 
     |
| Jan 6th ? (Page 4/4) |
|
BingB
|
SEP 06, 04:24 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by cliffw:
SCOTUS told you all legal challenges were denied ? |
|
No. The judicial system told me. Dozens of lawsuits were filed. All were ruled on.
If you want to claim that there was a legitimate challenge that was never ruled on then tell us all what it was.
BTW who told you that there were challenges that had not been litigated? what is your source of information?
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
SEP 06, 04:26 PM
|
|
I am no legal scholar, but can the vote of congress be challenged in a court? Because that is how these challenges work. They are voted on by Congress. Can a court overturn a vote of congress?
Maybe the guy who claims to have a law degree can explain.[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-06-2024).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
SEP 06, 06:05 PM
|
|
Not a lawyer myself, but the Supreme Court has the power to declare legislation unconstitutional, effectively overturning it.
|
|
|
cliffw
|
SEP 07, 10:36 AM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
I am no legal scholar, but can the vote of congress be challenged in a court?
|
|
My now. Evidently you are no history teacher either.
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
SEP 07, 12:42 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
Not a lawyer myself, but the Supreme Court has the power to declare legislation unconstitutional, effectively overturning it.
|
|
That would require a challenge to the legitimacy of the "process" instead of a challenge to which side won the vote. For example, in this case it would seem that the wronged legislators would have standing to challenge the procedure by which their challenges were dealt with easier than they could challenge the outcome of the vote.
A criminal can get convicted by a jury but win an appeal based on a problem with the "procedure" of the trial that violated his rights. It is pretty much impossible to win an appeal where judges will overturn the decision of as jury. But this guy seems to be arguing the opposite with the 1-6 vote. He claims that there was a problem with the procedure (they were not allowed to vote on challenges), but they don't have standing to challenge that, but if they had been given their right to vote and lost then they would have had standing to take the case to the courts. It does not make any sense.
This is why it is impossible to understand this propaganda. They never explain what they are talking about. They say "We were robbed!" but when you ask "How?" they just reply "It was rigged. The other side cheated." And when you ask again "How?" they say "You wouldn't understand because you believe everything the mainstream media tells you!"
They can never answer the "How?"[This message has been edited by BingB (edited 09-07-2024).]
|
|
|
|
olejoedad
|
SEP 07, 12:47 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by BingB:
That would require a challenge to the legitimacy of the "process" instead of a challenge to which side won the vote.
This is why it is impossible to understand this propaganda. They never explain what they are talking about. They say "We were robbed!" but when you ask "How?" they just reply "It was rigged. The other side cheated." And when you ask again "How?" they say "You wouldn't understand because you believe everything the mainstream media tells you!"
They can never answer the "How?"
|
|
You make less sense than a dead cat.
Legitimacy of process? Really?
|
|
|
|
BingB
|
SEP 07, 12:52 PM
|
|
| quote | Originally posted by olejoedad:
You make less sense than a dead cat.
Legitimacy of process? Really? |
|
I edited the post to explain it better.
|
|
|
