US Special Forces Attacked CIA Server Farm In Germany In Server Seizure Operation, 5 Soldiers Killed

[DavidMcmillan]

Maybe a little overstated...

 

[p238shooter]

I have to wonder who is sitting on the data this thread that the OP was enlightening us to if it is true. I can understand it might take a while to sort through the large amount of data, but I would think that if there were some bombshells that could be proven, why has there been no, none, zip, comments released? I would think there has been more than enough evidence of paper ballots being added or switched to cover the inflated data dumps and fudged numbers. I would hope it is about time to show the reasons why all that happened.

 

[donner]

From the SCOTUS Blog, for anyone interested in reading about the topic. Noting that no justices offered comment or descent in interesting.

I don't know if the challenge from the rep was to the state constitutionality or federal, but if it didn't violate the state's constitution then i wonder if that is a signal towards the Texas case since states do set their own systems and rules.

Justices won’t stop Pennsylvania from certifying election for Biden
The Supreme Court on Tuesday turned down a request from Pennsylvania Republicans to block the state from certifying the results of the Nov. 3 election for President-elect Joe Biden. With less than eight hours remaining before the “safe harbor” deadline for states to finalize the post-election certification of their votes in the Electoral College, the court issued a one-sentence order denying the plea to intervene from Rep. Mike Kelly and other allies of President Donald Trump. There were no recorded dissents.

Kelly had challenged Pennsylvania’s expansion of mail-in voting as unconstitutional and sought a court order voiding millions of ballots that were cast by mail. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled on Nov. 28 that Kelly had waited too long to go to court – a legal doctrine known as laches – because he failed to bring his challenge until after the election.

Justice Samuel Alito, who has primary responsibility for emergency requests that arise from Pennsylvania, originally instructed the state to respond on Wednesday, Dec. 9, but that deadline was later moved up a day. The change likely reflected a desire to act on the case before the expiration of the Dec. 8 safe harbor — the deadline in federal law by which states are supposed to resolve any election-related disputes.

In its filing on Tuesday morning, Pennsylvania urged the justices to turn down Kelly’s request, telling them that his claims were “fundamentally frivolous” and would result in “one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic.”

Just a few hours later, the court did exactly that. The order indicated that Alito – who could have acted on Kelly’s request himself – had referred the request to the full court, which declined to stop the certification.

The justices still have another election case from Pennsylvania pending: the challenge to a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court that extended the deadline for absentee ballots until three days after Election Day. The Supreme Court declined to fast-track the petition by Pennsylvania Republicans to allow the justices to consider the case before Election Day; the justices will likely consider the case early next year.

 

[donner]

This is why I wish multiple states would join.

i don't know if it will matter how many states join. If the court feels an issue has been addressed in another way (state or federal court, for example) it may not take up the case. That it is state vs state is just a faster way to the SCOTUS, but doesn't mean they must rule on it. Pointing to other litigation would also be a good way for the court to avoid the politics of the situation.

 

[CHenry]

The SCOTUS just delivered a knock-out blow to Trump's attempts to overturn the election. With no dissents they rejected a request to block certification of the Nov. 3rd election.

Proof?
Lurker would say something just like this with no proof.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

i don't know if it will matter how many states join. If the court feels an issue has been addressed in another way (state or federal court, for example) it may not take up the case. That it is state vs state is just a faster way to the SCOTUS, but doesn't mean they must rule on it. Pointing to other litigation would also be a good way for the court to avoid the politics of the situation.

It's not just a 'faster way' to the Court, is the only way a state v. state case can be heard. That is what the Supreme Court having original jurisdiction means. The Founding Fathers knew there was no other way to settle disputes between states. The Constitution provides the higher power needed.

Woody

 

[CHenry]

I have to wonder who is sitting on the data this thread that the OP was enlightening us to if it is true. I can understand it might take a while to sort through the large amount of data, but I would think that if there were some bombshells that could be proven, why has there been no, none, zip, comments released? I would think there has been more than enough evidence of paper ballots being added or switched to cover the inflated data dumps and fudged numbers. I would hope it is about time to show the reasons why all that happened.

I have heard from 3 different people, Trump, The GA Gov. and one other that there will be a bombshell or 3 in the next day or 2?

 

[donner]

It's not just a 'faster way' to the Court, is the only way a state v. state case can be heard. That is what the Supreme Court having original jurisdiction means. The Founding Fathers knew there was no other way to settle disputes between states. The Constitution provides the higher power needed.

Woody

You're right that it's what original jurisdiction means. But the SCOTUS doesn't have to take the case, even if it's state v state. (IIRC, it recently refused to hear the case when Oklahoma and Nebraska sought to challenge Colorado over it's pot laws).Especially if the issue in question isn’t a matter of original jurisdiction. Anyone with standing can challenge these states regarding the constitutionality of the process.

It’s not a matter of determining state borders, where no other party could bring suit.

From what i've read, states must seek "leave to file" an original bill of complaint, and such a motion is not granted as a matter of course. And that one of the factors the Justices look to is whether the issues in the case can be resolved in other cases in the lower courts, even if not between the same parties. So if the constitutionality is challenged elsewhere the court may defer to those cases and not take up the state v state challenge.

Or at least according to one Con Law professor i heard. You may have better information than i do.

 

[Kraken_Wrangler]

I have heard from 3 different people, Trump, The GA Gov. and one other that there will be a bombshell or 3 in the next day or 2?

Wonder if a drunk, scatter-brained ex-stripper will be part of the show again.

 

[donner]

The SCOTUS has ordered the states being sued by Texas over the election to respond to its filings by 3:00 EST on Thursday. That isn't a guarantee it will take the case, though, just that it wasn't filings from all sides before it makes any move.