[Jolly2 (OP)]

The technicalities issue is rather rediculas, if they had applied before the election they may well have been ignored as not having standing as no injury had occurred, they apply afterwards and are told they are too late.

 
Bullocks.  If the argument is that the law is unconstitutional, you can bring a case against it even if the law has yet to even take effect. 
This has happened multiple times in my own state, were some law is passed in the Legislature, and is challenged on constitutional grounds before it could come into effect. On more than one such case, it the law was found to be unconstitutional, and was never enacted.

Nice these lawsuit were brought after the fact, and were rejected on technicalities. Texas won their law suits the laws were not changed in Texas.

Technicalities are not a basis for justice,  the merit have to be heard for the court to ignore them is rediculas.  The supreme court also refused to hear the Texas lawsuit on a technicality that Texas and 20 other states was not an injured party.

What those who brought suit against the Pennsylvania election were trying to do was to get 10's of thousands of votes thrown out On a technicality
The Texas lawsuit had no merit either.  The constitution clearly states that each state has full control over how it runs its own elections.  The suit was based on the fact that those 20 states didn't like how Pennsylvania ran its own election. 

No the lawsuit was based on the claim that the changes to Pennsylvanian law were unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court was perfectly correct in not hearing it. 

Completely disagree by not hearing it they leave it open, and give the impression of partiality towards Biden. If they heard the case and there is nothing there the case would be closed, their actions have left it open.

 Do you have any idea of the can of worms that would have been opened if they did?

No worms, the supreme court was created to deal with disputes between states. By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial, and now around 100 million Americans have no faith in their legal system. If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it, as should the other.

  Any State could sue to have any other state's elections nullified because "They didn't like the way that state ran its election. 

Again it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.

Hawaii could have turned around and said they wanted Texas' election thrown out, because they didn't like something about how they ran it. Where would it have ended?

If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.

That is a terrible analogy. This case we solely regarding potential fraud

And just where is the evidence of that "potential fraud"?   In all the cases presented, none was ever presented. In fact, in none of the actual court cases was massive election fraud even claimed by the plaintiffs. 
For all the claims of how they had tons of evidence, it never surfaced in court, where, if you actually had evidence, you would have wanted to present it.
And many of the court cases were thrown out on merit.  On the very fact that the plaintiffs failed to show that there was sufficient cause to have the ballots they wanted tossed out to be invalidated. 

If there is no case because on technicalities they refuse to hear them no evidence can be shown. Refusing to hear the cases Is refusing to see the evidence.

[

That's simplistic, Trump managed a huge turn out he got more votes then Obama, he actually got the most votes of any candidate in American history,  beaten by Biden who claims more.

In an election which had the highest turnout of any election. Which just fits the pattern; high turn out tends to favor Democrats.
 You've got it backwards.  All indications are the Biden did get more votes.   No state, or even the US justice dept. could find any evidence of massive election fraud.

They did find fraud just not massive fraud. Seems clear the kabal written about by Time working diligently behind the scenes, helped guarantee that.

It is the Trump supporters that are simply claiming, without any real evidence, that Biden didn't get as many votes as the election results say he did .

Why is it that people have trouble accepting that a president that never got as much as a 50% approval rating lost re-election?

Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,  but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.

[Bored chemist]

By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial,

Yes...?

If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it,

His side has not yet accepted reality in the case of the elections; why would a court case be different?

If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.

Did you actually think that was relevant to the question?

Hawaii could have turned around and said they wanted Texas' election thrown out, because they didn't like something about how they ran it.

They did find fraud just not massive fraud.

In whose direction?

[Bored chemist]

Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,

In a democracy, the one who gets less votes than the one who got less votes is the joke, and his name is Donald.

[Bored chemist]

but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is...

reality

[Jolly2 (OP)]

but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is...

reality

A very carefully scripted narrative written by a now confessed kabal.

[Bored chemist]

now confessed kabal.

OK, so post a link to where they confess to setting up a cabal to get Biden elected.

Face it.
Trump scraped his way in in 2016, and showed that he was incompetent, so he got kicked out in 2020.

There's no need for anything complicated; the US voters simply came to recognise him for the fraud he was.

[evan_au]

a now confessed kabal

it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. (but) They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

You have missed the journalese - they grabbed your attention by describing it as a potential cabal - and then said why it wasn't.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

a now confessed kabal

it sounds like a paranoid fever dream–a well-funded cabal of powerful people, ranging across industries and ideologies, working together behind the scenes to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information. (but) They were not rigging the election; they were fortifying it.

You have missed the journalese - they grabbed your attention by describing it as a potential cabal - and then said why it wasn't.

What you expect them to stay?

They claim to have acted to fortify the election. That's their claim doesn't make it true. They are a bunch of conspirators. Working to influence perceptions, change rules and laws, steer media coverage and control the flow of information

They had started this conspiracy a year before the election, Trump had no chance to push his case for fraud.

This is not a claim there was fraud.

But if there was fraud, this group categorically worked to prevent that truth comming out.

[Janus]

 Texas won their law suits the laws were not changed in Texas.

Why do you keep bringing suits brought up in Texas dealing with Texas election laws?
Texas has its election laws and Pennsylvania has theirs.  What a judge rules in Texas based on his interpretation of Texas election law, has no bearing on Pennsylvania's interpretation of their laws.

No the lawsuit was based on the claim that the changes to Pennsylvanian law were unconstitutional.

  "Unconstitutional" under Pennsylvania's state constitution, not under US constitutional law.
Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws.  This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.  It is the State's supreme court that decides this issue.  Here we had a number of other states trying to interfere with another state's election system (just because they didn't like the results, and for no other reason!*) One reason the USSC didn't hear the case was there was no US constitutional issue involved.

Completely disagree by not hearing it they leave it open, and give the impression of partiality towards Biden.

  only in the minds of those who aleady wanted to believe that Trump won[/quote]
If they heard the case and there is nothing there the case would be closed, their actions have left it open.
[/quote]Again, only in the minds of those that wished that the election had turned out differently.

No worms, the supreme court was created to deal with disputes between states. By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial, and now around 100 million Americans have no faith in their legal system. If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it, as should the other.

Oh come on, I not seen any indication that Trump supporters would have accepted a Supreme Court ruling that didn't go their way.  They would have just claimed the the USSC was "in on it".

Again it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.

And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution. There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.

If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.

Criminally according to what?  Their state's own election laws? I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.

Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,  but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.

And why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?
This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.

It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump.  But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won.  And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.

* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.

[Jolly2 (OP)]

 Texas won their law suits the laws were not changed in Texas.

Why do you keep bringing suits brought up in Texas dealing with Texas election laws?
Texas has its election laws and Pennsylvania has theirs.  What a judge rules in Texas based on his interpretation of Texas election law, has no bearing on Pennsylvania's interpretation of their laws.

If the laws were enacted unconstitutionally they're unlawful. Not just Texas all other states are effected if one acts outside the law. Which is why Texas and 20 other states brought the case.

No the lawsuit was based on the claim that the changes to Pennsylvanian law were unconstitutional.

  "Unconstitutional" under Pennsylvania's state constitution, not under US constitutional law.

Ues absolutely unconstitutional under the Pennsylvanias constitution.  The supreme court's role is to adjudicate between states when they come into conflict.  By refusing to hear the case they have shown partiality to Biden.

Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws.  This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.

And that's fine,  what's not fine is to ignore the law when making changes.

It is the State's supreme court that decides this issue.  Here we had a number of other states trying to interfere with another state's election system (just because they didn't like the results, and for no other reason!*) One reason the USSC didn't hear the case was there was no US constitutional issue involved.

Completely disagree by not hearing it they leave it open, and give the impression of partiality towards Biden.

  only in the minds of those who aleady wanted to believe that Trump won

If they heard the case and there is nothing there the case would be closed, their actions have left it open.

Again, only in the minds of those that wished that the election had turned out differently.

Wrong,  open to anyone who believed there was incorrect behaviour, 30% of independents believe the election was stolen arround 17% of Democrats do, this is not simply only the people disappointed with the election result.

No worms, the supreme court was created to deal with disputes between states. By refusing to hear it they have shown themselves impartial, and now around 100 million Americans have no faith in their legal system. If they heard The case and trump lose his side would have accepted it, as should the other.

Oh come on, I not seen any indication that Trump supporters would have accepted a Supreme Court ruling that didn't go their way.  They would have just claimed the the USSC was "in on it".

Again I disagree , an open case that discussed the issues and the merits finding against Trump would have been accepted by his supporters,  but refusing to hear the case they have absolutely shown themselves partial towards Biden.

Again it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.

And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution.

Again offiacls inside Pennsylvania also brought a case, wasnt just Texas and 20 other states, members of Pennsylvanian both private and political brought cases which were also not heard and denied a hearing.

There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.

If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.

Criminally according to what?  Their state's own election laws?

Criminally according to the constitution that was ignored.

I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.

Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,  but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.

And why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?

Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it, the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.

This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.

It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump.  But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won.  And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.

* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.

Which is a denial of the actual consitutional issue.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it,

What statistics?

How could you know?

They had started this conspiracy

It's only a conspiracy if it's a secret plan to break the law.
This was not secret, nor is it illegal to seek to bring political change.

[alancalverd]

the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.

That's politics. Just like Trump persuaded them to vote against Hillary. In the immortal words of archy the cockroach:

“a politician is an arse upon which everyone has sat except a man” ― E.E. Cummings

I am impressed by the diligence with which you interviewed 35,000,000 voters to reach your entirely pointless conclusion.

[Janus]

 
Ues absolutely unconstitutional under the Pennsylvanias constitution.

Not according to the State's own Supreme Court, which has the final say on interpretation of the State's constitution. There were those that tried to argue that it was unconstitutional, which is their right, But once the state's SC rules, it's a done deal, because it is the State's SC that has the power to determine constitutionality  not other states that might disagree with that ruling.

The supreme court's role is to adjudicate between states when they come into conflict.  By refusing to hear the case they have shown partiality to Biden.

No, by refusing to hear the case they were stating that those states bringing the suit had no legal basis for objecting to how another state interpreted it's own constitution.  They were ruling that this was not a valid case to bring to the USSC.

Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws.  This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.

And that's fine,  what's not fine is to ignore the law when making changes.
[/quote]And the State's SC ruled that they had not, and they are the ones that determine what is or is not legal under the state constitution.

Wrong,  open to anyone who believed there was incorrect behaviour, 30% of independents believe the election was stolen arround 17% of Democrats do, this is not simply only the people disappointed with the election result.

So, what?  The courts job is to determine law, not to assuage anyone's "beliefs".  People can "believe" a lot of stupid stuff: That the world is flat, in astrology, that the Moon landings were faked, That giant space lasers started the California wildfires... 
and despite how silly these beliefs are, or how there is no evidence of them being true, people will still cling to them. There are still people who cling to Qanon,  even after Trump left office without unleashing "The storm".  They just shift the goalposts and invent some new reason to keep the belief.  and I guarantee that a majority of those who "believe" the election was "stolen would have done the same if the USSC ruled against them.     

Again I disagree , an open case that discussed the issues and the merits finding against Trump would have been accepted by his supporters,

Right, like they accepted it when case after case failed to get the results they wanted. and failing that when the state legislatures didn't overturn the state elections, Or when the Electoral college cast their votes, or when Pence correctly said that he did not have the constitutional authority to reject Electoral votes during congressional confirmation...
Every step along the way they just found something new to hang their hat on in order to hold on to their belief. (Even after the inauguration, there are those that argue the "real" inauguration date isn't until March, and that's when Trump will be sworn in. Which is just about par for the course. Anyone who, after the last 4 years still believes that Trump was a great president will believe anything.

but refusing to hear the case they have absolutely shown themselves partial towards Biden.

This  last statement in of itself proves the point.  In your mind, not hearing case couldn't have been on legal grounds, they had to be "partial to Biden".   Your own statements bely your argument. 

Again it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.

And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution.

Again offiacls inside Pennsylvania also brought a case, wasnt just Texas and 20 other states, members of Pennsylvanian both private and political brought cases which were also not heard and denied a hearing.

Because the state's own SC had already ruled on its constitutionality.   Just because someone brings a case, does not mean they have legal grounds to do so.  Court deny hearings when, in their opinion, such legal ground do not exist. Someone "believing" they have a case is not the same as actually having a case.

There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.

If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.

Criminally according to what?  Their state's own election laws?

Criminally according to the constitution that was ignored.

For the umpteenth time: Not according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has the final say. The only reason to get the USSC involved would be if you were arguing that the state's constitution violated the US constitution.

I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.

Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,  but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.

And why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?

Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it, the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.

Even if true (And the funny thing about these type of"statistics" is that depending on how you interpret them, you can conclude just about what you want),   This still means that more voters saw Biden as the better choice of the two,  even if they didn't necessarily "like" him, they thought the other option was undesirable.  Biden doesn't need to be a "great" president, just moderately capable, which in of itself would be a refreshing change to the last 4 years.

This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.

It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump.  But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won.  And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.

* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.

Which is a denial of the actual consitutional issue.

Of which there was NONE.  Claiming there was a constitutional issue is not the same as there being a constitutional issue. There were those who tried to argue that there was one, but they got shot down in the courts as not having a case.
The instructor that taught Ted Cruz( who offered to argue the case to the supreme court) constitutional law, is quoted to say that Ted must have slept through that part of his class. (Most likely he didn't, and knew full well that the case didn't have a leg to stand on. But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted! That's just the type of weasel Cruz is.)

[Bored chemist]

But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted!

I presume he got paid too.

[Halc]

Topic is moved because:
A) The topic is inappropriate for general science section
B) The title did not ask a question as is required by the science sections. Putting a question mark behind an assertion does not make it a question, and the OP is definitely making unbacked assertions.
and
C) Because zero actual evidence of a rigged election has been presented, at least not rigged in the favor of the winning side.

[Janus]

But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted!

I presume he got paid too.

If the case had been heard by the SC, and he had been able to argue it in front of them.

[alancalverd]

OK. let's admit it. The election was rigged, but Trump still lost. Next question?

[Jolly2 (OP)]

 
Ues absolutely unconstitutional under the Pennsylvanias constitution.

Not according to the State's own Supreme Court, which has the final say on interpretation of the State's constitution. There were those that tried to argue that it was unconstitutional, which is their right, But once the state's SC rules, it's a done deal, because it is the State's SC that has the power to determine constitutionality  not other states that might disagree with that ruling.

The supreme court's role is to adjudicate between states when they come into conflict.  By refusing to hear the case they have shown partiality to Biden.

No, by refusing to hear the case they were stating that those states bringing the suit had no legal basis for objecting to how another state interpreted it's own constitution.  They were ruling that this was not a valid case to bring to the USSC.

No you have to have a court case to have a ruling, hear the arguments for and against. They refused  to have a court hearing.
So your point is wrong.

Again, states have the authority to run their own elections under their own election laws.  This is why some states have only vote by mail, some have open primaries and other don't etc.

And that's fine,  what's not fine is to ignore the law when making changes.

And the State's SC ruled that they had not, and they are the ones that determine what is or is not legal under the state constitution.

Again they made no ruling they refused to hear it.

Wrong,  open to anyone who believed there was incorrect behaviour, 30% of independents believe the election was stolen arround 17% of Democrats do, this is not simply only the people disappointed with the election result.

So, what?  The courts job is to determine law, not to assuage anyone's "beliefs".  People can "believe" a lot of stupid stuff: That the world is flat, in astrology, that the Moon landings were faked, That giant space lasers started the California wildfires... 
and despite how silly these beliefs are, or how there is no evidence of them being true, people will still cling to them. There are still people who cling to Qanon,  even after Trump left office without unleashing "The storm".  They just shift the goalposts and invent some new reason to keep the belief.  and I guarantee that a majority of those who "believe" the election was "stolen would have done the same if the USSC ruled against them.     

Again I disagree , an open case that discussed the issues and the merits finding against Trump would have been accepted by his supporters,

Right, like they accepted it when case after case failed to get the results they wanted. and failing that when the state legislatures didn't overturn the state elections, Or when the Electoral college cast their votes, or when Pence correctly said that he did not have the constitutional authority to reject Electoral votes during congressional confirmation...
Every step along the way they just found something new to hang their hat on in order to hold on to their belief. (Even after the inauguration, there are those that argue the "real" inauguration date isn't until March, and that's when Trump will be sworn in. Which is just about par for the course. Anyone who, after the last 4 years still believes that Trump was a great president will believe anything.

but refusing to hear the case they have absolutely shown themselves partial towards Biden.

This  last statement in of itself proves the point.  In your mind, not hearing case couldn't have been on legal grounds, they had to be "partial to Biden".   Your own statements bely your argument. 

20 states with Texas believed this unconstitutional, your position that it's just trump voters fails. And yes when 20 states turn up saying we believe this action was unconstitutional and the court says "we are not interested in hearing it" that absolutely serves the people the 20 states are trying to bring a case against.

Again it's nothing to do with how they ran the election it was about unconstitutional changes to laws. That effected Texas and the electoral results.

And again it was an issue with the State's constitution, not the US constitution, and other states have no business in telling a state how it should interpret its own constitution.

Again offiacls inside Pennsylvania also brought a case, wasnt just Texas and 20 other states, members of Pennsylvanian both private and political brought cases which were also not heard and denied a hearing.

Because the state's own SC had already ruled on its constitutionality.   

No they didn't they refused to hear it.

Just because someone brings a case, does not mean they have legal grounds to do so.  Court deny hearings when, in their opinion, such legal ground do not exist. Someone "believing" they have a case is not the same as actually having a case.

Wrong. When 20 attorney general's turn up saying they see a problem.  To ignore them as the SCOTUS did is totally inappropriate. I get it they were too scared to actually do their job.

There was no US constitution issue involved,as the US constitution gives states the right to run their own elections under their own election laws.

If Texas had acted criminally absolutely they could and should.

Criminally according to what?  Their state's own election laws?

Criminally according to the constitution that was ignored.

For the umpteenth time: Not according to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has the final say. The only reason to get the USSC involved would be if you were arguing that the state's constitution violated the US constitution.

No Act 77  was unconstitutional,  as was argued to have changed the law as they did they need a referendum of the people which never happened.

I don't think you have any idea of how election laws work.

Because Biden is a joke, slightly more popular then Clinton,  but the idea the man that wrote the patriot act, and has spent the last 50 years in politics building this neo liberal joke of a corporate nightmare, would be the most voted for person in American history,  is laughable at best, people voted against Trump hadly anyone voted for Biden.

And why is it that so many people also believe that their opinion has to equate to the majority opinion?

Sorry not an opinion, the statics show it, the majority of people who voted Biden didn't like him, they just voted against trump.

Even if true (And the funny thing about these type of"statistics" is that depending on how you interpret them, you can conclude just about what you want),   This still means that more voters saw Biden as the better choice of the two,  even if they didn't necessarily "like" him, they thought the other option was undesirable.  Biden doesn't need to be a "great" president, just moderately capable, which in of itself would be a refreshing change to the last 4 years.

Not if there was fraud there isnt.

This may be your opinion of Biden, but it isn't necessarily what the majority of people think of him.

It is likely true that many of the votes for Biden were votes against Trump.  But that is just means that Trump lost this election as much as Biden won.  And, if Biden is as bad as you say, that means a lot of voters thought Trump was even worse, and that, In their eyes, Trump was a horrible president, and they couldn't stand the idea of 4 more years of him.

* Actually, there is another reason. A good number of the people who signed on to this suit probably knew that it didn't have a leg to stand on, but they just wanted to look like good loyal soldiers to the Trump base. It was just political theatrics. They just counted on most Trump supporters not being well enough versed on the law to know this.

Which is a denial of the actual consitutional issue.

Of which there was NONE.  Claiming there was a constitutional issue is not the same as there being a constitutional issue. There were those who tried to argue that there was one, but they got shot down in the courts as not having a case.
The instructor that taught Ted Cruz( who offered to argue the case to the supreme court) constitutional law, is quoted to say that Ted must have slept through that part of his class. (Most likely he didn't, and knew full well that the case didn't have a leg to stand on. But, hey, arguing that it did made him look good in the eyes of the Trump faithful, and that's what counted! That's just the type of weasel Cruz is.)

You really dont see anything past the propaganda
And you need to learn to quote properly.

Ultimately the trick you and the people you are serving are playing is to claim refusing to hear a case is giving a ruling, it is NOT! It is nothing more then refusing to look at it. And the actions of the SCOTUS is an absolute disgrace that has betrayed its purpose and reason for existing, it is nothing more than a betrayal of its duty, and a betrayal of the country and all it's people. A total failure, which the millions of Americans that now have no faith in the legal system, will remember for generations.

They should have heard the cases listened to the arguments and made a ruling their cowardice in not having the guts to do so, I think will be a stain on their reputation for a long time.

[evan_au]

Share with you this time magazine article

I see that you and someone I know on the opposite side of the world post the same claims about Donald Trump, on roughly the same day.
What echo chamber is controlling your views of Donald Trump?

[Bored chemist]

No you have to have a court case to have a ruling, hear the arguments for and against.

Yes and no.
You can have a pre-trial hearing to see if the case is worthy of the court's  time.
If I killed my brother and his wife tried to get the case heard in Texas because she wanted me to face the death penalty she could send the case to court  and there would be a hearing.
That hearing would decide that since the killing did not take place in Texas the case was outside their jurisdiction.
And they would decide not to waste the court's time on an issue that they had no authority over.

Similarly, if my brother died and his wife thought that I was responsible because I'm a wizard, and had cast a spell on him by singing in the shower, she could take that case to a UK court .
Again there would be a pre trial hearing at which the court would (presumably) find that singing in the shower isn't illegal.

There would be no trial at which any other witnesses would be called because the pre trial hearing recognised that the case was without merit.

That's what happened to some of Trump's allegations of electoral fraud; there just wasn't a case.

But in some of the allegations - like the one under discussion, the court decided that regardless of the merit of the allegation- the claim that a state broke its own laws- it happened somewhere else so it was outside the court's jurisdiction. And so they would decide not to have a trial.
Just the same as my brother's wife couldn't have me tried in Texas, even if I was obviously a murderer.