(12-13-2020, 05:48 AM)The Real Marty Wrote:

(12-12-2020, 07:06 PM)Minshew Mania Wrote: You misrepresent the argument. The states in question violated their own constitution by enacting changes in election law at the 11th hour. The idea is, if that's okay, then a state could just do whatever the hell they wanted to elect their preferred candidate, in every election, which would have sweeping consequences for other states that do not use such tactics. The fact that people fail to see this, is just proof that the propaganda machine is working in full swing.

You guys do know there's tons of evidence that the media refused to report right? Including audio confessions and video evidence? It'd be funny if it wasn't so terrifying how effective the media is at covering this up.


No that's what BLM does.

I know what the argument was.  I'm telling you that argument is not valid.  The Constitution does not allow one state to sue another state over its voting practices.  So Texas does not have standing to sue Pennsylvania over its voting procedures.  Read the ruling: 

"The State of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot."

Under the Constitution, Texas has no right to tell Pennsylvania how to operate their state.  

And everyone with half a brain knew the Supreme Court would refuse to take this case on those grounds.  Which begs the question, how can a person with enough brains to get through law school not know this?  Of course the answer is, the AG of Texas knew his case was going to fail.  He did it because he is under investigation for various crimes, and he wants Trump to pardon him.  And everyone else who signed onto the case did it to curry favor with Trump.  

Secondly, you say, "...there's tons of evidence that the media refused to report right? Including audio confessions and video evidence..." 

If that was true, it would have been presented in court.  Fifty court cases, no evidence presented.  

And thirdly, I still don't understand how this "uprising" is supposed to take place.   You can march through the streets shouting and yelling and brandishing your weapons all day, and you will accomplish nothing.