Cool. So any unconstitutional act can be created by giving standing to everybody to sue for X time period. Glad you think that. I think that's retarded

@TaLoN132 what

I think there are a lot of end games going on here. The election isn't the only thing going on. A lot of this looks to me like the kinds of things Cult of the Dead Cow used to talk about needing to happen to the world in the 1990's -- that "free speech"/"anti-censorship" vs. "speech curation"/"social decency" would reverse positions on the political spectrum, that criminals where intent upon hijacking which ever major political party gave them the most credibility, and when they did, an offensive, rudely awakening, truth bearer from either The Reform, The Independance, The Green, or The Libertarian Party would hijack the opposing major party....

@DrSammyD It's not unconstitutional until it is ruled so by the relevant courts.

Just a theory of mine... I have no actual knowledge.

Considering where key members of CotDC have ended up, I think this part of some kind fo culture transforming psyops.

"(The constituion)..." - "Unless the law was passed and gives you 180 days to challenge it".

@Autumn_Katrina old school hacktivist? R U

How about 10 minutes?

@DrSammyD Right, the law itself provides standing to anyone who wants it regardless of injury to challenge the law. It's a benefit to people who think the law is unconstitutional so they have a chance to have it ruled so. BTW how many groups took advantage of this oppotunity?

@Dedkraken Do the proud boys really worry you on any level or do you just have a problem with groups of Americans that don't like liberals. The top person of the Proud Boys is black by the way.

Like it.

I think they were saying.... "We think we did this correctly, but if anyone objects, please challenge it. Otherwise, we have an election to prepare for."

how long would a normal fraud case take to prosecute?

https://tenor.com/view/omw-on-my-way-headingout-gif-6229326

Texas

@Phil investigate and prosecute?

Lots of momentum for Trump team today.

"We think we did this correctly, but if anybody objects, please challenge it (before you have injury). Otherwise we have a (war that's not declared | treaties to sign that constrain our citizens rights | bla bla bla bla bla) to get to."

Lengthy process.

What happened with the Trump team today? I heard nothing.

jenna has covid

@Zuluzeit wfk

@busillis I was among some girls who hung out with, and in some cases dated, CotDC members. I was more on the perifery, but I remember what was going on. How much did I take it seriously ... meh ... when psychics and sooth sayers said one day most of us would be supporting Republics and Christians in the future ... I was like, "yeah right, and the next Star Trek Movie is going to be about the Borg Queen invading Middle Earth, while riding a unicorn, only to be stopped by Frodo Baggin colaborating with Gowron" ... when CotDC started making detailed plans of how to bring such inversion of roles reversal about....I wrote it off as impossibly crazy and went back to EverQuest....yet...25 years later...here we are.

I meant momentum-wise.

He’s intervening in the Texas law suit

@DrSammyD Okay...... So to recap the Republicans sponsored a bill to change VBM and in the law the Republicans included an option open to anyone to challenge the constitutionality of the law for 6 months. After that 6 months which would be at or after the primaries only a person with an injury has automatic standing. Neither in that 6 months nor the months after the primaries did anyone challenge the constitutionality of Act 77.

@FP, you just advanced to level 1!

I.e. not much

Texas is the Trump team? The state of Texas. That's what you're saying. Ok.

State level lawsuits piling on Texas case for SCOTUS. This will be the lawsuit that sticks. Swing states blew it trying to bury Trump on bias. Won't work.

No, I'm clear now. We're good.

I say they remedy it back to the states

They don’t want their houses burned

It’s your problem fix it

@Vegas.James do you think that texas have more standing than kelly in the PA case?

Well they are on the docket

@markmen, you just advanced to level 11!

@Autumn_Katrina I wish internet access was still limited through governmental institutions universities and the alike... This media has made it very easy to cheap & manipulate the masses.

No. It limited their ability to challenge it's constitutionality to a specific court.

"(2) The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has exclusive jurisdiction to hear a challenge to or to render a declaratory judgment concerning the constitutionality of a provision referred to in paragraph (1). The Supreme Court may take action it deems appropriate, consistent with the Supreme Court retaining jurisdiction over the matter, to find facts or to expedite a final judgment in connection with such a challenge or request for declaratory relief."

This is never not the right of the Pennsylvania Supreme court. They literally excluded other courts.

Because of the next vice president... yes.