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.

Yes. Merits are there is the state case. 4 swing states voided thier elections trying to change rules and overstep thier powers.

@Corndog but i would argue that texas has less standing than a citizen of the state itself. otherwise each state will sue eachother each time they do something they dont like

@DrSammyD so what? Why wouldn't a challenge to an election law which will in ~6 months effect all elections in the State not go directly to the highest court in the State?

War is peace
Freedom of slavery

...

@Vegas.James defense will argue covid

@markmen blame all the decisions that are undesirable on the machine learning...

@DrSammyD And it's not a right of the SCOPA it's a prerogative of the elected PA legislature to identify the court challenges should go to in the 6 month window so a resolution can be expedited.

https://twitter.com/llinwood/status/1336854953579646976?s=12

No those cases do not have standing if they are constitutional differences. Only because there was unfair perceieved treatment within the constitution will any case have enough standing.

Because this should not be a valid method of passing unconstitutional laws.

1) Wait until you have a favorable Supreme Court
2) Exclude any other Court from ruling on it, And ensure only the Supreme Court can rule on it
3) Set a time limit of 180 days to when you can challenge it's constitutionality, and then it goes into effect
4) When nobody challenges it because you have a favorable supreme court, if later, somebody challenges it, cite that they didn't challenge it during the 180 days.

@busillis aliens

The aliens another likely culprit.