That deadline is 9pm tonight, when there's not going to be any clerks working more than likely. Even in the event that there are, you're not going to get a judgment by tomorrow if the thing is filed at 9 - which is exactly when the PA electoral officials will file their respones to Kelly's claims. The deadline being set for the 9th and then for 9pm on the 8th is a form of the SCOTUS throwing shade.
I'll be honest, I've long lost the ability to see how things go Trump's way in this whole saga. And this looks to be the final blow to his chances. And then, it's all lists, Nuremburg, and hunting down.
The intent behind the entire constitution is that democrats get what they want.
One might say they can, since their exercise of their jurisdiction here is discretionary even in this instance. However, you are correct in saying that this is significant. Texas' pleading is not a complete joke, unlike some of the shit that has been filed thus far. The persuasiveness of the evidence that Texas is claiming to have remains to be seen, but this case in particular is the first time I've felt like there might be potential for something significant to happen in court. We'll see what the supremes do about this one if they don't just decide to punt.
If it's all over why are the leftists at Mediaite so insistent that Alito decline to hear the case?
How many times has it been established that the claim is targeted fraud and not widespread fraud?
If "frivalous" lawsuits end up going nowhere, it doesn't bog down the process because they would simply be ignored by the time the electoral college votes, it's only a six day period after all. Seems to be getting rebutted? And deemed unreliable by which committees exactly? I'd love to hear what these so-called rebuttals are especially in regards to the video clip, ones that address the very serious and significant allegations being made with hundreds of affidavits suggesting improper election procedure (to put it lightly) and statistically significant anomalies found in analysis to the point. An actual rebuttal wouldn't be a half-assed fact check or an investigation done by the parties being accused of fraud that find themselves innocent, it would be a remedy that definitively proves that there wasn't any fraud that all signs at the moment are pointing to (and you don't have to support Trump in any way to note signs of fraud that would be called as such in any other country). I hope you don't think that you're being proven right if this all falls flat by the way, that's an argument based on power, not principle- since again, in any other country people would be up to believing that systematic corruption is plausible, but not the USA because reasons. Look into the no standing/laches doctrines that courts have been all too keen to rely on, you might start to notice that judges aren't as impartial as you'd think, and the court system is not a bastion of justice, which is why people from day one have been saying this would be a SCOTUS issue.
I partially agree with the first part of your comment, the issue arrives in the second half they communist won't act quickly. Remember they need to frame optics, more than likely it'll be a slow burn before they consider any such actions. It'll start with small acts of violence here and there and political persecutions, the major acts probably won't be for at least a few months to a few years.
that drunk lady was speaking to a committe over in michigan, was it? go look up what that committee concluded. The georgian electoral office released a statement explaining the video of people with ballot tubs (they cut ballots most of the day, and scanned them at night with fewer volunteers. the observers left early, despite no one telling them to, because they were all too busy defending freedom to ask anyone what was happening). there has been plenty of time for footage to come out of someone telling them all to go home, which apparently hasn't been forthcoming or enough to convince anyone to look into that. and georgia has done THREE recounts which concur with the count
Can't this get Judge Sullivan disbarred? He's prosecuting an innocent man according to US law
Come on, everyone knows the supreme court likes to waste it's own time pretending to take on cases. Maybe nobody told them about the safe harbor thing.
How does this safe harbor thing work? I think I missed the explanation of that part.
If the deadline has passed why did Alito ask people to file briefs and why did they file briefs? It sure seems like they think it is possible he could rule on this even after December 8th passes.
