The court must take the case
Donsurber.com,
by
Don Surber
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
12/3/2020 2:11:49 PM
Amid ample evidence that Democrats cheated in a dozen different ways to steal the presidential election, the U.S. Supreme Court will decide the election. I have no doubt Chief Justice John McCain Roberts would love to deny President Donald John Trump his day in court because Roberts is a passive-aggressive evil little man who repeatedly stabs in the back those who entrusted him with the highest judicial office in the land.
Not hearing the case is a nifty way to certify a stolen election without accepting responsibility for their decision.(Snip) Hundreds of whistleblowers put their lives on the line signing affidavits giving testimony to election theft.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
Omen55 12/3/2020 2:22:01 PM (No. 622396)
God took RBG so We the People would have ACB to make 5.
18 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
ThreeBadCats3 12/3/2020 2:26:40 PM (No. 622398)
People are getting frustrated and dispirited. So much, overwhelming, evidence of fraud, but regardless, some insignifcant punk judge or authority, like Barr, decides that it isn’t reliable, convincing or relevant. A huge crime taking place in full daylight, with the authorities pretending to wear blinders.
35 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
jimincalif 12/3/2020 2:43:41 PM (No. 622410)
Following along with what #2 mentions, it seems that willful blindness is a progressive/leftist membership requirement. The current election fraud is but one example. Obama's Iran deal was another. Pretty much their entire worldview is to see things how they want them to be.
17 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
justavoter 12/3/2020 2:54:18 PM (No. 622421)
Tick Tock......run out the clock!
4 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
web 12/3/2020 2:56:52 PM (No. 622424)
The demoncrats cheated in a dozen different ways? But... I just heard on Good Morning Morons that all of President Trumps claims of vote fraud were "baseless." Just exactly when the MSM examined all the evidence and determined that it was all baseless they didn't say. Just when they were given the power to declare the winner before the Electoral College meets they also did not say. Whistleblowers, videos, witnesses, statistical impossibilities... it's all "baseless." Thank God we do not have only the MSM for information any longer. We would all be as ignorant as a demoncrat.
7 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
Harlowe 12/3/2020 3:02:52 PM (No. 622431)
Mr. Surber addresses the question of whether or not the SCOTUS would decide to hear a vote fraud case on behalf of President Trump for the glaring attempt to steal the November 3rd election for Joe Biden.
Before they perform their duties, Justices of the Supreme Court are required to take two oaths; one is the Constitutional Oath, the other the Judicial Oath.
The Constitutional Oath: “... I will support and defend the CONSTITUTION of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, ...”
The Judicial Oath: “... I will administer JUSTICE WITHOUT RESPECT TO PERSONS ... agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States ...”
According to some news sources, the SCOTUS does not want to rule on the November 3rd vote fraud to avoid “choosing a President.” The reality is the integrity of this country’s elections as presented in the U. S. Constitution; the significance goes beyond the attempt to steal the November 3rd victory from President Trump. The required ruling is not to award President Trump a rightful victory--it is to preserve the integrity and legality of this country’s election process. For SCOTUS to refuse to hear this voter fraud case based on the November 3rd presidential election would seem to be a dereliction of duty; the Court is charged with ensuring “that laws and decisions made within the United States are constitutional.” In such deliberations, there should be the component of morality--theft is immoral.
Three of the justices were nominated by President Trump to serve on the Court. Based on the Judicial Oath of administering “JUSTICE WITHOUT RESPECT TO PERSONS” strongly suggests that recusal would be inappropriate, without foundation; the essence of this voter fraud case is not President Trump, it is the violation of the U. S. Constitution, as well as the infraction and invalidation of votes cast for a presidential candidate in order to steal an election for an opposition party’s presidential candidate.
Kudos for Mr. Suber pointing out that hundreds of whistleblowers put their lives on the line and puts to shame those politicians and justices, regardless of level of court assignation, refusing to uphold the laws of the land—a gross injustice to our Founding Fathers, and all who fought and died for this country.
Indeed, Mr. Surber, many of us treasure our memorization of President Abraham Lincoln’s incredible Gettysburg Address delivered on November 19, 1863 at the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. “...that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain...”
19 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
joseph1 12/3/2020 3:23:58 PM (No. 622441)
The only way to stop all this foolishness is declare marshall law and have another legal voting day.
6 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
mathman 12/3/2020 3:28:48 PM (No. 622447)
Git 'r done.
Massive fraud.
Hundreds of notarized affadavits.
Millions of forged ballots.
But there was no fraud.
Right.
The Easter Bunny stole the election.
11 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
NeverForget 12/3/2020 3:33:00 PM (No. 622452)
When extraordinary things happen, like vote counts in key States changing in the dark of night, the burden of proof lies with those who are in support of the extraordinary happenings.
9 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
ToryWhite 12/3/2020 4:10:38 PM (No. 622479)
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Surber.
9 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
bpl40 12/3/2020 4:56:06 PM (No. 622496)
A redo is only slightly less unfair than allowing the election to be stolen. The people have chosen. Their choice is readily apparent to any fair observation .Why should they be required to go to polls the polls again. If the SCOTUS is squeamish about choosing a President they can simply declare specific states results to be unacceptable nad ask the Electoral College to vote on the rest. The Constitution will take care of the subsequent course of events.
6 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
4poster 12/3/2020 5:07:51 PM (No. 622504)
It looks complex, but not to worry. The Supreme Court is sitting judges. They will sit and not get involved in the details. The sitting Supreme Court judge for PA on Nov 4, required PA to “segregate” ballots not counted by 8pm Nov 3. He wouldn’t have said this without discussions with other Justices.
The Constitution of the US of A says it is the Legislative branch of each state that makes laws as to how Presidential elections are the held in the state. In PA the counting ends at 8pm Nov 3 per the law (Governor and State Supreme Courts don’t have a say).
All the Supreme Court of the USA has to say is PAs election ended at 8pm Nov 3. They don’t have to get into the weeds and rule about ballots and fraud.
Simplicity. President Trump was ahead by 800,000 votes at 8pm Nov 3.
We can expect the US Supreme Court to make similar simple rulings in the other states, too.
6 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
OK state mom 12/3/2020 5:20:48 PM (No. 622508)
Surber keeps me sane. Thank you, Don.
8 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
dst4life 12/3/2020 6:01:27 PM (No. 622528)
If the SCOTUS doesn't hear these cases of alleged voter fraud, the lives of hundreds of persons who filed affidavits will essentially be ruined. I can guarantee you that the Dems will get all their personal information, put them on a list, and harass them for the remainder of their lives. I mean, we're calling the lives of everyone who died of COVID a "tragedy." Everyone who gets harassed by Dems as they try to continue this Earthly journey is beyond "tragic." It's downright dispicable!!
9 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Hear, hear!