Election results 2020

[Newbie]

4 hours ago, DBP66 said:

LOL...back to "the video" that flipped the election??...you want to bet this B.S. makes it to the S.C.??...LOL..you're on Troll/Newbie!...name the bet...as team Rudy has had almost 50 cases laughed out of court...🤡

Hey dumbo 🐘lol 

you might want to rethink that 🤣

🍿

 

[DBP66]

7 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Hey dumbo 🐘lol 

you might want to rethink that 🤣

🍿

 

nothing to re-think Troll...🤡

[Newbie]

46 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

nothing to re-think Troll...🤡

You saying that the Supreme Court won’t hear any of the cases is dumbo 🐘 for sure 🤓

🍿

And what are YOU willing to bet on that 🤣

Ps still waiting on your explanation of the video evidence 👍

[DBP66]

9 minutes ago, Newbie said:

You saying that the Supreme Court won’t hear any of the cases..BINGO!

🍿

And what are YOU willing to bet on that 🤣 you tell me what you want to lose...

Ps still waiting on your explanation of the video evidence 👍

what case are they going to hear??...they have all been laughed out of court!...you're barking up the wrong tree Troll/Newbie...explantion of your silly video?!?..LOL..I haven't seen it and I'm not losing  any sleep over it like you are...🤡 and guess what...IT"S NOT going to change the election....😉

[Newbie]

1 hour ago, DBP66 said:

what case are they going to hear??...they have all been laughed out of court!...you're barking up the wrong tree Troll/Newbie...explantion of your silly video?!?..LOL..I haven't seen it and I'm not losing  any sleep over it like you are...🤡 and guess what...IT"S NOT going to change the election....😉

Well seeing as Alito is hearing arguments today 🐘 what would you like to bet? 

Glad you are not wanting to pay attention to what is actually going on 👍, but it looks like your mouth 👄 is getting ahead of your brain again 🤣

perhaps you should view the evidence if you think you want to comment on anything 👌

🍿

[Rippers]

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

Ps still waiting on your explanation of the video evidence

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-suitcases/

[DBP66]

11 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Well seeing as Alito is hearing arguments today 🐘 what would you like to bet? 

Glad you are not wanting to pay attention to what is actually going on 👍, but it looks like your mouth 👄 is getting ahead of your brain again 🤣

perhaps you should view the evidence if you think you want to comment on anything 👌

🍿

what you consider evidence Judges laugh out of the courtrooms...so you're betting on Sammy to save the day?!..LOL...🤡

[Newbie]

5 minutes ago, Rippers said:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/georgia-suitcases/

Go ahead and point to the explanation that makes it false 👍

was it we call those totes not suitcases, or some guy that would be in trouble otherwise says he watched it and can’t see any thing 🤣

ps you think that the Supreme Court is just going to accept a snopes denial as some sort of proof or explanation of anything Lololololllllll🤣

🍿

[Newbie]

3 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

what you consider evidence Judges laugh out of the courtrooms...so you're betting on Sammy to save the day?!..LOL...🤡

No I am betting you, on a claim you have already lost 👍

So what would you like to wager? 🤓

🍿

[DBP66]

8 minutes ago, Newbie said:

No I am betting you, on a claim you have already lost 👍

So what would you like to wager? 🤓

🍿

PA Election Lawyers Urge Justice Alito to Reject One of the Most ‘Dramatic, Disruptive’ Cases of All Time

 

AARON KELLERDec 8th, 2020, 9:42 am

 

 

Justice Samuel Alito

Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday morning filed court papers before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to oppose a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from that state who zealously supports President Donald Trump. Kelly’s lawsuit argues that Pennsylvania’s supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution when it failed to rule recently that state election law violated the Pennsylvania constitution. In Kelly’s view, Pennsylvania’s bipartisan decision to expand the use of mail-in ballots via a 2019 law known as Act 77 conflicts with more narrow absentee voter provisions contained in the state constitution. In summary, Kelly’s case seeks basically to flip the election in Trump’s favor in Pennsylvania.

The Commonwealth’s attorneys minced no words in a scathing opening paragraph:

Petitioners [Kelly and others] ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

The response in opposition highlights the severity of the relief Kelly seeks while simultaneously scuttling the way his lawyers pressed their case. Kelly’s claims, the Commonwealth says, are not of the “utmost constitutional gravity” but are instead “fundamentally frivolous.” According to the Commonwealth, Kelly’s lawyers failed to “explain how a remedy premised on massive disenfranchisement would accord with the Due Process Clause, which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules as implemented and described by state officials.”

“Nor do [Kelly’s lawyers] seek to square their position with the separation of powers, the Twelfth Amendment, or basic principles of federalism—all of which foreclose the injunctive relief that Petitioners seek here,” the Commonwealth continued.

Its lawyers also picked apart the way Kelly’s attorneys made their arguments:

The first question—which seeks to raise Elections and Electors Clause challenges to Act 77—is not actually presented by this case. And the second question—which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in its application of laches—asks this Court to constitutionalize huge swaths of state procedural law without any credible basis in constitutional principles or this Court’s precedents.

They then trolled Kelly’s legal team with words from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent Trump decision:

These failings also explain why equity stands as an insuperable obstacle to Petitioners’ application. “Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly and finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof. The public must have confidence that our Government honors and respects their votes.” (Citation omitted.) But Petitioners would throw all that to the wind. After waiting over a year to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this Court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state. They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash. In issuing equitable relief, this Court rightly seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder. So to say that the public interest militates against Petitioners would be a grave understatement. Their suit is nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy. It should meet a swift and decisive end.

The Commonwealth further argued in support of its election law scheme.  “The mail-in voting system created by Act 77 requires voters to apply for a ballot from the voter’s county board of elections,” the attorneys said.  “A voter must provide proof of identification when requesting a ballot and will not be sent a ballot unless approved as a qualified voter.”  The Commonwealth further said that Act 77 pertains to “mail-in” ballots, not “absentee ballots,” a distinction it says Kelly erroneously blurs.

The response also slams Kelly’s attorneys for relying on antiquated cases which pertain to earlier versions of the Pennsylvania Constitution — and failed to properly argue that the constitution had since been amended.

A bevy of Pennsylvania state lawmakers separately filed an amicus argument suggesting Act 77 was constitutional when passed but that the law was gutted by the “intervening actions” of the state supreme court and the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Those actions “fundamentally altered the original meaning of key provisions of Act 77” shortly before the election, thereby raising serious questions, they argued, against the laches argument the state supreme court used when terminating Rep. Kelly’s action at the state level.

[DBP66]

4 minutes ago, Newbie said:

No I am betting you, on a claim you have already lost 👍

So what would you like to wager? 🤓

🍿

you mentioned a bet not me..what do you want to lose Troll/Newbie??..you tell me.

[Newbie]

1 minute ago, DBP66 said:

PA Election Lawyers Urge Justice Alito to Reject One of the Most ‘Dramatic, Disruptive’ Cases of All Time

 

AARON KELLERDec 8th, 2020, 9:42 am

 

 

 

Justice Samuel Alito

Lawyers representing the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on Tuesday morning filed court papers before U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito to oppose a lawsuit filed by U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly, a Republican from that state who zealously supports President Donald Trump. Kelly’s lawsuit argues that Pennsylvania’s supreme court violated the U.S. Constitution when it failed to rule recently that state election law violated the Pennsylvania constitution. In Kelly’s view, Pennsylvania’s bipartisan decision to expand the use of mail-in ballots via a 2019 law known as Act 77 conflicts with more narrow absentee voter provisions contained in the state constitution. In summary, Kelly’s case seeks basically to flip the election in Trump’s favor in Pennsylvania.

The Commonwealth’s attorneys minced no words in a scathing opening paragraph:

Petitioners [Kelly and others] ask this Court to undertake one of the most dramatic, disruptive invocations of judicial power in the history of the Republic. No court has ever issued an order nullifying a governor’s certification of presidential election results. And for good reason: “Once the door is opened to judicial invalidation of presidential election results, it will be awfully hard to close that door again. . . . The loss of public trust in our constitutional order resulting from the exercise of this kind of judicial power would be incalculable.

The response in opposition highlights the severity of the relief Kelly seeks while simultaneously scuttling the way his lawyers pressed their case. Kelly’s claims, the Commonwealth says, are not of the “utmost constitutional gravity” but are instead “fundamentally frivolous.” According to the Commonwealth, Kelly’s lawyers failed to “explain how a remedy premised on massive disenfranchisement would accord with the Due Process Clause, which requires the counting of votes cast in reasonable reliance on existing election rules as implemented and described by state officials.”

“Nor do [Kelly’s lawyers] seek to square their position with the separation of powers, the Twelfth Amendment, or basic principles of federalism—all of which foreclose the injunctive relief that Petitioners seek here,” the Commonwealth continued.

Its lawyers also picked apart the way Kelly’s attorneys made their arguments:

The first question—which seeks to raise Elections and Electors Clause challenges to Act 77—is not actually presented by this case. And the second question—which argues that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments in its application of laches—asks this Court to constitutionalize huge swaths of state procedural law without any credible basis in constitutional principles or this Court’s precedents.

They then trolled Kelly’s legal team with words from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a recent Trump decision:

These failings also explain why equity stands as an insuperable obstacle to Petitioners’ application. “Democracy depends on counting all lawful votes promptly and finally, not setting them aside without weighty proof. The public must have confidence that our Government honors and respects their votes.” (Citation omitted.) But Petitioners would throw all that to the wind. After waiting over a year to challenge Act 77, and engaging in procedural gamesmanship along the way, they come to this Court with unclean hands and ask it to disenfranchise an entire state. They make that request without any acknowledgment of the staggering upheaval, turmoil, and acrimony it would unleash. In issuing equitable relief, this Court rightly seeks to avoid inflaming social disorder. So to say that the public interest militates against Petitioners would be a grave understatement. Their suit is nothing less than an affront to constitutional democracy. It should meet a swift and decisive end.

The Commonwealth further argued in support of its election law scheme.  “The mail-in voting system created by Act 77 requires voters to apply for a ballot from the voter’s county board of elections,” the attorneys said.  “A voter must provide proof of identification when requesting a ballot and will not be sent a ballot unless approved as a qualified voter.”  The Commonwealth further said that Act 77 pertains to “mail-in” ballots, not “absentee ballots,” a distinction it says Kelly erroneously blurs.

The response also slams Kelly’s attorneys for relying on antiquated cases which pertain to earlier versions of the Pennsylvania Constitution — and failed to properly argue that the constitution had since been amended.

A bevy of Pennsylvania state lawmakers separately filed an amicus argument suggesting Act 77 was constitutional when passed but that the law was gutted by the “intervening actions” of the state supreme court and the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Those actions “fundamentally altered the original meaning of key provisions of Act 77” shortly before the election, thereby raising serious questions, they argued, against the laches argument the state supreme court used when terminating Rep. Kelly’s action at the state level.

Awesome 👏 thanks for posting 👍. That’s going to save time to prove that you lost your bet 👌

now the only thing left is the amount you’re wagering 🐘

i do like pizza 🍕 and heard you like to buy, so how about a pie🤓

🍿

[Newbie]

5 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

you mentioned a bet not me..what do you want to lose Troll/Newbie??..you tell me.

SC hearing arguments today and you are still betting that they will not hear anything....lolol

ok make it Two pies 🍕

🍿

[DBP66]

3 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Awesome 👏 thanks for posting 👍. That’s going to save time to prove that you lost your bet 👌

now the only thing left is the amount you’re wagering 🐘

i do like pizza 🍕 and heard you like to buy, so how about a pie🤓

🍿

I lost already huh...LOL..looks like we went down Incoherent Rd. already Troll/Newbie??...🤡..Pizza??...who told you about pizza?..Troll?...LOL..🤡 

[DBP66]

4 minutes ago, Newbie said:

SC hearing arguments today and you are still betting that they will not hear anything....lolol

ok make it Two pies 🍕

🍿

the S.C. is hearing it or Alito???..it's not in front of the court..🤡..you LOST!...I'll take a large pie w/ sausage Troll...😉

[DBP66]

3 minutes ago, Newbie said:

SC Alito hearing arguments today and you are still betting that they will not hear anything....lolol

ok make it Two pies 🍕

🍿

 

[Newbie]

13 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

I lost already huh...LOL..looks like we went down Incoherent Rd. already Troll/Newbie??...🤡..Pizza??...who told you about pizza?..Troll?...LOL..🤡 

Yes 👍Alito hearing arguments today 

 

12 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

the S.C. is hearing it or Alito???....🤡..you LOST!...I'll take a large pie w/ sausage Troll...😉

Alito is part of the Supreme Court and their representative for this hearing 👍

As such, the case’s arguments are  being heard by  the court.

still on for the bet 👌 you want to stick at two pies, or go for 3 🍕

🍿

[DBP66]

7 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Yes 👍Alito hearing arguments today 

 

Alito is part of the Supreme Court and their representative for this hearing 👍

As such, the case is being heard by  the court.

still on for the bet 👌 you want to stick at two pies, or go for 3 🍕

🍿

the case is being reviewed by Alito not the S.C. as you stated...it didn't make it to the court...so for you to say.."the case is being heard by  the court"...is 100% WRONG...wonk..wonk..1/2 sausage Troll...🤡

[Newbie]

6 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

the case is being reviewed by Alito not the S.C. as you stated...it didn't make it to the court...so for you to say.."the case is being heard by  the court"...is 100% WRONG...wonk..wonk..1/2 sausage Troll...🤡

Actually your claim was that (any of) it would not “ make it to “ the Supreme Court.  If member representatives are hearing arguments and reviewing evidence, then you have a strong case of denial, and in fact the court is hearing the arguments of the case.   Now if it is a requirement that it must be heard in front of the entire court, then you should have specified that in your claim 🤓

And  just like your claim of sausage (how did everyone already know you must be a sausage fan) you are gonna wind up eating it 🍕. But I will take pepperoni, you can buy that second one full of your sausages to keep you away from my pepperoni 🤣. Won’t hold you to a third pie or anything 👍

 🍿

[DBP66]

4 minutes ago, Newbie said:

Actually your claim was that (any of) it would not “ make it to “ the Supreme Court.  If member representatives are hearing arguments and reviewing evidence, then you have a strong case of denial, and in fact the court is hearing the arguments of the case.   Now if it is a requirement that it must be heard in front of the entire court, then you should have specified that in your claim 🤓

And  just like your claim of sausage (how did everyone already know you must be a sausage fan) you are gonna wind up eating it 🍕. But I will take pepperoni, you can buy that second one full of your sausages to keep you away from my pepperoni 🤣. Won’t hold you to a third pie or anything 👍

 🍿

you don't know how to lose gracefully do you Troll?...it is not being heard by the S.C. as you stated therefore you LOST the bet...when it is heard by the S.C. all nine judges will hear the case..see how that works?...yes sausage...😉...you don't want to be known as a "Welcher" do you?!...😉

[Newbie]

4 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

you don't know how to lose gracefully do you Troll?...it is not being heard by the S.C. as you stated therefore you LOST the bet...when it is heard by the S.C. all nine judges will hear the case..see how that works?...yes sausage...😉...you don't want to be known as a "Welcher" do you?!...😉

That is a nice definition.  Too bad that was not your claim or bet. 🤣

some of these cases have in fact “made it to” the Supreme Court as best exemplified by your own post evidence 👍 

Told you that you needed to rethink your dumbo 🐘 claim and gave you every opportunity to realize your own stupidity 🤓

ps. Just go ahead and make that 2 pepperoni 🍕 then.  Screw your sausage.  🤣 lol

🍕

[Newbie]

25 minutes ago, DBP66 said:

you don't know how to win gracefully do you Newbie ?...it is being heard by the S.C. Through their own representative Alito as you stated therefore you WON the bet......yes I love sucking sausage...😉... I am known as a "Welcher" too !...😉

BTW.  FIFY 🐘

🍿

[DownSouth]

1 hour ago, Newbie said:

No I am betting you, on a claim you have already lost 👍

So what would you like to wager? 🤓

🍿

I’ll bet you a stromboli, a calzone, and 5 cannolis that none of this ends up mattering and Biden is sworn in as President in January 2021.

[DBP66]

53 minutes ago, Newbie said:

That is a nice definition.  Too bad that was not your claim or bet. 🤣

some of these cases have in fact “made it to” the Supreme Court as best exemplified by your own post evidence 👍 

Told you that you needed to rethink your dumbo 🐘 claim and gave you every opportunity to realize your own stupidity 🤓

ps. Just go ahead and make that 2 pepperoni 🍕 then.  Screw your sausage.  🤣 lol

🍕

sounds like you're a Welcher Troll...🙄

[DBP66]

50 minutes ago, GardenStateBaller said:

Sad. But freaking hilarious. 

 

and he BEAT you boy by 7 MILLION votes!...#loser