Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"it should concern everyone when companies like facebook and twitter wield the unchecked power to remove people from platforms that have become indispensable for the speech of billions - especially when political realities make those decisions easier..."
Well nothing of significance anyway. Where are these jobs that his supporters keep talking about? I've been waiting by my computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Informed Info
And the left hates private companies when they work for them & for min. wage while stocking shelves, ringing up customers, taking deliveries, etc. Why? because they screwed their lives up and are stuck in jobs meant for teenagers ... bunch of dumb liberals with kids (who they can't afford) and bills (they can't afford) trying to make a career out of what a child can do. But somehow that's everyone else's fault.
Poor saps.
You're probably not talking about me because though I messed up I didn't ask to. I was set up to fail. Yes I get irritated at these companies because they force me to be somewhere where I don't belong in. What's your point? I mean I do tolerate my pandemic duties but that doesn't mean I don't look for better.
I'm well aware it's my fault I had a vet bill I had to use my credit card for and I'm still kicking myself for that but should I really have to be set back for doing something special for my doggie?
Well, I would like our Supreme Court to do its job and give and evidentiary hearing to the Texas lawsuit and address the grievances listed in its BILL OF COMPLAINT
Unfortunately, if appears that Justice Roberts has joined the cancel culture and told 18 States and 76 million citizens of the United States to go pound sand, and screw the Constitution with respect to the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances.
JWK
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Thanks for answering.
You want the Texas SCOTUS suit to be resubmitted and heard. Fair enough. Assuming that doesn't happen what other practical steps do you think Trump/Rudy/whoever should do at this point?
You are passionate about this and give coherent answers so I would like to hear your ideas.
Well, I would like our Supreme Court to do its job and give and evidentiary hearing to the Texas lawsuit and address the grievances listed in its BILL OF COMPLAINT
Unfortunately, if appears that Justice Roberts has joined the cancel culture and told 18 States and 76 million citizens of the United States to go pound sand, and screw the Constitution with respect to the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances.
JWK
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Which grievances, specifically, are you most concerned with? Which part of The Constitution did they violate?
Well, I would like our Supreme Court to do its job and give and evidentiary hearing to the Texas lawsuit and address the grievances listed in its BILL OF COMPLAINT
The Texas lawsuit was thrown out for lack of standing. One state can't sue another for how they hold an election. That authority lies completely within each state according to the Constitution.
Are you advocating amending the Constitution to take the right to hold elections out of states' hands, and into the federal governments? Or making state results conditional on whether other states agree?
Seems like you are either ignoring the Constitution, or do not understand it.
The Texas lawsuit was thrown out for lack of standing. One state can't sue another for how they hold an election. That authority lies completely within each state according to the Constitution.
Are you advocating amending the Constitution to take the right to hold elections out of states' hands, and into the federal governments? Or making state results conditional on whether other states agree?
Seems like you are either ignoring the Constitution, or do not understand it.
So, what is meant by “standing”?
When the Supreme Court considers to hear a case, the first question is, does the Plaintiff have a right to sue in the Supreme Court? This is what “standing” is about. It is not about the issue(s) in contention, but rather, is the Plaintiff entitled to be heard in the Supreme Court and have a resolution handed down by the Justices of the Supreme Court?
To establish standing in the United States Supreme Court certain requirements must be meet, e.g., does the S.C. have jurisdiction over the subject matter? In the instant case, and under Article III of the Constitution, our Supreme Court does in fact have “original jurisdiction” over “Controversies between two or more States”.
Standing also requires that the plaintiff(s) has suffered an actual injury; the injury is the result of the actions of the defendant; and the asserted injury can be resolved by court action.
In the immediate case the State of Texas alleges in its BILL OF COMPLAINT that the Defendant States have violated Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, of the United States Constitution, and the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
If the allegations are true as stated in the Complaint, Defendant States have allowed an overwhelming number of ineligible votes to be cast which canceled out the votes of lawful votes cast by the good people in the Plaintiff States, and in so doing, have disenfranchised their vote and engaged in a “depravation of rights under color of law” which is an actionable offense and injury.
Those States which have followed the Constitution in the appointment of presidential electors ought not to suffer from alleged unlawful conduct of States which may have violated the federal Constitution in their appointment of presidential electors.
In fact, the people of the Defendant States must be held accountable for the actions of those they have willingly elected to state offices of public trust, and, who in turn, may have violated federal requirements for elections, and in so doing, cancelled out the lawful votes of citizens in the Plaintive States who have abided by the rule of law.
Unlike countries such as Venezuela where the “rule of law” is meaningless, and those in power arbitrarily dictate the “rule of law”, our Country is built upon “the rule of law” and “consent of the governed”, and this distinguishes our country from dictatorships like Venezuela, Cuba, China, etc.
Originally Posted by johnwk1 View Post
Well, I would like our Supreme Court to do its job and give and evidentiary hearing to the Texas lawsuit and address the grievances listed in its BILL OF COMPLAINT
Unfortunately, if appears that Justice Roberts has joined the cancel culture and told 18 States and 76 million citizens of the United States to go pound sand, and screw the Constitution with respect to the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances.
JWK
When our federal judicial system ignores our written Constitution and assents to legislative acts contrary to our supreme law of the land, it not only opens the door to anarchy, but participates in such treachery.
Thanks for answering.
You want the Texas SCOTUS suit to be resubmitted and heard. Fair enough. Assuming that doesn't happen what other practical steps do you think Trump/Rudy/whoever should do at this point?
You are passionate about this and give coherent answers so I would like to hear your ideas.
I gave you my answer above. I would like the Supreme Court to do its job and give and evidentiary hearing to the Texas lawsuit and address the grievances listed in its BILL OF COMPLAINT.
Justice delayed is justice denied!
JWK
First the President is cut off from twitter, then Sen. Hawley’s book is cancelled, then the WalkAway Facebook page is taken down. . . Is it not self-evident a dangerous and un-American pattern is developing to cancel conservative speech?
That is not true. The PA Supreme Court never ruled on the constitutionality of no-excuse mail in ballots. As a matter of fact, the Justices CONCURRING AND DISSENTING STATEMENT LINK indicates The Act of October 31, 2019, P.L. 552, No. 77. is un-constitutional.
Not so fast...
Are you sure?
"The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected the challengers’ argument based on laches—because the challenge wasn’t brought in a timely manner. Challengers waited until November 21, 2020, to challenge Pennsylvania’s no-excuse absentee ballot scheme, though a facial challenge to the law was “ascertainable” upon its enactment "
and after that...
"Yesterday, in a one-sentence statement containing no recorded dissents, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to strike down Pennsylvania’s no-excuse absentee ballot scheme. December 8, 2020, was the “safe harbor” deadline for the votes of Pennsylvania’s presidential and vice-presidential electors to be included in the counting of electoral votes."
If it was unconstitutional, why didn't SCOTUS say so?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
