Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: skinowski who wrote (773418)	12/7/2022 1:00:19 PM
From: Hank Scorpio	10 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs Area51 DinoNavarre fred woodall isopatch and 5 more members Respond to of 793845

The 'lack of standing' was the only way they would actually not have to listen to the evidence that was to be presented. Deny the claim beforehand on a technicality not based on any evidence whatsoever. I would love to hear just HOW it can be rationalized that a US President does not have standing in a dispute arising out of his own election. If that is the case, you could probably make the case that anyone can be denied a day in Court due to lack of standing. Anyway, the USSC is political in that it must be able to adjudicate for all Americans, including politicians. Like they did with Gore. They can't 'stay out of' politics. The Supremes suspended the rule of law in America. This is how militaries/dictators take over in third world Countries.