Supreme Court gets stern warning to butt out of Trump ballot challenges

[Chester Cheesewright]

https://www.quora.com/Why-hasn-t-Donald ... surrection

“Why Hasn’t Trump Been Charged With Insurrection?”

► What has he been charged with?

[MiltantCentrist]

You just did.

In fact you’ve been “making stuff up” all the way along, from Russian Collusion all the way through Insurrection.

You are HILAREOUS! First the insurrection didn't happen, then it was "feds", and now it supposedly didn't happen again.

Does anyone ever believe your lies?

Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection.

That's nice. Trump incited the Jan 6 insurrection.

[pete]

"...Trump incited the Jan 6 insurrection..."

Two lies in one. I applaud your efficiency

[clusterchuck]

What are the odds SCOTUS will give serious thought to what Shan Wu has to say about what the "U.S. Supreme Court needs to understand"?

[MiltantCentrist]

"...Trump incited the Jan 6 insurrection..."

Two lies in one. I applaud your efficiency

Prove the lie or STFU.

[Evil]

This scotus doesn't do "serious thought." It does whatever its wealthy owners are paying them to do.

[Evil]

You just did.

In fact you’ve been “making stuff up” all the way along, from Russian Collusion all the way through Insurrection.

You are HILAREOUS! First the insurrection didn't happen, then it was "feds", and now it supposedly didn't happen again.

Does anyone ever believe your lies?

Trump hasn’t been charged with insurrection.

Rebellion and insurrection are covered by the same statute. Prosecutors often go with lesser charges that are easier to prove.

Meshawn Maddock has admitted they worked with Trump on the fake electors scheme. Is it your position that there is nothing wrong with a federal candidate and the executive scheming with a state to subvert the state's election results?

[Chester Cheesewright]

The Supreme Court has the right and ability to not wade in on the disputes

► Why must people insist on talking talking this way? Even top writers and TV news anchors are doing it.

It should be :

The Supreme Court has the right and ability not to wade in on the disputes

Recall Shakespeare:


One says

To be or not to be

One does not say

To be or to not be

[KC_]

What are the odds SCOTUS will give serious thought to what Shan Wu has to say about what the "U.S. Supreme Court needs to understand"?

About the same as the odds the SCOTUS will give “serious thought” to what the posters on this board have to say about the matter.