24hourcampfire.com
24hourcampfire.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Hop To
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 23,319
Campfire Ranger
OP Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 23,319
Originally Posted by steve4102
What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


Alito has jurisdiction over Pa, not Kavanaugh


"All that the South has ever desired was that the Union, as established by our forefathers, should be preserved, and that the government, as originally organized, should be administered in purity and truth." – Robert E. Lee
BP-B2

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
7
79S Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
Originally Posted by GreatWaputi
Originally Posted by steve4102

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?



Exactly, and yes he did. And no one knows what ACB is going to do.


You hit your head on something?? The court on 19 October ruled 4-4 Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas would have required the state to stop accepting absentee ballots when the polls close on Nov. 3.


Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.

Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
7
79S Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I totally agree...


Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.
No way she recuses.. Vote SHOULD be 9-0 in Trump's favor, but most likely will be 5-4 for Trump with that pos Roberts goin' with the libbies..

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


And you are ph ucking non googling idiot.. go buy some beef jerky dumb ass..
https://apnews.com/article/election...ections-62bb4957766f436e27ed7de52921aab3


Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.

Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I totally agree...


Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.
No way she recuses.. Vote SHOULD be 9-0 in Trump's favor, but most likely will be 5-4 for Trump with that pos Roberts goin' with the libbies..

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


And you are ph ucking non googling idiot.. go buy some beef jerky dumb ass..
https://apnews.com/article/election...ections-62bb4957766f436e27ed7de52921aab3


Thanks for the link and thanks for answering my question.

You did notice my post was in the form of a question, yes?


Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,967
Campfire Oracle
Online Happy
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,967
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.

Why would ACB recuse herself?

Dunno if we'll see an answer.

As stated, she should not recuse. There is no reason for that to happen.


If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli

American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
IC B2

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,307
A
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
A
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 25,307
I agree with you IB. I was wondering why Logger thought she would or should?


�Politicians are the lowest form of life on earth. Liberal Democrats are the lowest form of politician.� �General George S. Patton, Jr.

---------------------------------------------------------
~Molɔ̀ːn Labé Skýla~
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
7
79S Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I totally agree...


Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.
No way she recuses.. Vote SHOULD be 9-0 in Trump's favor, but most likely will be 5-4 for Trump with that pos Roberts goin' with the libbies..

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


And you are ph ucking non googling idiot.. go buy some beef jerky dumb ass..
https://apnews.com/article/election...ections-62bb4957766f436e27ed7de52921aab3


Thanks for the link and thanks for answering my question.

You did notice my post was in the form of a question, yes?


And you could’ve googled it and got your answer. But you took what someone posted on here probably at face value. Never looking it up yourself..


Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.

Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,967
Campfire Oracle
Online Happy
Campfire Oracle
Joined: Dec 2003
Posts: 85,967
Originally Posted by AcesNeights
I agree with you IB. I was wondering why Logger thought she would or should?


Same.

The only reason I can think of is, the Ds say to, which I can't fathom her doing.


If you take the time it takes, it takes less time.
--Pat Parelli

American by birth; Alaskan by choice.
--ironbender
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,183
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,183
ACB knows right from wrong, she knows the Constitution as well. Why would she even consider recusing herself? That's the kind of bullshit Jeff Sessions pulled.. coward!


"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson

GeoW, The "Unwoke" ...Let's go Brandon!

"A Well Regulated Militia" Life Member

Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 733
R
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
R
Joined: Jan 2020
Posts: 733
Originally Posted by steve4102
The SC hears cases involving Constitutional Violations, not criminal complaints.

Any case involving voter fraud or irregularities must contain a Constitutional argument.

He cheated, they cheated are criminal offenses, not so much Constitutional. Although the argument can be made , but in very slim ground, which usually doesn’t get certiorari.

The PA SC and election officials violated State Constitution, so this has merit, cept Kavanaugh already voted that it didn’t, so this is most likely a done deal.

Other state election fraud law suits will have to contain some form of Constitutional violation, not criminal.

Changing election procedures, in violation of state constitution and us constitution is the only way they will hear it.
Without that, nothing from the corrupt 9.



I wouldn't want to be on the SCOTUS right now. Many state election laws were broken in multiple states for mail in balloting. The SCOTUS can just take a hard line and say all mail in balloting in those states does not pass the smell test as far as the state election laws are concerned, and must be thrown out, or maybe they send it to the House for the worst offending states like Georgia...It's going to be a tough call on this one and a lot of people are going to feel disenfranchised no matter what they decide.

The states arent doing the SCOTUS any favors by not doing real audits on these mail in ballots...If I were a Justice on the SCOTUS, I would take into account how these state elected officials and lower court judges are acting and punish them for it by sending there state to the House to decide who gets their vote...If these states wanted wide spread mail in balloting then they should have put in measures (new laws) to make them a secure form of voting and they failed do that in many of these contested states and now they created a huge ridiculous Constitutional mess..

IC B3

Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,917
H
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
H
Joined: May 2018
Posts: 2,917
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I see it the same way FWIW,, if you want to see the libs heads really expolde, wait till they figure out that Kavanaugh,Gorsich and Barrett's initials spell out KGB lolThe master troll will dig them for 30 yrs,,,


I AM AMERICA!
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,320
Campfire Tracker
Offline
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2008
Posts: 7,320
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Supreme-Court-again-asked-to-block-Biden-win-in-15774395.php

Quote
They maintain that Pennsylvania’s expansive vote-by-mail law is unconstitutional because it required a constitutional amendment to authorize its provisions.

However, in a sign that the case is likely too late to affect the election, Justice Samuel Alito ordered the state's lawyers to respond by Dec. 9, a day after what is known as the safe harbor deadline. That means that Congress cannot challenge any electors named by this date in accordance with state law.


Remember why, specifically, the Bill of Rights was written...remember its purpose. It was written to limit the power of government over the individual.

There is no believing a liar, even when he speaks the truth.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I totally agree...


Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.
No way she recuses.. Vote SHOULD be 9-0 in Trump's favor, but most likely will be 5-4 for Trump with that pos Roberts goin' with the libbies..

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


And you are ph ucking non googling idiot.. go buy some beef jerky dumb ass..
https://apnews.com/article/election...ections-62bb4957766f436e27ed7de52921aab3


Thanks for the link and thanks for answering my question.

You did notice my post was in the form of a question, yes?


And you could’ve googled it and got your answer. But you took what someone posted on here probably at face value. Never looking it up yourself..


And You could have done The Google and found this:

In the Pennsylvania case, the ruling left in place a decision by the state Supreme Court, based on the state constitution. It extended by three days the period for counting absentee ballots posted by Election Day. Last week the Supreme Court upheld the state court decision by a tie vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's three liberals, and later explaining that state courts are free to interpret their own state constitutions in voting cases.

This week the state Republican Party came back to the court seeking a second bite at the apple before Election Day. And this time it failed again, perhaps by a more decisive vote. Only three justices noted their dissent this time — Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. They wanted to hear and decide the question presented by the Republican Party prior to next week's election. The same three dissented in the North Carolina case, too.


Where was Kavanaugh’s vote again?

Notice the question ? mark.

Last edited by steve4102; 12/04/20.

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,352
R
Campfire Regular
Offline
Campfire Regular
R
Joined: Dec 2018
Posts: 1,352
Just read where SC Justice Alito has decided to review the appeal of the PA SC decision. This is good news however... it has to be reported by Dec 9... which is one day PAST the safe harbor deadline of Dec 8! Congress can't challenge electors after Dec 8... IIRC.

Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
7
79S Offline
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
7
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,385
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I totally agree...


Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.
No way she recuses.. Vote SHOULD be 9-0 in Trump's favor, but most likely will be 5-4 for Trump with that pos Roberts goin' with the libbies..

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


And you are ph ucking non googling idiot.. go buy some beef jerky dumb ass..
https://apnews.com/article/election...ections-62bb4957766f436e27ed7de52921aab3


Thanks for the link and thanks for answering my question.

You did notice my post was in the form of a question, yes?


And you could’ve googled it and got your answer. But you took what someone posted on here probably at face value. Never looking it up yourself..


And You could have done The Google and found this:

In the Pennsylvania case, the ruling left in place a decision by the state Supreme Court, based on the state constitution. It extended by three days the period for counting absentee ballots posted by Election Day. Last week the Supreme Court upheld the state court decision by a tie vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's three liberals, and later explaining that state courts are free to interpret their own state constitutions in voting cases.

This week the state Republican Party came back to the court seeking a second bite at the apple before Election Day. And this time it failed again, perhaps by a more decisive vote. Only three justices noted their dissent this time — Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. They wanted to hear and decide the question presented by the Republican Party prior to next week's election. The same three dissented in the North Carolina case, too.


Where was Kavanaugh’s vote again?

Notice the question ? mark.


You are never trumper through and through so it’s not surprising you find joy in this. Their were no dissenting judges on 28 October what you pasted it was a statement by the 3 conservatives judges. I’m sure your never trumper thinking will go hah see kavanaugh doesn’t support trump. Again your Google Fu sucks, go ice fishing or something bout the only thing you Minnesotans are good at..

Last edited by 79S; 12/04/20.

Originally Posted by Bricktop
Then STFU. The rest of your statement is superflous bullshit with no real bearing on this discussion other than to massage your own ego.

Suckin' on my titties like you wanted me.
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,952
B
Campfire Regular
Online Content
Campfire Regular
B
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,952
I hope SCOTUS takes the case, but courts have a tendency to avoid really hot issues and I don't think anyone can predict what will happen. Hopefully, there will be a 5 vote majority that would find what happened in PA unconstitutional but we will have to wait and see.

Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,769
Campfire Ranger
Online Content
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 28,769
Originally Posted by GeoW
Would love to see proven fraud rather than see that the country has really, as we feared, gone to schit! But aside from hearsay, I've seen nothing as far as evidence is concerned. Much emphasis is placed on probability and statistics of [bleep] happening but that ain't going to do it in a court of law... it ain't hard proof.

g


The video and the multitudes of sworn testimony by watcher being kicked out and windows being blocked is not evidence to you? You haven't heard recordings of trainers teaching vote counters how to cheat?


"Only Christ is the fullness of God's revelation."
Everyday Hunter
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,183
Campfire Ranger
Offline
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 17,183
It's not up to me.. but the court. I'm just saying that without hard evidence, the court won't touch it. What you stated must not be hard evidence.


"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson

GeoW, The "Unwoke" ...Let's go Brandon!

"A Well Regulated Militia" Life Member

Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by 79S
Originally Posted by steve4102
Originally Posted by Redneck
Originally Posted by OrangeOkie
The SCOTUS is stacked in Trump's favor, and the evidence appears to be overwhelming . . . when all is said and done, SCOTUS will end up saving the Republic, and liberal heads will explode in the process. If Scotus can't fix it, we are doomed as a Republic.
I totally agree...


Originally Posted by logger
Or we could see a 4-4-1 vote with Roberts going with the liberal three and Barrett recusing herself.
No way she recuses.. Vote SHOULD be 9-0 in Trump's favor, but most likely will be 5-4 for Trump with that pos Roberts goin' with the libbies..

What about Kavanaugh?

Didn’t he already vote to allow unconstitutional ballot counting in PA?


And you are ph ucking non googling idiot.. go buy some beef jerky dumb ass..
https://apnews.com/article/election...ections-62bb4957766f436e27ed7de52921aab3


Thanks for the link and thanks for answering my question.

You did notice my post was in the form of a question, yes?


And you could’ve googled it and got your answer. But you took what someone posted on here probably at face value. Never looking it up yourself..


And You could have done The Google and found this:

In the Pennsylvania case, the ruling left in place a decision by the state Supreme Court, based on the state constitution. It extended by three days the period for counting absentee ballots posted by Election Day. Last week the Supreme Court upheld the state court decision by a tie vote, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court's three liberals, and later explaining that state courts are free to interpret their own state constitutions in voting cases.

This week the state Republican Party came back to the court seeking a second bite at the apple before Election Day. And this time it failed again, perhaps by a more decisive vote. Only three justices noted their dissent this time — Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. They wanted to hear and decide the question presented by the Republican Party prior to next week's election. The same three dissented in the North Carolina case, too.


Where was Kavanaugh’s vote again?

Notice the question ? mark.


You are never trumper through and through so it’s not surprising you find joy in this. Their were no dissenting judges on 28 October what you pasted it was a statement by the 3 conservatives judges. I’m sure your never trumper thinking will go hah see kavanaugh doesn’t support trump. Again your Google Fu sucks, go ice fishing or something bout the only thing you Minnesotans are good at..

You are a dumb ass, you posted an link to a SC ruling that was old and outdated as per my question. You got caught being ill informed and retarded, yet you took the time to double down and tell others that they are ill informed and you were right, when the The Google that you luv proved you an idiot.


Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
S
Campfire 'Bwana
Offline
Campfire 'Bwana
S
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 33,803
Originally Posted by bowmanh
I hope SCOTUS takes the case, but courts have a tendency to avoid really hot issues and I don't think anyone can predict what will happen. Hopefully, there will be a 5 vote majority that would find what happened in PA unconstitutional but we will have to wait and see.

The SC only grants certiorari where there a question pertaining to Constitutionality of a specific event or charge.

Voter fraud is a criminal offense and the SC will not entertain any such motion unless there is a clear question of Constitutional violation by the Government or its agents.


Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Give a man a welfare check, a forty ounce malt liquor, a crack pipe, an Obama phone, free health insurance. and some Air Jordan's and he votes Democrat for a lifetime.
Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  RickBin 

Link Copied to Clipboard
YB23

Who's Online Now
646 members (160user, 1234, 257 roberts, 1lessdog, 2500HD, 257Bob, 72 invisible), 2,726 guests, and 1,324 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums81
Topics1,187,651
Posts18,399,172
Members73,817
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023


 







Fish & Game Departments | Solunar Tables | Mission Statement | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | DMCA
Hunting | Fishing | Camping | Backpacking | Reloading | Campfire Forums | Gear Shop
Copyright © 2000-2024 24hourcampfire.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.3.33 Page Time: 0.072s Queries: 15 (0.004s) Memory: 0.9238 MB (Peak: 1.1284 MB) Data Comp: Zlib Server Time: 2024-03-28 18:27:52 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS