Vyse Inglebard and 12 others
PESTPOOM said:
I guess I should have known better than to try to argue with you. I went out of my way to cite my reasoning and you're either ignoring or too stupid to understand it. Not going to spoon feed you anymore than I already have.
Click to expand...
No, retard. You are either incapable of articulating the situations in which the Supreme Court can have original jurisdiction- which is restricted to things like treaties with foreign powers- or, you are aware that they don't include the ridiculous situations you propose, and you are simply being dishonest by refusing to articulate them because they would prove that you have no idea what you're talking about.
 
  • Mad at the Internet
  • Like
  • Dumb
Reactions: PepsiVanilla, Pina Colda 88, Michael Jacks0n and 6 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back