呢d初級法院都係走過場
賓州高院駁回訴訟 朱利安尼將上訴至最高院
若然屬實.
171 回覆
201 Like
8 Dislike
終於上到聯邦
呢d初級法院都係走過場
呢d初級法院都係走過場
OMDB
呢鋪就好睇啦！上到最高法院就係打constitutional rights! 拜登父子戀童撚等坐監啦仆街！
民主黨州 antifa 先惡啫
Thx 省返我眼力
已封鎖會員 螺絲粉
已封鎖會員 螺絲粉
不過最高法院信唔信得過架
啲案應該畀哂cctoy判就最公平
幾大機會贏
1. 共和5比4, 果個共和叛徒蘿白我已經當佢係民主黨
2. 果5個, 比較傾向用法律原意去判斷. 咁原意叫間房要有共和黨監票員在場, 自然唔係做場戲, 而係監票先會法律咁寫. 當理解到當年立法個目的, 自然會判咁對共和黨監票唔公平.
1. 共和5比4, 果個共和叛徒蘿白我已經當佢係民主黨
2. 果5個, 比較傾向用法律原意去判斷. 咁原意叫間房要有共和黨監票員在場, 自然唔係做場戲, 而係監票先會法律咁寫. 當理解到當年立法個目的, 自然會判咁對共和黨監票唔公平.
個州官擺明扮傻去 law by rule 偏幫啦
唔敢燈
我係驚咁都輸既話
侵粉就唔撚會再忍
依家佢地唔開9 Deep State波都係因為佢地相信法律
我係驚咁都輸既話
侵粉就唔撚會再忍
依家佢地唔開9 Deep State波都係因為佢地相信法律
川普賓州被駁回 
唔岩聽就 block 尻人 小學雞到呢
佢係。
共和果面係咁, 如果你唔係第一步先相信法律, 你都變左BLM啦
但如果咁情況, 其實迫supreme court講唔得, 因為無可能得, 單野直情陷佢地於"不義", 答唔駛真係監到票, supreme court清譽一舖玩完
然後,以後唔駛監票的了, 大家打翻場內戰決定邊個贏, 我買重共和黨, 人地有田有地有軍火有地型有軍隊有警察, 佢地乜都有
但如果咁情況, 其實迫supreme court講唔得, 因為無可能得, 單野直情陷佢地於"不義", 答唔駛真係監到票, supreme court清譽一舖玩完
然後,以後唔駛監票的了, 大家打翻場內戰決定邊個贏, 我買重共和黨, 人地有田有地有軍火有地型有軍隊有警察, 佢地乜都有
服撚咗你地
寧願打仗
寧願軍國納粹主義抬頭
都要侵侵贏
係有幾憎個世界
寧願打仗
寧願軍國納粹主義抬頭
都要侵侵贏
係有幾憎個世界
比篇野你
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/trumps_pennsylvania_complaint_is_brilliant.html
個結論係
Everyone in the legal world assumes that the justices, bruised by the excoriation the Court has received over Bush v. Gore (even though the result was right), would never put itself in the position of reversing the apparent results of a presidential election. This assumption is the reason for the Democrats' efforts to create an irresistible bandwagon effect, but the president's lawyers may have out-maneuvered them. The justices may have no choice except to decide the election, one way or the other, and to be put to the choice of reversing the media-claimed results or ratifying massive fraud.
The legitimacy of the Court could survive through, and even be enhanced by, a carefully explained reversal of initial results. It could not survive a mealy-mouthed ratification of obvious fraud. If Trump's lawyers make their case factually, the Court must agree.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/11/trumps_pennsylvania_complaint_is_brilliant.html
個結論係
Everyone in the legal world assumes that the justices, bruised by the excoriation the Court has received over Bush v. Gore (even though the result was right), would never put itself in the position of reversing the apparent results of a presidential election. This assumption is the reason for the Democrats' efforts to create an irresistible bandwagon effect, but the president's lawyers may have out-maneuvered them. The justices may have no choice except to decide the election, one way or the other, and to be put to the choice of reversing the media-claimed results or ratifying massive fraud.
The legitimacy of the Court could survive through, and even be enhanced by, a carefully explained reversal of initial results. It could not survive a mealy-mouthed ratification of obvious fraud. If Trump's lawyers make their case factually, the Court must agree.
佢有呢段野幾清彩, 我補返
As for the obviousness of the point, consider as a thought experiment a state law requiring that all votes be counted in secret by an unelected board named by the party in power. Could it survive a constitutional challenge?
As my old Harvard constitutional law professors would have said, "to ask the question is to answer it." It is hard to count all the constitutional guarantees violated here: Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities. Indeed, the complaint stacks up the Supreme Court precedents supporting its arguments, including the long line of ringing statements in the chain of one-person-one-vote decisions.
Even the late Justice Ginsburg, who never met a progressive argument she could not support, would have trouble upholding such a law.
As for the obviousness of the point, consider as a thought experiment a state law requiring that all votes be counted in secret by an unelected board named by the party in power. Could it survive a constitutional challenge?
As my old Harvard constitutional law professors would have said, "to ask the question is to answer it." It is hard to count all the constitutional guarantees violated here: Equal Protection, Due Process, Privileges and Immunities. Indeed, the complaint stacks up the Supreme Court precedents supporting its arguments, including the long line of ringing statements in the chain of one-person-one-vote decisions.
Even the late Justice Ginsburg, who never met a progressive argument she could not support, would have trouble upholding such a law.
最尾果段就係驚會咁
Supreme Court有2個官都俾Dems狗屈過強姦咁起碼有2票
1票係新上任Amy
最撚仆街係共和果個籮白
如果唔係基本上90%唔會輸
Supreme Court有2個官都俾Dems狗屈過強姦咁起碼有2票
1票係新上任Amy
最撚仆街係共和果個籮白
如果唔係基本上90%唔會輸
5個有3個係阿侵推上去
5個有2個比民主黨正副屈過老強
剩返1個先比賓州無視左佢個決斷
基本上5條人講私怨都有私怨
蘿白就算啦, 偽共和黨
5個有2個比民主黨正副屈過老強
剩返1個先比賓州無視左佢個決斷
基本上5條人講私怨都有私怨
蘿白就算啦, 偽共和黨一早扑左
其實唔洗睇係咪要睇可行性就算無distance limit 太遠都要有cam mon 到喇