Judge: Republicans Will Likely Win Pennsylvania Election Lawsuit

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

LMAO..twisting, you guys are twisting by the pool..furiously!!!

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: johnnylaw16

DeWine is a “Republican” Governor of Ohio and even Whitmer and Newsome have said “Holy crap, why didn’t we think of that” to the things he has pulled. Cuomo, however has not been surprised by DeWine’s dictatorial flexing because he was the first to send Covids to infect nursing homes.

Your point?

The obvious point is they are morally bankrupt. Duh. Seems to suit you as well. Corrupt PA supreme court Twitter

Ah, yes, they applied the law instead of doing what you in all of your uninformed wisdom thought that they should do, so they must be corrupt. Right.

No because they have ignored the state's constitution and legislated themselves which is against the law. And just like them you are pretending that didn't happen. You know you can lie all you want to and be intellectually dishonest, but it is very transparent, just so you know that.

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Ahabstar
a reply to: johnnylaw16

DeWine is a “Republican” Governor of Ohio and even Whitmer and Newsome have said “Holy crap, why didn’t we think of that” to the things he has pulled. Cuomo, however has not been surprised by DeWine’s dictatorial flexing because he was the first to send Covids to infect nursing homes.

Your point?

The obvious point is they are morally bankrupt. Duh. Seems to suit you as well. Corrupt PA supreme court Twitter

Ah, yes, they applied the law instead of doing what you in all of your uninformed wisdom thought that they should do, so they must be corrupt. Right.

No because they have ignored the state's constitution and legislated themselves which is against the law. And just like them you are pretending that didn't happen. You know you can lie all you want to and be intellectually dishonest, but it is very transparent, just so you know that.

Your lack of knowledge in this area is the only transparent thing. The legislation that passed had a provision limiting the time to bring constitutional challenges to the law in question. The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit chose not the challenge the law until that time limit had passed. What's worse--they waited until voters had relied on that law to cast their ballots, and then sought to throw out those votes. No court is going to go along with such an inane idea. There is a long-standing legal doctrine called "laches" that prohibits this sort of gameplay with the law. Call it what you want, but that is how the law works in this country. I'm sorry if it doesn't comport with your views of how it should work.

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
The legislation that passed had a provision limiting the time to bring constitutional challenges to the law in question.

Rotflmao!!! Seriously!?!?

Well, then... that does it doesn't it...

Incidentally... anyone who doesn't see the absurdity of the notion that any such provisioon in any law passed is null and void on its face is just... well... stupid.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
The legislation that passed had a provision limiting the time to bring constitutional challenges to the law in question.

Rotflmao!!! Seriously!?!?

Well, then... that does it doesn't it...

Incidentally... anyone who doesn't see the absurdity of the notion that any such provisioon in any law passed is null and void on its face is just... well... stupid.

Regardless of that provision, the fact remains that no court is going to invalidate any votes on the basis of legal challenges to this law, even if they thought the law was unconstitutional

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
Regardless of that provision, the fact remains that no court is going to invalidate any votes on the basis of legal challenges to this law, even if they thought the law was unconstitutional

We'll see, won't we...