Update at the end
The Texas SCOTUS lawsuit was rejected this afternoon by the Court. Texas asked the “Court to recognize the obvious fact that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes.”
The Court has rejected it, and the Electors will meet on Monday to formally elect Senile Joe as president.
The AP claims the President and the states that signed onto the lawsuit were attempting to overturn the election and the votes of millions of voters. In actuality, they were attempting to overturn illegal votes, if they are indeed illegal.
The end result is that the states can do anything they want, with or without the legislature’s approval, when it comes to elections. If they want to change the rules at the last minute to help their chosen candidate, they can do that.
The AP phrased it differently. They wrote:
The lawsuit filed against Michigan, Georgia, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin repeats false, disproven, and unsubstantiated accusations about the voting in four states that went for Trump’s Democratic challenger. The case demands that the high court invalidate the states’ 62 total Electoral College votes. That’s an unprecedented remedy in American history: setting aside the votes of tens of millions of people, under the baseless claim the Republican incumbent lost a chance at a second term due to widespread fraud.
Critics say states do not have the right to question the election procedures of other states. They do not have standing.
The nation will continue to be divided and when Biden and his handlers inflict socialism on Americans, matters will grow far worse. Many believe the Supreme Court should have answered the question beyond just rejecting it.
Update: Justices Alito and Thomas dissented.
Here’s the Supreme Court’s order, with Thomas and Alito dissenting pic.twitter.com/9U4RgvYcSr
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) December 11, 2020
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
We don’t need psychic ability to foresee our doomed American Republic’s future; we were sold out to the highest bidder, and king Barry will rule. Sad.
The Court has not yet received a case directly addressing the massive fraud. Why not?
What are these Justices? A bunch of overworldly morons? If Biden gets his way，he will almost certainly pack the Supreme Court and every one of them will become insignificant for good
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
It doesn’t sound like a “dissent”. The dissent is regarding the Arizona v. California case. The “view” of the two Justices only regards the matter of discretion, which is contrary to the Rules of the Court.
Please forgive my ignorance, but what does dissent mean?
Dissent would be an adverse opinion. The two Justices disagrees with the court in the matter of SCOTUS is “required” to take up an “Original” action case. According to the Rules of SCOTUS:
The Court thereafter may grant or deny the motion, set it for oral argument, direct that additional documents be fled, or require that other proceedings be
conducted.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/ctrules/2019RulesoftheCourt.pdf p.18.
Without reading the Arizona v. California case, I would have to assume the two Justices are of the opinion SCOTUS is required to hear these cases.