The Forum > Article Comments > Supreme Court needs to explain why Texas and Ohio were shut out > Comments
Supreme Court needs to explain why Texas and Ohio were shut out : Comments
By David Singer, published 15/12/2020How can the Supreme Court of the United States have ruled on Texas' motion without hearing submissions?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Page 10
- 11
- 12
-
- All
Note how the mainstream news, Google, Twitter and Facebook have been doing all they can to try and have all the reports of election fraud dismissed as "baseless allegations" or whatever. The above news article quote is one starting to admit there is truth in them. For a large amount of info on all the various types of fraud used in the swing states to increase votes for Biden, do a search on Dr Peter Navarro and his recently released report "The Immaculate Deception". I have been receiving updated articles on the US election according to The Epoch Times several times a day. Seems Dr Navarro has has just collated a lot of the sort of stuff that is becoming increasingly widely known despite the mainstream media trying to hide and ignore it.
Posted by mox, Tuesday, 22 December 2020 12:36:23 PM
| |
.
Dear David, . You wrote : « The problem is that the State Legislatures did not fix the rules. They were changed by persons other than State Legislatures. Was this constitutionally permitted? That is what the Supreme Court needed to rule on - and it shirked its duty and indeed its obligation to do so » . As the US Supreme Court indicated in its judgement, David, that is debatable (“moot”). I don’t think it is quite as clear-cut as you state. Like the US Supreme Court, I think it is debatable. I am not even sure it is a question for the US Supreme Court to decide. As you rightly indicated in your article, Article 2, paragraph 2 of the US Constitution stpulates : « Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector » In other words, the US Constitution delegates authority to State Legislatures to appoint (“in such manner as [they] may direct), a precise number of electors. It does not define or delimit what process State Legislatures may use to create their state college of electors. They are free to choose whatever method they deem appropriate. In fact, I understand they do not all use exactly the same method. I don’t think it is necessarily true to say – as you did in your article – that “… state courts violate the Constitution when they use judge made doctrines or strained interpretations …”. It seems to me that they are free to do so if they wish. The question is “is that what the State Legislatures wish or, at least, condone?”. Perhaps Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar will throw some light on the question. In my view, Ohio's request that the US Supreme Court define "Legislature" is irrelevant. . Posted by Banjo Paterson, Wednesday, 23 December 2020 3:39:53 AM
| |
David,
>The State Legislature directed nothing. Unless you're making the extraordinary claim that they've never passed any electoral legislation, the above statement is false. >Some of the changes were as a result of court proceedings in which the State Legislature was not even a party. The State Legislature does not need to be a party for the courts to make decisions in accordance with the legislation it passes. ______________________________________________________________________________ mox, Unfortunately The Epoch Times does not check its facts before it publishes. The mainstream media does. Receiving lies several times a day does not bring you any closer to the truth Posted by Aidan, Wednesday, 23 December 2020 9:30:50 AM
| |
To Aiden especially: All news sources get some things wrong at times - at least initially when not all relevant information is necessarily available. Regarding the US Presidential election, it seems the Epoch Times is the leading news organisation publishing stuff that the largely strongly anti Trump mainstream media would prefer keep hidden and /or tries to debunk. Mainstream media is also guilty at times of not checking facts. Sometimes this is due to lack of experienced journalists to do enough proper research with budget cuts and reduction in advertising revenue. Remember that a range of news sources helps keep the incidence of media being knowingly dishonest down. Seems many of the articles on the US election fraud details published by the Epoch Times are updates and developments following on from earlier ones. Now can you give examples of your claim that they do not check their facts but the mainstream media does? Some people have effectively been brainwashed to believe the mainstream media and resist unlearning lies peddled by mainstream sources when these are pointed out to them.
Posted by mox, Wednesday, 23 December 2020 9:43:43 PM
| |
mox,
Yes, the mainstream media sometimes gets it wrong, but at least they try. Whereas the Epoch Times just publish the lies that suit their agenda. And brainwashed morons like you take the Epoch Times's publication of the lies as evidence that they are true, and hence proof that the mainstream media are lying no matter how much evidence there is that it's telling the truth. Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 24 December 2020 11:02:49 AM
| |
Hi Aidan,
Nice to see President Trumpf show such concern for his Swamp members: http://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/23/us/politics/trump-pardon-manafort-stone.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20201223&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=cta®i_id=127104467&segment_id=47695&user_id=35fd54d942ac9b9e288ef933afd6d6f5 He has only a month, 28 days, to clear all of his criminal associates. But maybe one problem for all of them (including himself) may be that he may be able to wipe federal offences from their records (including his own), but maybe not sentences for state offences. Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we conspire to deceive. Joe Posted by loudmouth2, Thursday, 24 December 2020 11:59:40 AM
|