#PeterC
The Supreme Court simply wimped out. Very difficult to understand why Court so acted the way it did in not giving Texas the opportunity to argue why it should not be kicked out without a hearing and why it refused to hear the Ohio motion.

#Aidan
No "legal technicality" involved. Definition of "legislature" is urgently required from Supreme Court because Georgia run-off on January 5 will continue under present rules unless Court rules otherwise.

#jamo
The Court was placed in a difficult position - but that is why it is there: to resolve disputes. Abdicating its role in the way it did was wrong in my opinion.

#loudmouth 2: Another red herring. Australia's voting system has nothing to do with America's voting system. Take your own advice and bugger off.

#Banjo
Repeating the Court's order - which I set out in full in my article - is a waste of space and contributes nothing to my article.

You need to focus on why the Court was justified in considering the Ohio motion "moot" and we can then discuss.

There will be no reply from me to your earlier post since it has nothing to do with the subject matter of my article.

David,

AFAIK, the US Supreme Court does not initiate changes to the Constitution: that process begins with the houses of congress.

But it must feel great to tell them how to do their business :)

That reminds me, when (or if) I see god, I'll berate her for making mosquitoes. Next time, no mosquitoes !

Joe

.

Dear David,

.

You state that the major claim in your article is :

« that the Supreme Court of the United States erred in refusing to hear the motion filed by the State of Ohio requesting that the Court interpret the meaning of just one word in the Constitution - "Legislature" »

And you add :

« Slamming the door shut in Ohio's face - when Ohio had the standing to have the Court hear its motion - was wrong in my opinion »
.

I don’t think the US Supreme Court judges “slammed the door shut in Ohio’s face”, David, by replying “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot” after having rejected the Texas case.

Nobody (including you and me) could possibly ignore that both cases were simply last-ditch efforts to invalidate the already scrutinised, verified, confirmed and well-established results of the national democratic election that designated “sleepy old Joe” as the 46th president of the United States of America.

Of course, there was much more in it than that, but if there was one single factor that must have weighed heavily in the minds of the judges throughout their deliberations, in my humble opinion, it was that. It permeates their final report of the Texas case which I thoroughly recommend you read in its entirety. Much of the thought and analysis in the Texas report provides interesting insights to the state of mind of the judges in concluding as they did in the Ohio report.

There is much that I could quote from the Texas report that could also apply to the Ohio case, but there is no room for me to do it here. Let me just cite the following :

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

1. « Texas commenced the present action on December 7, 2020, thirty-four days after the General Election and thirteen days after the results were certified by Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf. Disenfranchising millions of voters after Pennsylvania has already certified its election results would grievously undermine the public’s trust in the electoral system, contravene democratic principles, and reward Texas for its inexcusable delay and procedural gamesmanship. Accordingly, equity and the public interest disfavor an injunction or any other relief in this case. In a nutshell, it is too late to reverse or enjoin the results of the election, … Texas waited until now to seek an injunction to nullify Pennsylvania’s election results because all of the other political and litigation machinations of Petitioner’s preferred presidential candidate have failed »

2. « Let us be clear. Texas invites this Court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next President of the United States. That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected »

The US Supreme Court judges are not fools. They are not simple bureaucrats with blinkers on their eyes to prevent them from seeing beyond the paper on which the texts are written. They are venerable sages who bear the formidable burden of responsibility as the ultimate recourse in matters of justice.

They are sufficiently numerous for their vision to be clear, and they are not completely devoid of common sense. Their word is the final word.

As the judges indicate in their “Preliminary Statement” to the Texas report (which I think could also apply to the Ohio case as well) :

« Its [Texas’s] request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy »

Here is the link to the full Texas report :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
.

I hope his helps and now await your response to my previous post (on page 5 of this thread) which you subjected to comments on what you considered to be “the major claim” in your article.

.

david singer,
>No "legal technicality" involved.

Exactly! The Supreme court's refusal to rule on this legal technicality means that it isn't involved.

>Definition of "legislature" is urgently required from Supreme Court because Georgia run-off
>on January 5 will continue under present rules unless Court rules otherwise
Film at eleven!

As I've already mentioned, in the very unlikely event that the present rules are invalid, the problem is easily fixable with retrospective legislation.

But it's a state matter not a Federal matter, so it should be decided in the Georgia state courts, not the US Supreme court.

_______________________________________________________________________________

jamo,
Why do you think Trump's motivation supersedes the pursuit of wealth?
Do you think Trump's pursuit of glory is really any better?
Did anything Biden did as VP suggest he's a frontman for someone else?

>I don't believe most of the people who took part in the electoral fraud realised the gravity of what they were doing.
Well of course they didn't" THEY'RE FICTITIOUS!

There's a complete lack of evidence for systematic electoral fraud - there were initially a few things that appeared to be evidence of fraud, but when those were investigated they were found not to be.

BTW there's an enormous difference between being told you voted for the losing candidate and being told your votes don't count.

Aiden, it is a mess isn't it.
I have read a few technical reports on examination of the system.
The ballots are read by mark sensing terminals that are connected to
an on site computer. On one site an IT contractor said that an
operator can initiate a misread and the batch is held in the computer
and the operator adjudicates the whole batch and can set to whom the vote is allocated.
There are other "forensic" examination reports that give information.
Whether there was any cheating I haven't a clue but the system does
seem to be very vulnerable. The aforementioned IT contractor said
the computer on the site was connected to a network but was not
allowed to examine that aspect.
No doubt after this cuffle there will be a restructing of their voting system.