all 10 comments

[–]Fitter_HappierWhite Nationalist 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Big if true. Sounds like BS.

[–]BitterRedditRefugee 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

It's bullshit, there is no significant evidence of mass voter fraud in the election, the lawsuits have no merit, that's why they're either being tossed left and right, in an instance like this one, the conservative supreme court does not want to hear the case because it has no merit. Why would the supreme court care about riots? They have personal security paid for by the tax payers.

[–]sylla94 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)


[–]antireddit 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In battleground states like PA, 75% of mail in votes went to Biden. Dont you find that the least bit odd and deserving of investigation?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not really, all throughout the campaign Trump was telling his supporters not to use mail-in ballots. Many already predicted that mail-in ballots would be significantly Democrat, while Republicans would lead in the normal vote.

[–]marc_gee 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Why would the supreme court care about riots?

Because they are cucks who want diversity to work.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Hey there, puppy pup, did you know that mail-in balloting is banned in much of Europe and even banned in Mexico. Can you take a guess why tsht would be, puppy pup?

[–]Minedwe 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Like most things in "democracy", this is just another stunt by (((Trump))) and the other controlled oppositon clowns to draw attention away from important shit.

[–]Dashing-Dove 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." I'm reminded of that quote in this situation. If the statement is true, Justice Roberts and those in agreement with him are placing more value on societal stability than fairly arbitrating the case, which cedes the presidency and has broad ramifications that harm the American public, not least of which is trust in elections - regardless of the extent of fraud and whether it sufficiently tipped the electoral vote. It's a sad state of affairs that I'm not even surprised by the possible moral cowardice of our highest court.

[–]Richard_Parker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This is a question that is raised in Constitutional Law class, how immune is SCOTUS from political pressure, and should it be immune. The four horsemen eventually stopped striking down FDRs New Deal measures because public sentiment was strongly in favor.

Then you have dmandd if you do damned if you situations like Dred Scott.

If Roberts or anyone else actually said tnis, Alito needs to come out of it. This video, while shocking, is hearsay once removed. This needs to be brought to light of day.