Election 2020

SCOTUS Full of Trump Appointees Joins the Conspiracy To Deny Trump His Rightful Victory

The justices declined to intervene on behalf of Republicans who challenged absentee voting in Pennsylvania.

|

Today the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene on behalf of Donald Trump allies who challenged a 2019 Pennsylvania law that allowed voting by mail without any special justification. The plaintiffs, led by Rep. Mike Kelly (R–Pa.), sought to reverse Pennsylvania's election results, which gave Joe Biden a lead of 81,660 votes, by arguing that the expansion of absentee voting violated the state constitution. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court rejected their petition with prejudice on November 28, concluding that it was filed much too late. Today's one-sentence order, which rejected the plaintiffs' request for an emergency injunction without a recorded dissent, leaves that ruling undisturbed.

Kelly et al. filed their challenge in state court on November 21, two and a half weeks after the election and three days before Gov. Tom Wolf (D) certified Biden's victory. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court noted, they "sought to invalidate the ballots of the millions of Pennsylvania voters who utilized the mail-in voting procedures" established in 2019. Alternatively, they "advocated the extraordinary proposition that the court disenfranchise all 6.9 million Pennsylvanians who voted in the General Election and instead 'direct[] the General Assembly to choose Pennsylvania's electors.'"

The state Supreme Court's decision did not address the merits of the Republicans' constitutional argument, instead finding that the lawsuit was prohibited by the doctrine of laches, which "bars relief when a complaining party is guilty of want of due diligence in failing to promptly institute an action to the prejudice of another." Although the Pennsylvania legislature approved Act 77, the law that expanded absentee voting, in October 2019, Kelly and the other plaintiffs did not challenge it until after Pennsylvania proved to be crucial in defeating Trump's reelection bid.

"Petitioners' challenge violates the doctrine of laches given their complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77's enactment," the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said.
"The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable." The court added:

Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners' failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.

Earlier today, Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler explained why Kelly's attempt to overcome that ruling was an uphill fight. "The biggest problem with this suit is the lack of a real federal question," he wrote. "Whatever one thinks of the state law questions, the attempts to make a federal case out of these state law claims is quite strained, and the existence of independent and sufficient state law grounds should insulate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's decision from review."

The defeat of this lawsuit adds to a nearly unbroken string of legal defeats for Trump and his allies, who have unsuccessfully tried to reverse Biden's election by challenging vote counting procedures or alleging widespread fraud without persuasive evidence. The vast conspiracy to deny Trump his rightful victory apparently now extends to the Supreme Court, which includes six Republican appointees, half of them nominated by Trump himself.

NEXT: Trump Undermined Civilian Control of the Military. With His Pentagon Pick, Biden Has Too.

Election 2020 Campaigns/Elections Voting Fraud Conspiracy Theories Donald Trump Joe Biden Pennsylvania Supreme Court Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

Please to post comments

398 responses to “SCOTUS Full of Trump Appointees Joins the Conspiracy To Deny Trump His Rightful Victory

  1. I keep thinking reason editors will one day wake up and realize they backed the wrong horse here but watching them try to justify their Biden support is more entertaining. It’s like a drunk with a hangover trying to cure it by mixing isopropyl in their juice.

    1. Louisiana just joined Texas.

      Two of the 50 states questioning the 2020 election blow the MSM Narrative out of the water. How can these claims be unsupported if 2 states are spending their resources to challenge the fraudulent election results.

      The Courts would have to say that certain states like Texas and LA are crazy but states like PA, MI, WI, GA are not crazy. This is “n”th D chess right here.

      1. https://twitter.com/bradheath/status/1336427093446582275?s=20

        “This is the Supreme Court order denying the request by Rep.
        @MikeKellyPA and others to invalidate Pennsylvania’s presidential election. That’s the whole thing. It was denied by the full court with no public dissents.”

        “The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”

        1. Is there any particular reason you chose to post this utter and complete non-sequitur regarding a completely different and irrelevant case in response to the message you replied to, or are you just so fucking retarded you thought it somehow made a point?

          1. This is what the article is about, and since I’m the arbiter of acceptable comments, I’m steering this particular thread back to the specific topic of the article.

            1. .. I’m the arbiter of acceptable comments..
              Similar to the “office of the president elect”.

              1. Imagine all the clowns that Biden “hired” having to find real jobs when Biden never becomes President.

                Roberts might have to side with conservatives for protection so he doesnt get permanently “peacefully” protested by BLM after the SCoTUS majority reciews Trump vs Biden.

                1. ITT DOL shows he has no understanding whatsoever what the word benign means. Dee defends him, but is now questioning that decision, since she knows what the word means, and therefore knows he used it backwards.

                  What will she do next?

                  1. Making money online more than 15$ just by doing simple work from home. I have received $18376 last month. Its an easy and simple job to do and its earnings are much better than regular office job and even a little child can do this and earns money. Everybody must try this job by just use the info
                    on this page…..work92/7 online

          2. Uhhhh …. TFA is about Pennsylvania. lc’s post is about something else, as you call it, a non sequitor.

          3. Yes, to taunt lc1789. Next question…

            1. I still find it odd that you don’t white knight against killrednecks. Then again I’m not offended by naughty words like you are, so I don’t know if any of the Mormons say them, disqualifying them from your protection.

              1. I have “white knighted” against his Mormon hatred thing. You’ve just missed it.

                1. I have too senpai, and when I did it everyone missed it as well.
                  *wink, wink*

            2. Unreason’s really believes it “taunts” me. Hahahahahaha

              Lefties are being “n”th D chessed again and they wont learn.

              Lefty media didnt see Texas legal action coming. Sound familiar? Same type of blindside came during mueller, impeachment, trump covid recovery….

              Lefty plans are shit and they always fail.

        2. God damn you’re dumb. Totally unrelated lefty shit.

        3. For the intellectually challenged:
          They denied the requested injunction.
          That’s all.

      2. What are Texas´ and Louisiana´s theories of a distinct and palpable injury for standing purposes?

        1. Maybe you could read the complaint and find out instead of copy/pasting the same stupid shit you’ve been copy/pasting in every election-related thread for the last 3 weeks?

          1. Maybe you could answer my question or admit you don´t know.

            1. No, I don’t think I’ll do the work of reading the complaint to you because you’re too stupid to comprehend it. Here’s a hint: the complaint is based on Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US constitution.

              1. Lefties will never admit that the trump campaign legal team (aka guiliani) got all claims from key states and supporting evidence filed within 5 weeks.

                They did the same thing about the bush legal team in 2000.

              2. They are objecting to how the states chose to elect their Senators and Representatives? I thought this was about the Presidential election.

                Clause 1
                The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

              3. I think you mean Article II, Section 1, Clause 2. The Electors Clause.

                Someone either can’t read or didnt read the filing by Texas.

                https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

                1. It seems to me that the basis of the argument is that the Supreme Court is being asked to reject the popular vote in each state that decides how the electors are going to be chosen and then cast their electoral vote based on two concepts:

                  1) It is precedent in elections in the early stages of our country that legislatures did choose the electors, in some but not all states.

                  2) Supposedly based on interpretation, the alleged illegality of mail-in ballots is a direct contradiction to the plenary power of the legislature to choose its electors.

                  But the second notion is based on the concept that (specifically in Pennsylvania) Boockvar violated State legislatures plenary power by allowing each county to decide if they would contact voters to address any signature irregularities. Some counties decided to pursue these irregularities and contact voters, others declined.

                  1. It’s not just the signature matching she removed. She also changed the dates for receiving the ballots to 3 days after the election, removed the requirement for post marks let alone their verification, and made mail in universal. Act 77 the law Mike Kelley’s lawsuit was aimed at, only made changes to absentee ballots. Bookvar then illegally conflated universal mail in with absentee, and pretended it was all the same and she could make whatever changes she wanted.

                    Too bad for the stupid cunt, our state constitution says all changes to election law must go through the legislature.

                    But I’m sure you knew all that, you’d just rather be an ignorant, obtuse, pissy cunt cuz trump had you butt hurt for 4 years haha.

                    1. Ugh. Here I thought I was presenting a good faith analysis of the Texas lawsuit and you just have to go off the rails and start cussing at me. End of discussion. Thanks for ruining it.

                2. Here is one of the relevant sections of PA state law:

                  “An applicant whose voter registration application is timely received under subsection (b) or (c) shall be deemed a registered elector”

                  https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/li/uconsCheck.cfm?yr=2020&sessInd=0&act=12

                  So by legislative act, any registered voter is then deemed an elector. So popular vote supersedes the legislatures plenary power to directly select electors, because they relieve themselves of that said power and give it to registered voters.

                  Continuing on…

                3. Also, shouldn’t the Texas lawsuit also include North Carolina since they allowed mail in ballots to be received after November 3rd?

                  Oh wait, they don’t care about North Carolina because Trump won that state. But if we are asking the Supreme Court to overturn the election results for Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin for the same reasons, shouldn’t North Carolina have its results overturned? Equal application of the law, right?

                  1. There is also this in North Carolina:

                    ““In the past three years alone, the board has twice extended the absentee-ballot receipt deadline after hurricanes hit the state’s coast,” its brief said. “No one challenged those extensions.””

                    State law in North Carolina allows the state election board to extend the deadline for receiving and counting ballots in the face of natural disasters.

                    I wonder if there is a similar clause in the PA state constitution.

                  2. ‘Also, shouldn’t the Texas lawsuit also include North Carolina since they allowed mail in ballots to be received after November 3rd?’

                    and don’t forget IA and OH as well, as they did the same…

                  3. Poor Lefties. They dont understand the concept of choosing your battles.

                    Trump is not going to spend time and money fighting Democrat election fraud that didnt work.

                    HAHA. You Lefties are idiots.

                    1. Plus, NC has that witness affidavit portion of their ballots, which might have been a bulwark to curbing much of the Democrat mail-in ballots fraud.

                    2. No, no no. They claim that they are fighting for violations of the law. If the claim here is that Texas says PA can’t extend the deadline for accepting ballots to 3 days, then why would they also not hold NC accountable for the same, especially when Republican lawmakers in NC went on record and said they were forced into accepting the extension from 3 to 9 days in North Carolina. It shouldn’t matter who won the state.

                      Texas will have to prove in court that Boockvar usurped the power from the legislature.

                      Well, first, the SCOTUS will have to accept to hear the case. They haven’t actually done that, yet. They are waiting on a reply from the defendants in the suit.

                    3. They are ignoring an extension of the deadline because it ended up benefitting them.

                      If the ballots are illegal in one state, (extension of deadline due to pandemic – which Republicans say is horseshit), means it should apply equally elsewhere, no matter who benefits.

                    4. So in effect, they are only protesting the alleged unconstitutional change to the deadline (ie, not determined by legislature), not the extension of the deadline itself. Because if it was about the deadline extension, then NC would be a defendant as well in the suit.

                      And I remember quite well all of the conservatives going ape shit over the extension of the deadlines saying that it all needed to be received by election day – they didn’t say shit about the constitutionality of the change at the time. This is what you call a major case of crybaby hypocrisy.

                    5. Don’t you care about fraud? Don’t you care about the integrity of our elections?

                      Or do you only care about “fRaUd” when it helps you win the election?

                  4. Would Trump have won NC anyway if they invalidated the same kinds of mail in votes that they want to invalidate in states where Trump lost?

                    If so, Trump’s team should go ahead and include NC to the list. It would at least give the impression of objectively believing in a legal principle.

                    If there is a state where these types of mail in votes actually made the difference FOR Trump… well, that would be a lot more interesting, and a better example of legal and moral hypocrisy.

        2. Standing doesn’t apply the same when there is an argument between states.

          I do love watching leftists throw out investigations on standing instead of advocating for election audits to prove they were uncorrected.

          Fraud happens every election. Only leftists don’t want to ever find out avenues for cheating. Weird.

          1. A state must indeed show standing. That is part of the Article III case or controversy requirement, essential to any federal court´s subject matter jurisdiction.

            What is the theory of distinct and palpable injury to the State of Texas or the State of Louisiana?

            1. An unconstitutional federal election.

              You willing to die for the left?

              1. How does that show injury particularized to Texas and/or Louisiana?

                1. The complaint states that.

                  Equal protection is one claim. Texas had to follow the basic constitutional rules while MI, WI, PA, GA didnt. Texas could have sent 500EC votes for Trump if Texas didnt have to follow the rules.

                  Honestly, that is what every red state should do. Send 50 EC votes each. trump wins 1000 EC votes to Bidens supposed 306 EC.

                  1. Did the nurse forget to give you your meds at Bellevue last night?

                    1. Poor unreason.

                      Please let us know when you guys quit because you can’t handle Trump’s second term.

                  2. You obviously never went to law school.

                  3. You obviously never went to law school. Suck it up.

                2. Why don’t you read the complaint because they address this. There are equal protection and constitutional challenges abound.

              2. oh big surprise another Nardz threat. How he is still allowed to post these threats is beyond me.

                1. Nardz is one of the many wingnuts who threatens people then denies that the violent far-right he belongs to exists.

                  Mikey M and the Shitlord do the same – among others. They are just a screw turn from Tim McVeigh.

                  1. You and your pedophile friends should really think about that question, because there are likely millions of Americans willing to die, and to kill, to keep the US from falling to totalitarianism.
                    The left has declared war on The People.
                    They risk a response with every new transgression.

                    1. Meaningless QAnon gibberish from you.

                    2. Fuck off, pedophile.

                    3. They are willing to kill every last man, woman, and child to keep us out of the grips of totalitarianism.

                      After already ruining Hawaiian shirts: haven’t you Boogaloo Bois already done enough?

            2. Joe? Have successfully sued California over state standards. They were not citizens of California and had no direct harm.

              So no. Youre wrong. States get far more leniency.

              You may not understand, but national elections effect all states. Just like a California regulation effects national standards.

              1. Weird auto paste from last comment in other thread.

                States have*

              2. States get some deference as to standing inquiry, but must still show distinct and palpable injury to the state, attributable to the defendant(s)´ conduct, which may be redressed by a remedy the court an offer.

                1. Stated in the complaint.

                  Stay on shawshank because youre being obtuse.

                2. Srsly?! READ THE COMPLAINT NUMBNUTZ

            3. Controversies arising between the states are subject to different rules, which is why this case was able to be filed directly to the US supreme court. The state of Texas is suing the commonwealth of Pennsylvania because it illegally and unconstitutionally changed its election procedures by executive and judicial rather than legislative action. In so doing it debased the votes of the plaintiff’s state, which remained faithful to the constitutional procedure for voting and appointing electors.

              Of course you would know this if you read the complaint, but you’re a stupid cunt who doesn’t know his asshole from an electrical socket, so you’d rather demand to be spoonfed information that’s freely available, which you will then proceed to ignore anyway. Fuck yourself in the eye with an ice pick you stupid cunt.

            4. Texas is claiming vote dilution. I think its at best, a stretch. Texas electoral votes will count exactly the same as always.
              The Texas lawsuit might also be premature.
              I don’t see how it will work in any case. Constitution says the state legislature picks the electors – and I suppose it could be flip of a coin…. or whomever cheats at blackjack the best … or a beauty contest.
              Not sure how Texas has standing in that.

              1. It is explained. Texas had to follow the rules but MI, WI, PA, and GA didnt.

                If Texas didnt have to follow Constitutional rules either, then Texas can choose to send 500 Electoral votes for the Trump win.

                Trump wins 732 to Biden 303.

        3. Uhhhhhhh, massive cheating using mail in ballots and zero election integrity and Dominion backend algorithms disenfranchised all of us voters who: Are 1) 18 or older 2) citizens of the USA 3) registered to vote 4) voted once in the precinct we are registered 5) I could go on but, you know, RULES.
          https://hereistheevidence.com
          Why should corrupt states steal the entire election and turn us into a banana republic without a fight?

          1. An injury that is common to all doesn´t qualify.

            If you can´t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch.

            1. If you imagine that the comment “An injury that is common to all doesn’t qualify” makes you a big dog, then I will stay on the porch with the small, non-moronic dogs who like elections where the vote counts don’t end up with decimals after them.

              1. Basic standing doctrine. Do you have contrary authority?

                1. Another new unreason bot that demands authority but cites none.

            2. Again youre laughably wrong. States sue each other all the time for tangential harm.

              1. You are avoiding the question. What is Texas´s or Louisiana´s distinct and palpable injury? If you don´t know, there is no harm in admitting that.

                1. It’s delineated in the complaint. Want me to give you the page number, or should I just keep telling you without actually telling you? Sorry you’re a half-educated lazy piece of shit subhuman cunt who can’t operate a search engine.

                2. Everyone just copy paste Jim ignatowski response to this tard bucket everytime he posts cuz its perfect.

                  “Controversies arising between the states are subject to different rules, which is why this case was able to be filed directly to the US supreme court. The state of Texas is suing the commonwealth of Pennsylvania because it illegally and unconstitutionally changed its election procedures by executive and judicial rather than legislative action. In so doing it debased the votes of the plaintiff’s state, which remained faithful to the constitutional procedure for voting and appointing electors.

                  Of course you would know this if you read the complaint, but you’re a stupid cunt who doesn’t know his asshole from an electrical socket, so you’d rather demand to be spoonfed information that’s freely available, which you will then proceed to ignore anyway. Fuck yourself in the eye with an ice pick you stupid cunt.”

          2. It’s amazing how those Dominion Backend Algorithms disenfranchised all you registered voters when they got the same count doing it over by hand, except for a few hundred votes that the Republicans running some of the Republican-dominated counties in GA forgot to send in to the Republicans running the state election system.

            One of the points of mail-in ballots is that it makes it easier for LEGAL voters to avoid attempts to disenfranchise them, and if they do get blocked, it’s before Election Day while they can still appeal it.

          3. Look, this has been gone over time and time again.
            Affidavits that say – “I saw people rolling eyes on tRump ballots – and therefor votes were changed – maybe 100,000” is not evidence.
            Name matching, voters vs. some list doesn’t mean anything. Lots of people have same or similar names. That goes for declaring people dead, moved, underage, or whatever. Its not evidence until you release the names and why you think they are not eligible.
            Courts have ruled time and time again that speculation is not evidence.

            It’s the tRumpians that seem to want to turn this into a Banana Republic. Real evidence or shutup. YOU are trying to undermine a legitimate election – hallmark of the “Strong Man”.

            1. Poor bot. Affidavits are evidence. They swear under penalty of perjury.

              Claims by Lefties and the MSM are not made under oath, so Lefties can be ignored out of hand.

        4. Texas has standing and is consistent with federalism (i.e. State’s Rights), insofar that the states are charted into a compact that elects the president of the U.S.
          In most things, federalism provides that each state is sovereign in its laws and administration.
          Pursuant to that Constitutional compact on presidential elections, a given state can be aggrieved by another’s actions that undermine its own access to the process of election. That compact is a collective process, and one state’s actions does indeed affect another’s, which gives it standing to complain when the other states game the system to make their own process expedient and violative of due process.

      3. Just to clarify, that’s a separate case from the case cited in the article.
        https://www.zerohedge.com/political/texas-sues-georgia-michigan-pennsylvania-and-wisconsin-supreme-court-over-election
        There are real constitutional issues here that affect the citizens of all the states. Add to that the hearings in GA, that the legislators are taking very seriously. Jacob continues to be willfully ignorant.

        1. And this case is separate, but was also notably missing in his article about a ruling in Michigan:

          https://www.monroenews.com/news/20201207/michigan-judge-oks-audit-access-to-voting-machines

          1. Democrats are freaking because Texas rejected the dominion machines and will now be able to provide evidence to the SCoTUS as to why.

            Additionally, now states are supporting claims of Trump and private persons. This blows out of the water the claims the democrats have that the eldtion claims are unsupported.

            This is “n”th chess.

            1. The Dominion voting machines that Georgia put in a year or so ago follow the principle that the paper ballot is the official vote by the voter, and the computer systems are only there to help count the ballots faster and to help voters who want help marking their paper ballots. It’s what the election security experts have been saying ever since the Hanging Chad Debacle.

              That’s a marked contrast to the system they had before; this way if you don’t like the results and don’t think the risk-limiting audits limit the risks enough, you can go do a hand recount. Twice. And find that you still lost.

              1. Except this is false because what actually gets tabulated into the computer, and onto the USB drive depending on the precinct reporting method, is the BALLOT IMAGE. Which is both editable and deleteable with no chain of custody.

                And as I’m sure your too obtuse and retarded to understand, not only did bookvar change mail on voting law illegally in PA, but she requires all paper ballots for in person voting since people can all touch the same pens but not the same computer screen. And those in person paper ballots conventiently had no serial numbers, no barcode, no qr code, literally nothing to Identify authenticity or chain of custody.

                But don’t let the facts get in your way ya dumb cock warbler

                1. Georgia claimed they did a hand recount (after the machine count, and the audit recount).
                  Same results.

              2. I voted win early in-person voting in Georgia.

                We voted on a electronic machine and had paper backup.

                Not all Georgians voted this way. Like millions of Georgians didnt vote this way.

                Furthermore, Georgia allows tens of thousands of state custody felons and other restricted person to cast ballots. Tens of thousands of non-Georgian residents cast ballots.

                All these ballots are illegal and should not have been counted but were.

              3. It seems that the voting machines that were to make it faster, have resulted in it becoming much slower, AND much more in doubt.

            2. Texas rejected Dominion machines because Texas wanted every ballot to be numbered and tracked by number. The problem with that it doesn’t allow anonymous voting.
              Imagine if your boss says “Vote for Trump or else” and on Nov 4 he asks who you voted for – you say “Trump” and he says, “let me see the serial number of your ballot.”
              This is why most states don’t allow photography in the polling booths – no selfies.
              Some states wanted more freedom, Texas wanted more verification. Its a balancing act.

              1. Your citation fell off.

      4. Whether a litigant is crazy is not the question, lc1789.

        1. Tell that to the msm.

          Poor democrats. I warned them and their propagandists at unreason.

      5. Haha. I knew this would get unreason’s attention.

        Arkansas, alabama, and 6 other states joined in support for the Texas legal action against democrat election fraud.

        1. The lack of critical thinking in our political leaders is astounding.
          There is zero evidence of voter fraud. None.
          There ARE allegations of the potential for fraud. But that is not evidence of fraud.
          There ARE allegations that in some areas, poll workers were biased. Again, that is not fraud.
          Then there are the lists….

          Lets take the dead voter lists. EVERY state watches the Social Security list for people that have died. They do this to stop sending wellfare checks etc. Included in that process is removal of people from the voter roles – The Republican controlled states are notorious for removing people at the drop of the hat. Yet somehow, when the lawyers compared the list of names against the list of those who voted, they find matches. So, either they are false matches (people with the same names), or the Republican controlled states are not doing their jobs AND there are people posing as the dead people.
          When the lists were made public, various news organizations spot checked the lists and found that either the dead did not vote or there were people with same name, still alive, that did vote. No fraud…. again!

          To date, the only case I can find of a fraudulent vote in 2020, was a Republican registered voter trying to cast a ballot as if he was his Democratically registered son. It is unclear for whom he voted for but I’m willing to assume a fake vote for tRump.

          1. Are you kidding? You have done ZERO research. You are just spouting off the party line of the DNC which is sent out everyday to the MSM. Do you know who Eric Coomer is? Do you realize that Soros hates Republicans and that he owns Dominion Voting via Staples Street Capital (purchased in 2018). Do you know that Soros’s best buddy Lord Malloch-Brown owns Smartmatic, the company that tabulated our votes on servers overseas? Do you realize that a massive order for millions of fake ballots was placed in China? Do you know that the statistical odds of Biden winning all four swing states that he was losing at 3:00 a.m. on election night is one in one quadrillion to the fourth power? Do you realize that hundreds of thousands of ballots had just one circle filled for Biden — that the “voters” didn’t bother to vote for any other candidates? Do you realize that Coomer bragged in a conference call that he “had made sure” Trump lost and that he posted on Facebook how much he hated Trump? Have you watched the Youtube videos where Coomer explains how you can change the votes using an algorithm? Have you asked yourself how Dementia Joe won the swing states but had unimpressive turnout everywhere else? And yet somehow got waaaay more votes than Obama or Clinton despite zero campaigning? Have you noticed that Pennsylvania lost the Usb cards that had the election evidence on them, that Georgia started wiping their machines as soon as people started asking questions, and that thousands of people have come forward and signed affidavits saying they saw Democrats cheating, forcing out poll watchers, and changing ballots for Biden, or running Biden ballots through the machine over and over again? The stupidity of this country is starting to terrify me. Meanwhile: censorship, doublespeak, and stupidity rule the land.

          2. How do you prove that someone voted multiple times under different names when he didn’t have to show ID to vote?

      6. How does a politician’s willingness to spend the voters’ money to challenge an election they didn’t win indicate that their claims must somehow be supported?
        The Trump Team is something like 1-50 in court. They’re apparently perfectly happy to challenge elections even without supportable claims (and the two they won, at least one of which has been overturned by the PA Supreme Court, stipulated that they weren’t about fraud, they were about interpretations of the law.)

      7. ‘This is “n”th D chess right here.’

        then explain why Paxton’s suit doesn’t include Iowa and Ohio, each of whom had similar mail in voting to GA, PA, MI and WI…

        1. You people never heard of choosing your battles.

          Let Democrats challenge the results in OH and Iowa.

          HAHA. Its funny that the Lefty argument is now that the Trump claims of election fraud should not be resolved for Trump because his campaign didnt file lawsuits in every state.

          It’s almost like Lefties are admitting that there was election fraud in every state.

          1. To be clear, I think there was voter fraud. But I also believe it was in very very small amounts by a small number of individuals. Not nearly enough to change the votes.
            As of late, Republicans have not been very good with facts or science (or math), but relying on gut feelings. This makes them particularly vulnerable by disinformation campaigns. For example, the name calling – saying all Democrats or at least Biden is a communist or socialist. No definition of what the terms mean. No example of Biden policies that align. Just innuendo. Are we to assume Republicans are all free market capitalists? Of course not, but hey, the tactic worked and the sheeple in Miami made sure Florida wasn’t going Biden.
            The brain washing of the tRumpians continues.

      8. Seven states have now joined. May go up to ten. You know what states are crazy? The ones who keep on voting for Democrats and get companies fleeing as fast as they can, crime soaring, tent cities with people defecating on the steps on building, and the highest taxes in the nation. Plus, politicians who act like kings ruling serfs (see Newsom, DeBlasio, Cuomo, Pelosi) Then all the rich people leave and move to Wyoming, Montana, Texas, Florida, or other red states and bring their dumb liberal ideas with them.
        https://hereistheevidence.com
        I hope SCOTUS shakes the corruption out of the trees on this one before we end up like Venzuela, where Hugo Chavez left $4 billion to his daughter and the country destitute.

        1. It is up to 17 states now, as of 11:28pm 12/9/2020
          A third of the US sovereign states is challenging the election.
          And SCOTUS has original jurisdiction, which I believe is not discretionary to take as a case.

      9. Your argument is that the mere spending of state resources somehow grants legitimacy to the claims? If that is the case, then Leninism must certainly have been the correct economic system, considering how much the USSR promoted it!

    2. At this point it is not about who you support, is is about recognizing the results of a legal election.

      1. Let us know when a legal election takes place. The one we had in November with rules that violated both federal and state law and constitutional provisions wasn’t it.

        1. So much obvious fraud that every court has rejected those claims. Even Federalist Society Republicans are rejecting them.

          1. This, and I’m also sure Jim here would NOT like the results that favored Republican Congressional candidates thrown out or done over.

            1. Oh, we’ve already done that lots, but it’s the first time we’ve disenfranchised so many Republican presidential voters…

              Oops, maybe I shouldn’t say that part out loud.

          2. You’re confusing 2 different issues. Not surprising.

          3. Courts rejecting it doesn’t necessarily make it reality.

            Each and every day countless government actors flat out ignore plain as day realities.

            How many times have we seen a cop straight up murder some poor sap and the universal government line is “justified shooting”

            1. Elections where the outcome advances Marxism are the only times we can fully and completely trust the government. Oh, and national lockdowns, vaccine mandates, and mask mandates to address a respiratory virus with a fatality rate comparable to the seasonal flu.

              1. 2018-9 US flu season: approx. 35M cases, approx. 35K deaths for a death rate of roughly .1%. US Covid-19: approx. 14M cases, approx. 280K deaths for a death rate of roughly 2%. Nope. Not even close for either number of deaths or deaths/cases.

                1. “CDC: 80,000 people died of flu last winter in U.S., highest death toll in 40 years By ASSOCIATED PRESS SEPTEMBER 26, 2018”
                  This time we have far more deaths, with a median age of 80, meaning well over half who die are older than the US life expectancy of 78.5. But by all means, let’s destroy every small business in America for a Chinese virus created expressly for that purpose. In 2018, on the other hand, we never even looked up when 80k people died of the flu. Now, we cancelled the economy, unless you’re an elite in which you are making more money than ever! Yay Jeff Bezos.

                  1. Almost sounds like ‘Rona is raising the average age of expiration.

                2. Citations always fall off.

                  1. As does your brain.

              2. The only vaccine mandates are for schoolchildren.

            2. Democrats really want to believe that lower courts dismissing election fraud lawsuits mean there is no evidence rather than the judges helping Trump by getting the cases to the SCoTUS faster.

              Only an idiot really believes that a GA judge is tossing millions of mailin ballots.

              The SCOtUS is hearing 1 case about the election and one case only. Just like in 2000 with bush vs gore.

              1. Scotus just heard the Pennsylvania cases and said “LOL NOPE”,9-0, not only the three liberals, but also the three conservatives and the three Trumpists.

                And what do you mean by “a GA judge is tossing millions of mailin ballots”? I thought you Republicans kept saying you wanted to count every legal vote.

                1. To the emergency injunction dum-dum.

                  The SCOTUS will hear one case. ONE CASE only. All other claims and evidence will be consolidated under the ONE CASE that the 5-4 conservative majority wants to decide on.

                  1. Will you accept whatever ruling SCOTUS provides (in that one case) as the correct legal decision?

                    Do you trust SCOTUS to evaluate the evidence properly?

                    It’s obvious that you assume the ruling will be in Trump’s favor and confirm wide spread coordinated voter fraud. If SCOTUS does in fact determine that Trump would have won if not for this coordinated large scale voter fraud, I will accept that, and my mind will be changed.

                    If SCOTUS determines that Biden got enough legitimate votes to win the election, and that there isn’t enough compelling evidence of large scale voter fraud, will you accept those results as the honest and un-corrupt interpretation of the evidence by SCOTUS?

                    I’m assuming you think that when all the evidence is presented to SCOTUS, all reasonable people will come to the conclusion that you were right all along.

                    But if that doesn’t happen; if SCOTUS rejects your theory, and most non partisan and reasonably objective people do NOT come to the conclusion that you were right all along, will you be open to the possibility that you weren’t right all along?

                    Is there a possible outcome that will lead you to conclude that enough legitimate voters voted for Biden, in the necessary states, to make Biden the legitimate President elect?

                    I’m really not trying to win here, or debate you on your current assumptions. I’m open to the possibility that you are right about this. I’m just curious if are open to the possibility that you aren’t right about all of it.

                    I’m just trying to determine what your
                    unchangable premises are.

                    1. “Do you trust SCOTUS to evaluate the evidence properly?”

                      You mean, like they did when they signed off on Obamacare and Kelo?

          4. He actually didn’t mention fraud.

          5. The courts have not said there wasn’t any fraud, idiot.

            They have only said they’re too afraid of taking the case because it’s a political minefield for them.

          6. https://hereistheevidence.com

            The evidence of fraud is there, it’s massive, and it’s terrifying.
            Oligarchs like Zuckerberg, Soros, Clinton (she made $2 billion for her charitable work while secretary of state) BOUGHT this election for a senile, 80 year old, really dumb, angry, racist, political failure.
            Every American should actually care that their votes were “counted” overseas on Smartmatic servers in Serbia. What could go wrong?

          7. How can you retards not comprehend that claims of fraud are separate from claims of unconstitutionality?

            And after that, how can anyone claiming to be libertarian look at what a an executive did to override the legislature in a state like PA and not see the constitutional and separation of powers issue?

            I thought constitutional limits and separation of powers were things libertarians cared about.

            But I think it’s pretty clear none of you are libertarians. Your just lefty trolls trying to cover a libertarian discussion in the shit you fling of your fingers like the dumb apes you are. But you’re also too stupid to realize most libertarians don’t think reason is really representative of them, don’t support the magazine, and only come for the comments because we’ve been here that long. So while shit smearing reasons comments might seem like a victory to trolls like yall… None of us really care, that’s why we’re all still here no matter how many socks jeffy, scarcasmic, n hihn make

            1. unreason is quiet for weeks ignoring Trump challenges to clear Democrat election fraud.

              Once the reality is coming to the surface that Biden has lost his gamble with election fraud, unreason sends in the bots to quash dissent.

            2. I am not a lefty troll. I consider myself to be libertarian.

              I don’t know enough about constitutional law to form an educated opinion about the what the correct legal decision should have been in this case, but I do assume that the 9-0 decision was not an obviously unconstitutional one that is rooted in left wing bias.

              Are you saying that SCOTUS did an objectively bad job here?

              It seems to have been decided based on the timing of the challenge. Do you think SCOTUS got that wrong?

              Or do you think that had the PA law been challenged at the appropriate time that the outcome would have been different?

              What are the libertarian principles you think are being abandoned in this article basically agreeing with SCOTUS’s decision here?

              Libertarians often have a rooting interest in outcomes, but for the most part we expect SCOTUS to correctly interpret the constitution as it is. Do you think that it’s obvious SCOTUS failed to do that, and that libertarians should be angry about the decision?

      2. One would hope a libertarian site would be promoting election integrity instead of pushing a fact free narrative of no fraud. We already know fraud happened. We don’t know how much or if systemic. A simple audit would fix all the complaints.

        1. So the states that already recounted/audited don’t matter to you, you wanna just keep rolling different dice til one finally comes up Trump. Or just straight replace the electors.

          You do know he keeps asking states to just swap electors, and do at least dimly realize deep down what that means and what that shows, yes?

          1. They want a benign dictator. Just like every scared peasant who has helped a strongman seize power in history.

            1. Are cults usually led by a “benign dictator”? I guess I see some similarities, seems a stretch to me though.

              And you forgot to mention hatred for brown people somehow. Maybe work it into voter ID?

              1. Benign as the cult sees them. No one supports someone they perceive to be malicious to themselves.

                R Mac, no offense, but you’re not smart enough to have a good conversation with. Sorry bud.

                1. I don’t think you understand what benign means. You should improve your own knowledge before insulting mine.

                  1. Caw caw!

                    1. Is it hard differentiating between your DOL and White Knight socks when you’re trying to troll R Mac?

                    2. Dee tell me DOL knows what benign means. You won’t because now we know Dol is dumber than you.

                    3. I guess Dee doesn’t know what benign means. It is a complicated word!

                  2. I asked DOL if benign was an appropriate word, he doubled down.

                    It’s not being pedantic like you, if the definition of the word is literally the opposite of how he uses it.

                    1. Is english your second language, or are you just unintelligent?

                      Trump’s cult perceives Trump to be benign (to them), which means simply ‘not harmful’.

                      The antonym of benign is malignant or malicious, which is what he and his cult are to everyone else.

                      Now go tell your parents and teachers that they failed you.

                2. My gosh are you DUMB!

          2. Garbage in…garbage out.

            You Lefties are so stupid. Republicans want a final vote for democrat votes before they toss illegal ballots. This way the democrats cannot produce more ballots from trunks. As of today dec 8, 2020 democrats cannot legally produce any new ballots.

            Now begins the process of tossing millions of illegal mailin ballots for a Biden loss.

        2. How does it feel to live in a blue state with two Democrat senators, bitch?

          1. Georgia? Trump won Georgia, has a RINO Governor, Republican Lt Governor, RINO Secretary of state, GOP controlled states legislature…

            …and two RINO US Senators.

            poor unreason. Your staff must be pulling its hair out because these damn American supporters wont give in to Biden and tyranny.

            1. No. I was talking to JesseAz. Shoo.

            2. Biden won GA. It’s a blue state.

      3. Legal election…was that 2016 or 2018?

        The democrat election fraud just didnt work until democrats scared an entire world over the coof into surrendering their right to fair elections.

        Luckily, there is no right to popular vote of the president. Thank god the uSA is a republic.

    3. Seriously.

      Biden is in the pockets of China.

      Literally.

      Not like that BS Russia thing.

      1. And you got that from Wingnut.com like the rest of your stupid bullshit.

        1. Dear Ms. Buttplug: China Joe is in the pockets of China and Wall Street. China is already gloating about it on CCP television. The speaker mentions Biden getting “elected” and the audience actually laughs. Wonderful stuff. Not censored on youtube yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acZXridt7wM&feature=youtu.be

          They got rid of Trump with Wall Street and Soros help.

          1. I’ll play along. What policy is Biden advocating that will help China? Remember free trade helps all parties involved. By policy I mean something like Trump weakening NATO for Putin.

            Wall Street and Soros help I am on the side of those capitalists as well. Wall Street funds America.

            1. Biden will advocate whatever China wants, no matter what it does to the American people. His son is on CCP video with underage Chinese girls, so he’s compromised. Putin got nothing from Trump. Four years of Russia Russia Russia, and what does Putin have? On the other hand, by cheating and roping in all the oligarchs, Soros, just gave us a senile President. Soros, the man who said: “The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.” Ergo, that constitutional republic must be weakened and its allies degraded. The Sorosian world order—one of open borders and global governance, antithetical to the ideals and experience of the West—could then assume command.
              LET ME KNOW WHAT COUNTRY HAS OPEN BORDERS AND NICE HOUSES. I’d like to live there.

              1. Don’t forget Zombie Chavez!

              2. Methamphetamine is bad for you.

              3. You made all that up. Hunter Biden? At least find something plausible.

                1. Too bad you don’t realize the fbi was in possession of the laptop pre impeachment n they sat on it, and hid their investigation of it, to protect Biden.

                  Nor do you realize both Bevan Cooney and Devon archer, hunters burisma partners, were and are both under investigation for money laundering regarding their dealings in Ukraine. Or that Bevan Cooney has flipped on hunter and already gave the NY post his entire email account, and they’ve been passing relevant info to the fbi.

                  Again, you prove you really are this stupid.

              4. There is a lot on the laptop. Those on the left refuse to admit there is anything on it. The report that came out today is very damming. Those here at Reason have no reason for denying what is that other than they hate President Trump.

        2. First of all, Jesus it’s no secret the CCP has been buying ‘friends’ for 20 years in major Western countries you idiot.

          Read ‘Hidden Hand’. It lays it all down.

          And since so many idiots like you are into ad hominids, the two authors are progressives and flat out say Trump was 100% correct in his reading of China.

          What’s so controversial in this? Today some Chinese professor accidentally spilled the beans on how China took care of that crackhead Hunter and Beijing Biden used AF 2 to enrich his family.

          He’s a hoodlum.

          1. hominen

          2. They apparently own Swalwell, and perhaps the DNC

    4. What’s not to love about a senile, 80 year old racist, with 47 years of political failure under his belt who took $330 million in dark money and $80 million from Wall Street while hiding in his basement and occasionally saying things like: ““We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.” Of course Libertarians love this man.

      1. You didn’t mention anything about acceptable beltway norms, so you seem to be missing the whole point.

      2. Yes, but Trump made mean tweets and was unpresidential, also something something racism.

      3. Want some cheese to go with all that WHINE?

        1. Hey look it’s a sock for the troll I had to explain how to troll too!

    5. Reason is pathetic as usual, they went with the tweet storm without doing basic investigation.

      Jenna Ellis
      @JennaEllisEsq
      ????IMPORTANT POINT REPORTERS ARE MISSING IN PA SUIT:

      The Supreme Court only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the order, it did NOT deny cert.

      @MikeKellyPA’s suit is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

      1. Jesse, you are mistaken. You owe the Reason staff an apology. Be a grown up and give them a good one, please. Thanks.

        https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/120820zr_bq7d.pdf

        (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) TUESDAY, DECEMBER 8, 2020 ORDER IN PENDING CASE 20 A98 KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

        1. No, the portion of challenging on constitutional grounds is still alive. I just heard Kelly explain it. It’s the stay portion that was tossed.

          Love how you think Ellis is wrong.

          It’s still alive.

          1. “the portion of challenging on constitutional grounds is still alive”

            Has any such portion been filed before the Supreme Court?

            1. Lmao. How can you not keep up scooter? Spin that propeller on your hat so you go faster!

              This case has been filed, as well as the case from Texas, Louisiana, etc which addresses the same constitutional issue as kellets suit and the suit from the PA legislature.

              1. The point that the cult is oh-so-carefully- missing is that nothing other than the emergency injunction (which was dismissed) was filed. Jesse and the cult are wrong, again.

          2. Lefties also dont understand that the SCoTUS is hearing one case about election 2020. One. All these legal cases will be consolidated.

            Trump vs biden will be heard in some form by the SCoTUS and barrett means its a 5-4 loss for Biden and democrats.

    6. I like the part of the Texas brief where a statistician says Biden’s odds of winning all four states that he was losing at 3:00 a.m. on election night is “one in a quadrillion to the fourth power.”

      Yep. They cheated. THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN US HISTORY, but zero coverage from the MSM. That’s how you know. Maybe they are busy writing another book about Watergate.

      https://hereistheevidence.com

      1. Two facts about 2020:

        1) Biggest health panic in medical history.
        2) Biggest fraud in Western political history.

      2. Uh huh. It was predicted for months before the election there would be an initial count in favor of Trump, followed by a shift toward Biden. Trump himself set it up by making mail-in voting a partisan issue.

        1. Everyone could see the big steal coming from a mile away. The DNC as good as announced it before the convention.
          You, Sullum and the media are all part of the fix in your own little ways.

          1. Call the WAAAAAAAAAAAAAMBULANCE!

        2. Yet the margin for Biden on mail ins wasn’t drastic… except in a couple key states

          1. Democrats were counting on Rtump conceding so this all got swept under the carpet.

            Lefties just never learn.

            1. No. Democrats are perfectly fine with Trump being forcibly removed from the White House on Jan. 20.

        3. No, it was predicted months before the election that mail in voting would lead to widespread cheating. Try to pay attention so you don’t sound like such an ass eating fool.

          1. Widespread cheating that didn’t happen.

            1. What kind of ass eating retard is so stupid they can’t see all the cheating?

              Either you’re willfully ignorant and just won’t acknowledge the obvious since it’s “your guy,” Sleepy Joe. OR, you’re such a dumb ass eating retard that you can’t do BASIC MATH.

              VINCE SMITH EATS ASS.

              1. Your tears are delicious.

                1. Each day Lefties move from ignoring Trump fighting to trying to stop the Biden loss, my tear barrels fill up with Lefty tears.

    7. They are too excited at the thought of getting rid of “OrangeManBad” they have failed to look at who their new masters will be. They have also made the mistake of listening to the media’s portrayal of Trump rather than looking at what the President has actually done. Trump has done more for freedom than any President in 50 years, He has reduced regulation, supported our 1st, and 2nd Amendment rights, along with many others. Yes, he may tweet crazily at times, but usually he has a reason to do so that is later revealed.

      One group of people who have disappointed me greatly over the past 5 years are those in the legal field, both practicing attorneys and those in academia. These people cheered the Russian collusion hoax, while ignoring the blatant violations of rights of the accused such as General Flynn. The writers at Reason have cheered as AG’s have looked not at any possible crime, but at the man, while they searched for a crime he may have committed. All this while ignoring obvious criminal behavior by those on the left. The Biden family’s crimes are ignored, the lying by democrat politicians about the evidence they have personally seen on Russian collusion is also ignored. As it turns out they didn’t actually see that evidence (see Adam Schiff).

      What has Donald Trump actually DONE that is so bad? And, don’t include “he should have continued to ignore our immigration laws” in your answer. If those laws should be changed, let the House and Senate do it.

      1. Trade war. YUGE deficits. Bigoted trans military ban. Handling of Covid, drug price controls, etc. etc. etc.

    8. This article is not about Biden and I don’t think Reason is backing Biden. But they are not going to let Trump override the rule of law and throw out an election so he can stay President.

      Don’t look at this from a Biden wins perspective. Look at this from an American democracy wins perspective.

      1. HAHA.

        Biden’s campaign and the Democrats violated the rule of law.

        I warned you what was coming. You Lefties really think you subjugated most non-Lefties but you havent.

    9. Jacob Sullum is really passionate about Trump losing this election.
      Instead of calmly observing and reporting of Trump’s efforts to address alleged election discrepancies and allegations, he chooses to fkn freakout at the unremarkable and routine legal process that is available to Trump to challenge it.
      Sullum won’t dispassionately watch and wait, no he has to indict Trump as unhinged, undermining our democracy, reckless, and delusional in his legal efforts.
      WTF is Sullum drinking? Why is he so intense about these post election efforts?

    10. Interesting, but ineffective analogy. Applies better to the president’s post-election behavior. Biden won, suck it up, get on with your life. Make America better for yourself and all Americans. BE A PATRIOT.

  2. The court did not address the merits of the Republicans’ constitutional argument

    Gee, so exactly like every other case you fucking retards have been using as supposed “proof” that voter fraud doesn’t exist?

    Hurrrr durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr the court says you can’t sue the state, checkmate ‘publicans!

    Naturally, the state being immune from having its practices audited or examined because of special exemption from liability is something libertarians should be celebrating!

    1. Before election there is no harm, after the harm is moot. Er go, no fraud.

      Simple leftitarian logic.

      1. Keep telling yourself that fairy tale to make yourself feel better.

        1. Epic burn, senpai!

      2. Blue state Jesse. Lol.

      3. Exactly JesseAz. Good luck cleaning up Arizona from Democrat corruption. AZ losing a House seat from Census 2020 might help take away some of their political power.

    2. If a state banned gay marriage I bet you would be very quick to find a way to support this preference for letting states decide their own shit in their own courts. And I know you guys love to be sympathetic to poor hardworking Rudy and Sydney, but someday someone has to answer for why $900 an hour lawyers can’t even figure out how to state actionable claims or type the right names/locations into complaints..

      1. If one official in a state banned gay marriage even though the constitution says that is something only the legislature can do, you’d have a more valid analogy.

      2. If a state banned gay marriage I bet you would be very quick to find a way to support this preference for letting states decide their own shit in their own courts.

        There is a constitutional requirement for state legislatures to legislate the rules of voting and appointment of electors. No such constitutional requirement exists for marriage – gay or otherwise. Perhaps if you weren’t as dumb as a fucking doorknob you could construct an analogy where the two things being compared are actually analogous. Unfortunately for you, you are as dumb as a fucking doorknob, so you were unable to do so. There’s nothing wrong with being stupid, but you should do your best to be silent.

        1. Gay marriage bans clearly violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment.

          1. citation never existed.

            1. There was a SCOTUS decision in 2015. Try to keep up.

  3. Poor Commies at unreason. They have to take their victories where they can get them.

    Louisiana just joined Texas in the legal action before the SCOTUS.

    The SCOTUS doesnt want to hear 400 cases. They will ONE case. Trump wins as he did in the election with legal ballots.

    Notice unreason has no problem waiving off over 50 lawsuits filed with supporting affidavits as conspiracies. These are people and organizations that paid filing fees and paid to get affidavits done.

    Meanwhile Lefties continue to lie. Fuck you unreason and I cant wait until you go bankrupt financially to match your bankrupt characters.

    1. SC will reject the Texas case even quicker.

      1. Keep dreaming.

        Texas rejected dominion machines for a reason and that reason is now in play.

        Plus governors and election officials cannot change state election laws without state legislature approval and that will be the reason for the SCoTUS siding with Trump.

        Trump for the win!

    2. The case is on the docket. SCOTUS will hear arguments.

      1. No, they just set a day for responses to be filed.

        1. When are responses due? This lawsuit is a good candidate to be tossed for lack of Texas´ standing.

          1. Even if the Texas case gets dismissed, the SCoTUS will hear one election case and it will cause Biden to be exposed as the fraudulent wi neer.

  4. Texas’ lawsuit against four swing states now appears on the SCOTUS docket
    https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

    1. PHAKE SCANDULLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      HURRRR DURRRRRRRRRRRRRR LIBERTARIANS 4 UNACCOUNTABLE GOVERNMENT THAT CAN NEVER BE SUED!!!!!!!!!!!!

      1. Judicial over reach is reasons favorite type. See their coverage of Flynn. Judges 43 page bitch fest is just embarrassing.

        1. The Flynnn dismissed the criminal case today and was fucking pissed.

          Constitution strikes again!

          1. *Flynn judge…

          2. Flynn broke the law and got pardoned. Unfortunately for Trump, nobody is going to pardon him.

            1. Poor Lefties. You guys are falling apart. You really needed Trump to concede.

    2. Sullum must be furious. He’s so invested in the steal now.
      I bet he’s marching around his living room, swearing and biting his fist.

      1. Just like the unreason commies were pissed when trump beat hillary, mueller came up short, and the impeachment meant nothing.

      2. Did you see his unhinged hysterical affect on Kennedy?
        What bug does he have up his ass? Libertarian pundits should/must be above all this partisan bullshit.
        Sullum is genuinely angry and personally insulted that Trump is pursuing normal avenues of legal revue on the election.
        WTF is up with that?

  5. >>The court did not address the merits of the Republicans’ constitutional argument, instead finding that the lawsuit was prohibited by the doctrine of laches

    lol did Pennsylvania codify due diligence and laches?

    1. The SCOTUS is consolidating all the lawsuits. The SOCTUS will only hear 1 case. The justices can take anything into account, so even the dismissed lawsuits can have their evidence considered.

      Most lawyers are Democrats and they know that the SCOTUS effectively does whatever it wants. This bullshit narrative that dismissed Trump legal actions are never to be seen again is another Lefty lie.

      1. When and where did you get your legal training, lc1789? SCOTUS cannot do effectively whatever it wants. The remedy for a wrongly dismissed lawsuit is to vacate the dismissal and remand to the trial court.

        1. Hahaha. Your cites fell off.

          See bush vs gore.

          1. Hahaha. Your dick fell off.

            1. Poor unreason bots.

              There is a direct correlation to unreason bot activity and Democrat plans failing.

              I warned you dummies this would happen.

      2. SCOTUS is not a forum for introduction of evidence in the first instance. That is first semester law school stuff and should be known as well to informed laymen.

        1. I already tried explaining all this to him but no, he is an “excellent” Google lawyer.

          1. He is a piss poor advocate of any stripe, impervious to authority or reason.

        2. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in controversies arising between states. Maybe you should see about getting a refund on that credit hour for the conlaw class you slept through.

          The Judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Land under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

        3. I thought that in a dispute between States, that is exactly where evidence is introduced! This is not a case where it has moved up from lower courts and all evidence has been introduced. The Supreme Court is the arbitrator in State conflicts and the evidence is introduced there. Right? Isn’t that why stuff like water rights arguments between States go to the Supreme Court?

          1. Its another examples of Lefty trolls not liking the events so they lie and lie to protect their side.

            They will do the same thing for Trumps second term.

        4. SCOTUS is a forum for introduction of evidence, WHEN IT IS THE COURT OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION !!
          In fact I believe they cannot even deny review, as they can on petitions for cert.

      3. Bro your daily insistence on SCOTUS overturning the election is just honestly sad, This is from an article in that “liberal rag” the Texas Tribune. You may want to read it.
        ——————————————
        “The allegations in the lawsuit are false and irresponsible,” Georgia’s deputy secretary of state, Jordan Fuchs, said in a statement Tuesday. “Texas alleges that there are 80,000 forged signatures on absentee ballots in Georgia, but they don’t bring forward a single person who this happened to. That’s because it didn’t happen.”

        Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel dismissed Paxton’s suit as “a publicity stunt, not a serious legal pleading.”

        “Mr. Paxton’s actions are beneath the dignity of the office of Attorney General and the people of the great state of Texas,” she said.
        ——————————

        It’s theater AT BEST and will not age well. Imagine now when MI decides to fuck with Texas by suing them over some stupid law Texas passes to look all tough one of htese days.

        If you want to keep spouting this “SCOTUS will overturn election” crap at least listen for a minute to all the people patiently explaining first-year law school stuff to you and maybe do some reading (other than Breitbart) and reconsider your hopes and dreams here.

        1. don’t need the scare quotes on “liberal rag.” the trib is next to the definition in Webster’s

        2. Wow, they quoted all the DNC’s pet AGs bitching. That’s some pretty solid evidence.

        3. Hahaha. A texas rag propaganda outlet trying to say what is happening in Georgia when they ignored what was happening in Georgia for 5 weeks?

          I was one of the people in an affidavit citing election fraud in Georgia.

          If unreason wasnt such a commie rag, I would have gladly talked about my experience with democrat cheaters.

          Look at the lefty hornets nest swarm, boy.

          1. I don’t see why your contempt for Reason would have you hold back on anything. You don’t seem to have a problem speaking your mind freely here.

            I’m curious what your experience was. I have a relative who had kind of a shady experience voting for Trump in a Trump heavy district in Arizona.

            They made him use a sharpie and the machine gave an error report, so the poll workers put his ballot into a separate box to be counted later, and his vote has still not been entered.

            So I’m sure this kind of thing happens here and there, either because of bias or incompetence.

            If there turns out to be compelling evidence of fraud on a large enough scale to have swung the election, then you won’t have a problem convincing me and most other reasonable people that you’re right about all of it.

            Until such compelling evidence is produced to convince the courts that voter fraud occurred on a large enough scale to swing the election, most people will remain rationally skeptical.

    2. Here the Pennsylvania legislature imposed a cutoff date regarding suit over Act 77, so due diligence and laches are indeed codified.

      1. thank you that’s why I asked.

      2. Aw. Media talking points.

        I wonder why justice alito wanted mailin ballots received after election day isolated?

      3. “Here the Pennsylvania legislature imposed a cutoff date regarding suit over Act 77, so due diligence and laches are indeed codified.”

        How can a law that changes voting procedures that are part of the PA constitution, which is unconstitutional on its face, also have a provision that prevents a constitutional challenge to itself?

        Where is the logic in that?

  6. Keep sucking that ruling caste dick, Sullum.

    Reason no longer has standing to bitch about anything the government does.

    1. Reason no longer has standing to bitch about anything the government does.

      Reason doesn’t bitch about anything the government does. It only bitches about the government not doing enough.

  7. Shikha, a progressive who has never had a libertarian thought in her life, whines to the Daily Beast (which is more representative of her politics) that she got fired from Reason for being anti-Trump. That’s absurd. If being anti-Trump got a person fired from Reason, Sullum would be long gone.

    https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-cancel-culture-reason-magazine-accused-of-canceling-shikha-dalmia-for-being-too-anti-trump

    1. The whole staff would be gone.

      1. Nick Gillespie plainly said on the Reason Roundtable podcast that he would have preferred a Trump win to a Biden win, but don’t let facts get in the way of your narrative.

        1. And the jacket never lies.

    2. You can call yourself a libertarian and have no political beliefs except how much Trump the authoritarian strongman makes your panties wet, but you shouldn’t expect to have your movement taken seriously anymore.

      I saw what went on. You people attacked her relentlessly for being insufficiently authoritarian and white supremacist. No doubt many of the donors felt the same. Actual libertarianism that is not just authoritarian social conservatism with a bumper sticker on it must be rather dead right now. The existential problem of having to side with nanny state liberals to prevent actual fascism must be difficult to manage.

      1. The Tony Test: If Tony attacks a position, then you know it’s right.

        1. Yup.

          If democrats swarm against a position, its not only the correct position but a strong position.

        2. You could try thinking for yourself.

          I suppose like a good capitalist you outsourced it to the lowest bidders.

      2. Do you believe she was what most actual libertarians consider to be libertarian? I’m honestly asking because I’m not familiar with her positions.

        She obviously wasn’t dismissed for being attacked by commenters. Every article that is anti Trump gets the same treatment.

        And she most certainly was not dismissed for being anti Trump.

        I agree with you that most of the Trump defenders here are not libertarians, an most don’t even claim to be libertarian. They mock libertarians for being naive and suicidal.

        There a few commenters here that are classicaly libertarian, and some might determine that, on net, Trump’s policies yield a more libertarian outcome than Biden’s. That might even be true, in the same way that Republican politicians GENERALLY pose less of a practical threat to libertarian principles than Democrats.

        But with Trump everything is more complicated, not necessarily because of all the anti-libertarian things Trump is actually able to do, but because of the toxic mess his personality causes. I’m not necessarily blaming his opponents for reacting to him the way that they do, but the fact is, the end results of his actual political actions probably wouldn’t be all that different from any other Republican President if not for the reflexive responses he illicits from
        his enemies. And for that reason (among other arguably legitimate reasons) many libertarians feel that ON NET, a Biden
        Presidency (with hopefully a Republican Senate) would be better for the country than another Trump Presidency.

        That is also not meant as a complimentary thing to say about Biden or his supporters. As cowardly as the following statement feels, it’s still true: Trump supporters are far less likely to burn the country down if they lose than Biden supporters are. I mean that mostly metaphorically, but somewhat literally.

        You’re right that it is difficult to side with nanny state leftists in pursuit of ARGUABLY the greater long term good. But I wish Trump supporters would at least acknowledge the struggle and not dismiss us as Biden fans.

        Nobody likes Biden. Libertarians especially. But the truth remains, many of us are looking forward to being able to arguing with Democrats again. The current pseudo alliance does feel dirty, and we can’t wait for it be over.

    3. Or ENB. Or Boehm.

      She just plain sucked.

      1. I didn’t even know she got canned.

    4. Haha. unreason staff and shikha are delusional. Not only is unreason NOT libertarian but shikha has zero journalist integrity. She admitted that she was anti-trump no matter what he did.

  8. So whatever random branch or agency of the government can arbitrarily decide to violate the constitution and it becomes de facto law because nobody has any standing to sue? And Reason is celebrating?

    Why am I not surprised at any of this?

    1. Libertarianism has never been anything other than Marxist apologetics in drag.

    2. There is that pesky Article III requirement of deciding cases or controversies. Standing is a constitutional requisite.

      1. There is no constitutional definition of what constitutes standing you fucking halfwit, it’s decided by statute or precedent. The government exempting itself from lawsuits by denying standing to sue is a lot of things, and none of them are good. Can I presume you also support qualified immunity, or is government denying justice by withholding access to legal remedies only kosher when it results in advancing your Marxist agenda?

        1. There is ample decisional law stating the requisites for Article III standing. It must be considered by any federal court, whether raised by the parties or not, in that it goes to the court´s subject matter jurisdiction.

          1. There is ample decisional law stating the requisites for Article III standing.

            Right, so literally exactly what I just fucking said. Thanks for reiterating that. Unfortunately you embarrassed yourself with the rest of your half-assed attempt at a point by forgetting that SCOTUS has original jurisdiction for controversies arising between states. Oops.

          2. Funny how democrat states had standing to sue because orangemanbad but now red states dont have standing to sue because orangemanbad.

            Hmmm. Luckily lefties wanted a politicial SoTUS and they got one.

      2. Standing declination should require the court to state who would be eligible for standing, otherwise it is a giant loophole for abuse. Democrats sign a bill giving all democrats 1 million dollars. Who can sue? Nobody was harmed, just some were granted benefits. This is how badly standing has gone, see standing declination for DACA suits.

      3. “Rejection of this doctrine occurred in two administrative law cases in which the Court announced that parties had standing when they suffered “injury in fact” to some interest, “economic or otherwise,” that is arguably within the zone of interest to be protected or regulated by the statute or constitutional provision in question. Political, environmental, aesthetic, and social interests, when impaired, now afford a basis for making constitutional attacks upon governmental action.”

    3. 1. It is very debatable even if PA violated the constitution.
      2. There may have been standing to sue, but they waited too long to do so.
      3. Yes, Reason is celebrating the rule of law winning. The election is over, it was clean, and Biden won.

      1. >>There may have been standing to sue, but they waited too long to do so.

        lol

      2. Hey shreek, you’re a pedophile who likes to fuck kids and doesn’t pay off on his bets. You should really kill yourself and shut the fuck up.

      3. PA had the state Supreme Court alter ballot signature requirements dumbfuck. The legislature did not make that change. See electors clause.

        1. So, “Electors Clause” is going to be your new “Brenfords Law”. You are now Constitutional lawyer as well as crack statistician.

          1. It’s a good thing you’re so stupid or else you might feel a little embarrassment at not knowing what the Electors Clause is.

          2. Constitution strikes again!

            I told unreason over and over. They just sent the attack bots.

      4. 1. They clearly did.
        2. If they did it before, it would have been laughed off. They had to wait until something happened. Then collect some evidence and then submit.
        3. Clean. Rrrrrright. /Dr. Evil. There’s enough evidence to show it wasn’t clean. Just the dead people part makes this assertion silly.

      5. Haha. Trump vs biden win for Trump will be glorious.

        Constitution strikes again!

    4. “So whatever random branch or agency of the government can arbitrarily decide to violate the constitution and it becomes de facto law because nobody has any standing to sue”

      Seriously? This is your take?

      Kelley argued that the new law violated the PA State Constitution. The PA Supreme Court said no. This isn’t arbitrary. The Legislature and the Judicial branches of PA both agreed that this law was constitutional.

      1. No. They didn’t. Youre wrong here. Act 77 passed then early this year the governor sued to relax signature requirements the legislature refused to pass. Youre just wrong here. The 5-2 state Supreme Court changed election laws judicially, not legislatively.

      2. Yes, that is my take on it. Republicans sued before the election and were rebuked because they had no standing before any harm was done. They sued after the election and were rebuked because they have no standing after the fact.

        Applying this reasoning to anything else, like asset forfeiture for example, then nobody has standing to sue before their assets are forfeited because they’ve suffered no harm, and then they also don’t have standing to sue after their assets are forfeited because it’s too late and the assets have already been forfeited. This is jurisprudence from here on out unless you’re lucky enough that your presiding judge sees fit to grace you with the privilege of legal recourse.

        So the Democrats totally-not-gun-confiscation gun confiscation? You have no standing to sue before your guns are confiscated, and you also don’t have any standing to sue after your guns are confiscated.

        Internal vaccine passports? Can’t sue before they’re required, and then you won’t even be allowed in the courthouse building after their required, much less have a judge hear your case.

        Illegal searches? No harm no foul, as they say. And if there is harm then too fucking bad, should have said so sooner.

    5. Did you miss the part where they let this “terrible law” sit for a year unchallenged then woke up once they lost an election? It’s not just saying “states can do whatever they want.” It’s saying “you should have filed this a year ago if you actually thought this.”

      1. Exactly. ^^^

        1. You have a citation that this claim has a 1 year statute of limitations?

          Didnt think so.

          Im really sad for you Lefties that you didnt see this coming. I have warned on unreason for 5 weeks that Trump won and all the illegal ballots will be tossed. Millions of them. We were just waiting for the final democrat vote total so no more democrat ballots could be found in a trunk. Now the process of tossing illegal ballots and throwing out state results based on violations of constitution law.

      2. It’s saying “you should have filed this a year ago if you actually thought this.”

        Except had they filed a year ago, the same Democrat court would have ruled they lacked standing (because the case couldn’t be ripe until after they were harmed during an election).

        Several years ago, the Democrat PA Supremes replaced the US Congressional Districts that were enacted by the PA General Assembly (as required by the PA Constitution) with their own district maps, which gave Democrats three more PA seats in Congress.

        1. “had they filed” they would now have an argument against laches.

          1. They still do, they just have to appeal to the next court of jurisdiction.

            1. As it turns out, state courts aren’t the final arbiters of law. Funny how that works.

      3. The changes were challenged to the PA supreme court, which ruled substantially less than 1 year ago. And nobody would have had standing to sue for damages until the election took place. Good thing you’re so fucking stupid.

        1. You know the more Lefties throw lies out the stronger your case.

  9. The media every day until the SCOTUS election case:

    “ugh, that Trump and his conspiracy theories”

    The media after the SCOTUS election case:

    “They conspired to steal the election back after we stole it fair and square!”

  10. C’mon Trump-tards! You aren’t fighting hard enough! String this thing out long enough so that the Secret Service has to drag the Con Man out by that thing on his head.

    1. Niden wont even make to the white house to be thrown out by secret service.

      Biden will be sad once his secret service detail is removed following Trump win in trump vs biden in the SCOTUS.

  11. Trump still has not fired Rudy for telling judges that he was not alleging fraud. It’s almost like Trump is lying about fraud to line his pockets and undermine faith in U.S. elections.

    1. No, he is duping his cult into sending him money he is using for other purposes/legal fees.

    2. This won’t get a response from the cult.

    3. You people really believe this?

      Hahaha. No wonder democrats will never be in the white house again.

  12. Because Jesse and Nardz and LC and others still can’t even fathom how Trump could have lost (at this point people are resorting to reaching so far that I am seiing arguments on social media like “compare number of Twitter followers for the candidates and tell me how Biden could have won” for example:

    Anytime someone claims Trump was even remotely interested in governing for all Americans, or how all of Trump’s foibles are just him “fighting back” against “unwarranted attacks” I think of the immediate proof to the contrary from any number of the hundreds of emails his teams send out begging for more money. This is VERBATIM.
    ——————————————
    Dear [email recipient]-

    How do you want to be remembered?
    As a Patriot who fought to Keep America Great? Or as an un-American Liberal who stood idly by as Radical Democrats ripped our nation apart?
    ——————————————
    Also easily explaining Trump’s loss in the Midwest: COVID raging while he does absolutely nothing except cry/spout conspiracies, and that little blunder called Foxconn, etc. All Biden had to do was be less of an asshole, and that was easy.

    Also, Trump is still President and still has responsibilities…but what is he doing this month and last and probably next month too? Oh, still absolutely nothing except campaigning and crying?

    1. So your evidence that all of the anomalies in the 2020 election are unworthy of investigation or litigation is…. a fundraising email? Good one, you’ve got those strawmen on the ropes now!

      1. When did I say that? My comment was quite clear on what it was meant to address: the underlying claim/assumption from which people still supporting Trump’s efforts base everything else, aka “there is no way Trump could have lost legitimately.”

        You start by believing that then the rest is just grasping at straws to backfill cause you “just know” he could not have lost cause he was totes perfect and totally did everything he could to govern for all Americans and never did or said anything in that might motivate people to vote against him. Right?

    2. Trump could have lost but he didnt.

      Trump getting his second term will be extra hard for unreason staff…well minus shikha since that stupid bitch got fired.

  13. Snarky headlines really don’t become you Reason

    1. When someone loses this poorly, they deserve some shade.

      1. Yeah. Felt that way about Al Gore. Then he went on to be a bigger schmuck. He’s your kinda guy. Stupid rich and hypocritical.

        1. I’m sure you’d rather talk about Gore. Not today, Junior.

          1. Let’s talk about Russia stealing the 2016 election then. Reason was still shilling that narrative as late as October of this year.

    2. Are you new to the Reason blog? They have always been snarky toward major party politicians.

      1. Except for that entire 8 year stretch where they were competing to see who could get Obama’s cock the furthest down their throat.

        1. Unreason also had hillarys cock in their throats through much of 2016.

  14. Selected, not elected.

    1. …is Trump’s current plan to steal the presidency.

      As you can see from this decision, and 45 others, Biden was elected.

      1. Yeah maybe the Russians are helping him too.

        You live the life – on the internet and outside of reality.

        1. says the guy still hoping for a Trump victory.

          1. Said the Tony sock who says nothing of value. Fuck off cuck.

            1. This is a chemjeff/cytotoxic sock, just for the record. Tony mostly just spews his idiocy on his own account. I’ll give him that much.

      2. Poor biden. He can finally retire as gore part II.

    2. Remember when RGB, supposedly on her death bed, referred to the next president being “installed”?

      Pepperidge farm remembers.

  15. Every last one of you pickle-brained cowfuckers uses the same adjective. “Massive election fraud.” Try out “vast” or “widespread” for a change.

    1. Tony’s vast widespread ass is well used.

      Yep ok that’s gonna work.

      1. I don’t know if I’d be making worn out floppy asshole jokes to your future prison camp commandant.

        1. Mohkay Tiny.

    2. They don’t all have the same connotation, although they’re probably all accurate

    3. Reminds me of when it was collusion, collusion, collusion all day.

  16. This must be like when a barbarian ruling Rome walked around and was astounded at what the Romans built versus the lack of what his people did. And I’m sure he saw each year how the city fell more and more in disrepair. For hundreds of years they were jealous and envies of Rome..creating rationalizations that this or that were the reason their societies and communities were poor, desititue, uneducated and violent…with no visible accomplishments.

    We are allowing the “losers” to take down the Republic..look at the cities led by the left for decades who screamed about being marginalized or this or that…they survive on the federal dole enriching the well connected “elites.” Did Trump win? Was there enough fraud or manipulation of mail in voting (perhaps legally)..most likely. Trump will be out on January 20th…and a year from now with a monetary, fiscal and foreign policy crisis Reason will be arguing for open borders, abortion…never changes

    1. Seriously? Trump and his sycophants are the barbarians in your tale.

    2. Mexicans destroyed Rome?

      Hey write back when Trumpublicans can figure out how to Velcro their own diapers, then we’ll talk about building cities.

      1. So diapers are your thing.

        1. Toothless illiterate shitkickers who think they’re the master race… it never gets old.

          1. Americans are a master race? Sweet! I will let all my AmerIndian folks know.

        2. They’re Trump’s thing.

          1. -100000000000000 for bad bot activity.

  17. Maybe Trump can appeal directly to God. And if God says no, then Trump can just take over Heaven and declare himself God.

    The Caesars did it, why not Trump? What could possibly go wrong with autocracy?

    1. Ya know don’t just bring up Roman Emperors unless yer willing to deal with the consequences.

      They are still reverberating through history. That’s something.

    2. Yeah it’s the people who think an election with the statistical characteristics of Hussein’s Iraq or Chavista Venezuela might merit a 2nd look that are the autocrats. Not the people making apologies for an election with the statistical characteristics of Hussein’s Iraq or Chavista Venezuela.

  18. It’s just now occurred to me how much of my life I have now wasted trying to reason with people who, among other things, try to seriously claim that Hugo Chavez helped steal the 2020 election.

    1. While willing to ignore all the bad shit Chavez caused in Venezuela. That’s a liberal for ya.

    2. Your life was a waste from the moment the rubber broke, so.

    3. Lefties always justifying how their Nazi brethren murdered 10+ million people.

      1. Where in my comment do I lend support to any actions or policies of Hugo Chavez?

        Interesting how all of your “responses” conveniently sidestep any substantive points and are largely just deflections or personal insults.

  19. Obviously, this article was written and posted before the SCOTUS agreed to hear Texas’ case but it’s good to know that one of the Reason’s writers recognizes obvious massive fraud.

    1. They recognize nothing except hookers and drugs. And maybe twizzlers.

      1. Hey if life sucks anyway hookers and drugs sounds like not a bad way to go.

    2. Gargantuan, enormous, really big, large amounts of.

      1. Toni looks in the mirror and says the
        opposite of what she sees

      2. Gargantuan, enormous, really big, large amounts of

        … Russian collusion, right buttfucker?

        1. Yes.

    3. They didn’t do shit. They requested the defendant states to reply by Thursday at 3pm. That means absolutely nothing to indicate that the SCOTUS took the case.

      1. HAHA. Lefties are scared.

        if only they had RBG on the SCOTUS.

      2. I think as a court of original jurisdiction, the SCOTUS has to take the case. No denial of cert here.

  20. O/T – The Atlantic prints 10,000 words in favor of the evils of bioethics and death panels. COVID ethics committees

    1. Only 10,000?

  21. LMAO

  22. The Most Famous White Statues HD images You Want to See

    Sculptures depicting people, animals, or objects are called statues. The statues can be made of any material, but the techniques are different. The round-humpback statues depict being fully human, the busts depict human beings from the shoulders up, while the equestrian statues depict riding models; most equestrian statues depict historical figures.

    In terms of modern art, the kinetic Sculptures is the branch of Sculptures that belongs to kinetic art. The work of art is perfect when the viewer observes The Sculpture in motion. Like any other means of artistic expression and sculptures, it is constantly evolving. Whether used for decorative, commemorative, or architectural purposes, The Sculptures is one of the most complex arts.

    The Most Famous White Statues HD images You Want to See

  23. Man! Sullum is as lazy as a judge with this writing.

    In most of these cases the courts try everything in their power to avoid taking a stand at all. They aren’t even bothering to address the fraud but are trying to come up with excuses to just not get involved one way or another. If laws were broken, who cares! That’s not for “courts” to decide!

    1. They are too chicken. And you wonder how courts in places like Russia or China are such a joke. Well here you go.

    2. most, if not all, of these cases have nothing to do with fraud at all….. despite the rhetoric…. they are all attempts to invalidate legally cast ballots.

      1. They were illegally handled ballots AND/OR illegally cast. There were multiple banana republic issues. Period.

        Stop the fucking gaslighting.

        1. Wrong.

        2. We can all tell you’re having a temper tantrum right now.

        3. the case we are talking about here was trying to throw out mail in ballots based on a weak argument about action taken by the legislature…… it never even tried to question the handling or legitimacy of the ballots……

          1. Lefties consider Constitutional law weak arguments…we get it.

            Luckily, Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Alito, and Barrett do not.

            1. you do understand that they rejected injunctive relief with no dissenters…. don’t you? the people you just listed did not rule according to your desires.

              1. Just wait. There’ s a secret squirrel plan to pretend the election is fine and at the last possible minute, five of the justices transform into superheroes and hand the election with a bow to Trump. And if it doesn’t happen, that’s part of the plan, too. Seriously, the nutjobs can invent new realities faster than the facts roll out.

    3. It’s Rudy’s fault. He’s been telling judges that there was no fraud case. Or Trump’s fault for not firing Rudy. Unless Trump made all of this up to line his pockets and undermine Biden.

  24. Yeah it`s Possible…Anybody can earn 250$+ daily… You can earn from 6000-12000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good
    eaning opportunity.. Here is More information.

  25. The Trump administration passed on buying more vaccines. You can’t make this shit up. Trump is such a dealmaker. Lol.

    1. Trump isn’t a deal maker he is a con man. He did not care if the country had enough vaccine. He simple wanted to report that we had a vaccine. He thought this would get him reelected. The election is over and he could care less about anything. Has he done and real work since November 3? No.

      1. “He thought this would get him reelected.”

        And you ass eaters deliberately slow-walked the vaccine, costing LIVES. Notice how it was announced about a week after the election? That’s not a coincidence. How much sooner did they actually have it but didn’t want to help Trump so they sat on it when we could have been weeks or months ahead of current schedule?

        1. you might want to confer with your other orange worshipers…… i think they demand you pretend the pandemic is a hoax to be considered cool by them.

    2. Why would the USA buy more vaccines when Kungflu danger is a hoax?

      Virus with <1% death rate doesnt need a vaccine.

      1. You want the vaccine, you buy it.

        1. Tell that to Trump. He bought vaccines.

      2. Death rate is 1.9%.

        1. no it isn’t. you need to educate yourself so more.

          1. Divide cases by deaths.

  26. So why have a constitution and election laws. Right? They can just be violated and the courts will say Ok you didn’t follow the law but the vote count derived by not following the law is OK?

    The laws are there to prevent cheating.

    1. Democrats are literally trying to say that anti-cheating laws should be disregarded even though there was election cheating by Democrats.

      Its laughable if it wasnt so scary that they expect Americans to buy that line.

    2. Someone should tell Trump about those laws. Maybe he would fire Rudy for telling judges that there was no fraud case. Unless it’s all made up, in which case, never mind.

  27. So what exactly is the difference between us and pick your favorite banana republic?

    The judiciary is complicit with the presumed, I guess preferred incoming executive. And the legislative branch is just ignored. Constitution, who cares Silly peasants!

    1. A: we are richer and they have more bananas.

    2. You really think all of the judges are complicit in the fraud?

      Are they lizard aliens, too? Are they deep state spies hired by Hugo Chavez? Do they drink martinis without olives?

  28. So if neither Trump nor Biden won the election can we have Jo Jorgensen?

    1. Trump won.

      Democrats and the LP can try again in 2024 after Trump’s second term.

  29. well, this one really fired up the orange worshipers…..

    1. This really fired up the Lefties as they see their dream of Biden being crowned fade away.

      I warned you dummies.

      1. January cannot come fast enough. i’m not looking forward to the wailing, but at least the delusion of donald staying will be dead.

        1. Nope. It will live on. Truth is no cure for conspiracy theories.

        2. Trumper Bill Mitchell is now saying that a special do-over election can be required even after Biden takes office with all that “fraud” they’ve found.

  30. Most of the sculptures dating from the Historical period depict human figures and silhouettes or figures that embody animals, being used, as stated above, during ceremonies or rituals to attract the forces of nature. Even if most of the art critics consider that the prehistoric sculpture represented a means of artistic expression, at that time the respective works were not realized for aesthetic purpose.

    In addition to the figurines I mentioned earlier, the category of sculpture also includes masks made for healers and wizards; they were worn during rituals to ward off evil spirits.

    Free The Most Famous Historical Sculptures HD images You Want to See

  31. Obviously Democratic operative have perfected some sort of RF mind control device and taken over the Supreme Court.

    When will the sheeple wake up, overthrow the deep state, and give the great freedom fighter Donald Trump his rightful victory?

    1. Trump won the legal ballot count in the majority states for an EC victory.

      Democrats just thought they could cheat with illegal mail-in ballots and changing the election laws without state legislature approval.

      1. As a recent subscriber to Reason, I was unaware of the low IQ of its general readership.

        1. H&R used to be better. I was a semi-regular poster years ago (long time subscriber). Came back not long ago and the place is crowded with Trumpistas and QAnon folks who apparently lost their way getting to 8kun. While I wasn’t a big fan of the dogmatic libertarian hair-splitting and pedantry that was once more the norm, it is hugely preferable to unhinged rantings and knee jerk attacks. If you want to get a sense of Reason readers, show up to an actual Reason event (which I presume will resume in the post-COVID era). I’m guessing that will provide a more accurate picture than H&R.

  32. I’m going to hang around H&R until after the inauguration, mostly to see what new conspiracy theories and wild-eyed justifications pop up. The legal posturing (including the silly Texas lawsuit) isn’t going to amount to anything. But in January 2000, there were still Y2K nutjobs convinced the end was nigh. It is, however, much more entertaining as the stretch from reality gets greater and greater.

  33. Dear Supreme Court,

    We realize that Rudy Giuliani keeps telling lower courts that Trump does not have a fraud case, but please let Trump become dictator anyway so we can erase Democrats.

    Sincerely,
    Republicans except governors and election officials

  34. I wonder if Roberts had to talk anyone down. “Clarence, we can’t legitimize this. Trump simply lost too hard. But think of how much perceived legitimacy we will have gained for doing this non-thing when it comes time to let states declare official religions and criminalize homosexuality again. There there Clarence, I knew that would make you feel better.”

  35. Who remembers all the idiots who were just certain that Amy Barrett had a pact with Trump to help his reelection?

    1. That was Monday’s conspiracy theory. It’s Wednesday.

  36. Sullum is desperate.

  37. All I can say is WOW. Even the SCOTUS is telling trump to take a hike. Perhaps not only those in charge of the election are frauds and election riggers, but the entire justice system may also be a fraud and riggers. If I’m to believe all of the pro trump replies in their article, then there is no other choice but to believe that either our democracy and our entire justice system is a fraud. Or I could just make it a little more logical and reasonable to my little brain that Trump is a total and utter fraud, and those following him are nothing more than a bunch of minions in his cult.

    Face it guys and girls of the Trump cult. Your fearless leader lost. It’s over. Get used to a democrat as your president for the next four to eight years. And the funny part is that you all claim to be libertarians. Hahahaha. Or I know some of you claim to be right leaning libertarians. Welp, I guess you leaned too far this time and fell down. Hey, maybe you can buy one of those Life Alert thingies. Then you can just press a button and scream, “Help, I’ve fallen, and I can’t get up.”

    Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
    😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀 😀

  38. Nope! The case is still on the court’s docket, SCOTUS declined the plaintiff’s expedited hearing request. The issues the petitioners raise will be heard, just not right now.

    1. When will they be heard? 2024?

  39. TechUpdatesDaily-A resource where one can find the latest updates & news about technology, software, gadgets and business ideas for the start-ups.
    https://www.techupdatesdaily.com/

  40. Mp3 Songs And Music Video Downloads, Afro Pop, Hip Hop, Afro beats and More.
    Download Mp3 Here

  41. Tech Today Info resource where one of updates and news about Technology, Business,
    Entertainment, Marketing, Sports and more.
    technology write for us

Comments are closed.