What Does a Justice Barrett Give Us?

[Phaedrus]

@SixFoot

Aside from a real woman on the bench? A better judge.

Wow. OK, in that vein: I hope there’s room for her husband as well. Apparently he’s calling the shots.

[Adam]

@SixFoot

Aside from a real woman on the bench? A better judge.

How are the other female judges not real women? I’d really like an answer to that question.

[bigtwnvin]

It’s a gamble Biden wins and the Dims retake the Senate.
It will be a lib fest and God help the Republic

[WuWei]

@PeterGriffin

and also noted their decision couldn’t be used as a precedent.

That’s not up to them.

[WuWei]

Pure Kabuki

[thinkingman]

@PeterGriffin

What is the deal with having SCOTUS be full for a national election? SCOTUS has no role in that. Bush v. Gore was extraconstitutional as they themselves noted in their decision and also noted their decision couldn’t be used as a precedent.

this election will come down to the courts you can be sure

[Adam]

@thinkingman

@PeterGriffin

What is the deal with having SCOTUS be full for a national election? SCOTUS has no role in that. Bush v. Gore was extraconstitutional as they themselves noted in their decision and also noted their decision couldn’t be used as a precedent.

this election will come down to the courts you can be sure

I don’t think so. I think it’ll be pretty clear that America rejects Donald on election night.

[PeterGriffin]

I’m sure will be a lot of lawsuits to stop counting legal votes and getting legal votes thrown out. Has nothing to with the red herring of needing 9 SCOTUS justices for an election.

[thinkingman]

@Adam

@thinkingman

@PeterGriffin

What is the deal with having SCOTUS be full for a national election? SCOTUS has no role in that. Bush v. Gore was extraconstitutional as they themselves noted in their decision and also noted their decision couldn’t be used as a precedent.

this election will come down to the courts you can be sure

I don’t think so. I think it’ll be pretty clear that America rejects Donald on election night.

maybe

we’ll see

[thinkingman]

@PeterGriffin

I’m sure will be a lot of lawsuits to stop counting legal votes and getting legal votes thrown out. Has nothing to with the red herring of needing 9 SCOTUS justices for an election.

i bet it goes to supreme court

democrats obviously have arranged enough time after for “recounts” chaos and harvesting

i hope im wrong

[Adam]

@thinkingman

@PeterGriffin

I’m sure will be a lot of lawsuits to stop counting legal votes and getting legal votes thrown out. Has nothing to with the red herring of needing 9 SCOTUS justices for an election.

i bet it goes to supreme court

democrats obviously have arranged enough time after for “recounts” chaos and harvesting

i hope im wrong

They obviously have?

[PeterGriffin]

Nah. All the cries of “vOTEr frAUd” without anybody able to produce any over how many years? That’s to try and disenfranchise legal votes. Only the tubes think it’s a real thing.

There’s still poor saps out there who think there were ballots found in the trunk of a car that pushed Franken to victory. Imagine being so gullible to believe that.

[conan]

Yes…but that puts Roberts and Alito in their crosshairs…not to mention Thomas.

Both Roberts and Alito has almost 15 years in…so by the end of next president term their 18 years are up.

Coincidence of 18 number of years?

[thinkingman]

@Adam

@thinkingman

@PeterGriffin

I’m sure will be a lot of lawsuits to stop counting legal votes and getting legal votes thrown out. Has nothing to with the red herring of needing 9 SCOTUS justices for an election.

i bet it goes to supreme court

democrats obviously have arranged enough time after for “recounts” chaos and harvesting

i hope im wrong

They obviously have?

well of course. you see all these states allowing counts like weeks after election day

this is to give them the chance to flip it blue if Trump wins

remember… (for whatever reason) recounts dont count unless the recount goes to the democrat

[Adam]

@thinkingman

@Adam

@thinkingman

@PeterGriffin

I’m sure will be a lot of lawsuits to stop counting legal votes and getting legal votes thrown out. Has nothing to with the red herring of needing 9 SCOTUS justices for an election.

i bet it goes to supreme court

democrats obviously have arranged enough time after for “recounts” chaos and harvesting

i hope im wrong

They obviously have?

well of course. you see all these states allowing counts like weeks after election day

Counting votes after the election has always happened. A thinking man should know that.

[PeterGriffin]

What’s wrong with that?

[thinkingman]

@Adam

@thinkingman

@Adam

@thinkingman

@PeterGriffin

I’m sure will be a lot of lawsuits to stop counting legal votes and getting legal votes thrown out. Has nothing to with the red herring of needing 9 SCOTUS justices for an election.

i bet it goes to supreme court

democrats obviously have arranged enough time after for “recounts” chaos and harvesting

i hope im wrong

They obviously have?

well of course. you see all these states allowing counts like weeks after election day

Counting votes after the election has always happened. A thinking man should know that.

yes good point!

so why has PA supreme court just extended it ?

other states up to TWO WEEKS?

wow

buckle up

[PeterGriffin]

Who wouldn’t want all legal votes to be counted?

[thinkingman]

@PeterGriffin

What’s wrong with that?

it’s how the dems plan to create utter chaos, employ their hundreds of lawyers (that they pretend were detained because trump is going to declare himself king), target recounts, allow harvesting in deep blue areas etc…

you can see it shaping up

[thinkingman]

@PeterGriffin

Who wouldn’t want all legal votes to be counted?

they all wont be legal. lol