Message from @SoonMrWick
Discord ID: 787766044273147905
Even the url says so... so ... there *tongue out*
Is there an antipoo emoji? TIA
I think that was as to the case where States sue other States - which is certainly correct. The Supreme Court has Original Jurisdiction on those type matters. That is not to say they can't strike it down without having oral arguments if its a shit lawsuit... which it clearly was
π½
Hahaha
I don't know if her statements have merit or not. I'm saying that I watched every single hearing that has taken place so far, and it seems like there is at least enough for someone to actually do the foot work to find out what the hell happened at these places and why. I don't think it's too much to ask for a forensic audit when the future of the USA is at stake... whatever that future my hold.
Needs to be golden. Tremendous option.
Don't poop emoji my posts. Wth is the matter with you?
Hi!π
You have to do this π« π©
I dont think it is right to call them baseless, sure they are not specific enough to win in a court at the moment. But they do have some basis for their allegations. the GA one filed friday is certainly closer to having specific allocations which wan be proved either way
> You have to do this π« π©
@Cali La La lol Thanks! I love you.
Seemed like a lot of stalling patch work while they get one they're really hoping will do the trick
I don't understand why these judges won't release the findings of this audit either... either way, the people should be able to know. If everything was legit... fine... but either way, we should be able to see that something was done, and these are the results.
I was showing you antipoo π πΌββοΈπ©... @Cali La La βs is better though π
"Dominion" has been turned into the word "Moist"
lol
Haha
> I was showing you antipoo π
πΌββοΈπ©... @Cali La La βs is better though π
@Beth Sorry, I was just super upset forgive me. π
No worries my friend ππΌ
Hahaha
I dont know what else to call a court case without merit, evidence, specific accusations or standing than baseless
@Dedkraken, you just advanced to level 28!
Venting and costly
I believe Texas argument was misplaced. It was about the Electors Clause in the US Constitution and the "Plenary" Powers the US Constitution gives them. That Power is not subject to Review or Interpretation by the State Executive or Judicial Branches. It is only subject to Review by the US Supreme Court because it is a US Constitutional Question. State Law or Process of Laws has nothing to do with the Electors Clause.
π hiya love ππΌ
lol... I never get to flip folks off... π
Itβs great π
@Dedkraken It is not as if similar things have not been done before, in that case taking four months https://www.nytimes.com/1994/02/19/us/vote-fraud-ruling-shifts-pennsylvania-senate.html
Lmao love that one
Hahaha me too
Should have added Ricky Jay and Penn and Teller from the jump.
That's crazy.... no one is talking about this.... and it's even more crazy that this is on the New York Times site.. lol
Texas case was intended to set precedent for a ruling of no bueno on filings from Democrats in the future. Long game imo.