Image 01 Image 03

Pennsylvania: Supreme Court Denies Emergency Application for Injunction

Pennsylvania: Supreme Court Denies Emergency Application for Injunction

“The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.”

okay to use screenshots video waj

The U.S. Supreme Court just issued a short Order denying the Application for Emergency Injunction filed challenging the ruling of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and the election certification.


The application for injunctive relief presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is denied.

So much for all the drama over Alito setting the date for objections for tomorrow, then changing it to today. It’s noteworthy that there were no dissents. I had though there might be some individual opinions, even explanations for the rejection, but that’s not to be.

We’ll never know wy, but this is the end of the road for a judicial challenge to the PA certification. It also signals that there likely is almost no chance that the case filed by Texas today will get a favorable ruling, if SCOTUS rules at all (it’s not obligated to hear that case).


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


explain please.

    Olinser in reply to dmacleo. | December 8, 2020 at 5:50 pm

    The explanation is they don’t give a shit that they violated the law and their own constitution.

    They’re letting them steal it.

    Sanddog in reply to dmacleo. | December 8, 2020 at 8:53 pm

    Our country is full of cowards who refuse to do the right thing out of fear of the ramifications. They’re scared to death the left will riot and take to the streets and they don’t want to be blamed. What I want to know is why are they going to start being afraid of the rest of us?

Cowards in black robes all..
Demon-rats in penna fixing the entire election, making law where they have no right or authority & now scotus hiding under the table..

Assuring us that we’ve lost now the fundamental right of a free & fair election..

The republic is dead & these are the nails in the the term of most republics: 200-250 years…

God find us a new one, for when China & the religion of “peace” take over, that’s truly the end

    jhkrischel in reply to jmt9455. | December 8, 2020 at 5:14 pm

    I gotta say, I have some sympathy for the cowardly actions. The #MediaIndustrialComplex likely has the power to destroy the SCOTUS, at large, or one individual at a time. Not to mention the physical threat from the modern day Brown Shirts of the DNC.

      Evil Otto in reply to jhkrischel. | December 9, 2020 at 6:03 am

      I’m not sympathetic at all. Countless Americans have lost their lives fighting for this country, and these justices are going to let the republic burn because of threats? This is literally their job, and they’re refusing to do it because they’re frightened?

    mark311 in reply to jmt9455. | December 8, 2020 at 5:36 pm

    Do you actually have any evidence of what you suggest? If you read the various judges opinions its pretty plain that no evidence of fraud has been submitted. Indeed there seems to be a disconnect between what the lawyers say to the public and what they tell the judges. Weird really.

      Sanddog in reply to mark311. | December 8, 2020 at 8:55 pm

      It’s easy to claim there is no evidence when you illegally refuse to allow observers to be present and actual evidence is
      “inadvertently” destroyed.

      Ooops! Doesn’t cut it any more.

Sounds like the SCOTUS was more afraid of the #MediaIndustrialComplex than the currently disappointed 75 million plus voters.

This bodes ill for the future.

    SCOTUS has never seen Trump supporters rioting, looting and bombing Federal buildings and thus they know who they can safely disappoint

      jhkrischel in reply to MarkS. | December 8, 2020 at 5:17 pm

      Indeed. Civil disobedience with threat of jail, losing your job, etc, is a hard pitch to those productive providers who actually keep the world moving.

      Time to start throwing sand in gears.

      notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkS. | December 8, 2020 at 6:12 pm

      The Communist Chinese traitors are not going to know what hit them when their debit/credit cards, autos, and everything else that uses computer technology is suddenly turned upon them…..

      henrybowman in reply to MarkS. | December 8, 2020 at 7:34 pm

      They’re confusing restraint with apathy. They’re in for a rude shock.

      dr_wolfe in reply to MarkS. | December 8, 2020 at 8:40 pm


      You all enjoy wallowing in your sorry in this little echo chamber of yours…

      Maybe you should surface and realize how Trumpized you are.

      ray in reply to MarkS. | December 9, 2020 at 1:52 am

      …thus they think they know who they can safely disappoint… FIFY

      They are about to have an awakening. Judges who do not do their jobs can be removed by natural law, and there are millions ready to do the deeds.

    mark311 in reply to jhkrischel. | December 8, 2020 at 5:39 pm

    Given the ridicule the lawsuits have been given id suggest they aren’t hearing the case because its baseless and has no merit

In the article’s picture, is that Biden or the banjo kid from Deliverance?

Is there any part of this government that is not corrupt to the core?

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to MarkS. | December 8, 2020 at 6:14 pm


    And lots of We the Little People had that figured out decades ago.

    Evidently in the U.S. political “plays” are the opiate of the people…..

    henrybowman in reply to MarkS. | December 8, 2020 at 7:35 pm

    According to that viral Chinese dude, other than Trump and his supporters — no.

We can all be certain that Roberts has been pushing the justices to avoid being “dragged into” these political cases. And to show a united front.

The Supreme Court is not obligated to hear any case and in Roberts’ view, a Presidential election is just not important enough – especially because Trump lost.

Now if some state legislature decides to void the Biden thievery in its state, then Roberts will jump right in and hear any action Biden’s people want to bring.

    jhkrischel in reply to JOHN B. | December 8, 2020 at 5:24 pm

    I would not be surprised if there were threats to SCOTUS family members if they didn’t play along. Having a large family can be a significant vulnerability, if your enemies are willing to stoop that low. And yes, I think they’d stoop that low.

      2nd Ammendment Mother in reply to jhkrischel. | December 8, 2020 at 5:31 pm

      Of course, I still think there were oddities in Scalia’s death. Especially why his body was sent to an El Paso funeral home with cartel connections, instead of one in Odessa that would have been much closer.
      But what do I know, I wear these pretty tin hats with all their sparkly splendor…

    amwick in reply to JOHN B. | December 8, 2020 at 5:39 pm

    I thought AZ did that..

    mark311 in reply to JOHN B. | December 8, 2020 at 5:42 pm

    Can you actually justify anything you’ve just said

    Elzorro in reply to JOHN B. | December 8, 2020 at 9:45 pm

    The election is a tax.

    texannie in reply to JOHN B. | December 9, 2020 at 11:10 am

    So much for ACB, she really made a difference right?

Luckily, I suppose, the Ds have given the Rs the playbook for the next four years. We can near verbatim quote them, #NotMyPresident, #ChineseCollusion, #ElectionInterference, #ImpeachNow, #NeverBiden…this was a war between the #MediaIndustrialComplex and SCOTUS, and SCOTUS chose to concede. The Ds are simply useful idiots forwarding the interests of the #MIC, big tech elites and media organizations whose business model is predicated on maximizing fear and hatred in the population.

That is disappointing. SCOTUS could have ruled that the changes made by PA SoS and local elections officials didn’t follow the election law of PA as constitutionally mandated.

Very simple order would have been to invalidate all unlawfully cast ballots and if so intermingled in a precinct (s) to be impossible then that entire precinct(s) ballots get tossed while the precinct(s) which obeyed the constitutional structure that only the state legislature can set elections laws would.have their ballots tabulated into votes.

That would have sent a very clear message to every State and County; play games by deviation from what the legislature has passed into elections laws and risk your election being tossed.

Without other states involved PA 20 EC votes wouldn’t change the outcome of the overall presidential election so less risk for SCOTUS in taking that route.

Someone should remind CJ Roberts that no decision or failure to undertake a case to reach a decision is actually a decision of it’s own.

    mark311 in reply to CommoChief. | December 8, 2020 at 5:41 pm

    They would have to prove that the ballots were illegally cast which they have failed to do, as such the remedy of disenfranchising votes is disproportionate

      CommoChief in reply to mark311. | December 8, 2020 at 8:34 pm


      Any and all ballots cast not in compliance with the election laws set forth by the state legislature would be invalid. If a precinct mixed those illegally cast ballots with legitimate ballots in such a manner that they couldn’t be identified and retroactively removed from the total tabulation then that precinct entire election is voided.

      The remaining precincts who either complied with the election laws or maintained a mechanism to identify and separate potential illegal ballots could have their legal ballots counted.

      If every precinct ballot handling is irredeemable then the entire state has no valid ballots.

      Disenfranchised voters is a BS concept. Just because a receiver catches a pass in the end zone doesn’t make it a touchdown. Lots of other things have to happen as well.

      QB can’t throw past line of scrimmage, lineman can’t hold, lineman can’t be too far downfield, can’t have 12 men on the field, receiver can’t voluntarily run out of bounds and be the first player to touch the ball, no members of offense can jump off sides, can’t have two players in motion but not set prior to snap.

      All those things are illegal and despite the intent of the offensive team to throw a TD pass and the pass being completed any one of those illegal acts means no touchdown was actually scored.

      The ‘points weren’t taken off the scoreboard’ by the refs. Due to illegal acts the completion was never a TD to begin with.

freespeechfanatic | December 8, 2020 at 5:45 pm

Now I hear that the case is “on the docket, i.e., that it WILL be heard?

Paul In Sweden | December 8, 2020 at 5:45 pm

Democrats now know that they do not have to bother even campaigning. They will determine the results of all races during the summer at their DNC conventions. Our votes do not matter and the law is whatever they say it is.

America had a 243 year run, there were ups and downs but That’s All Folks.

PA alone would not change the outcome of the election. I heard LA just joined TX. The LA/TX case could change the outcome. My hunch is they will rule [either way] on that because it can change the outcome. I can’t see them ignoring or issuing a ruling without comment in that case.

    Olinser in reply to walls. | December 8, 2020 at 5:53 pm

    You’re right, PA wouldn’t change it alone.

    But PA also was the most obviously slam-dunk case imaginable.

    They violated their own written laws and constitution, explicitly ignored the order of the SC to segregate the ballots after the date, and basically spit in the SC’s face and dared them to do something about it.

    Fucking RINO cowards.

    TheOldZombie in reply to walls. | December 9, 2020 at 1:02 am

    By itself, PA wouldn’t have changed anything but it’s like a crowd of people.

    No one wants to do anything. Everyone is waiting for someone to do something. When finally someone does something all the rest join in the doing.

    If PA had changed you could have seen other states join in and also change.

Well at least nice to know tyranny by my State Supreme court can go against the law, make up law from the bench and I have to live with that.

    RNJD in reply to Skip. | December 9, 2020 at 2:30 am

    Oh for goodness sake…nobody “made up” the doctrine of latches. It’s been part of the English common law since the very beginning. In effect the courts are telling these people that you can’t wait over a year to complain that a law is unconstitutional, especially if you’ve urged your constituents to vote by mail…and then contest the law only after you didn’t get the result you desired. Everyone with an IQ over 50 knew what the courts would do with this case.

      Skip in reply to RNJD. | December 9, 2020 at 3:45 am

      If allowing mail votes to not match on file signatures and 3 extra days to vote after election day isn’t making up flaw what is?

      randian in reply to RNJD. | December 9, 2020 at 4:04 am

      The problem is the misapplication of laches. Trump couldn’t sue earlier because they would have thrown out the suit for lack of standing. You can’t sue for an unconstitutional law until you’ve been affected by it, which means you have to wait until after the election. They’re just using laches to hit Trump with a Catch-22.

This is a fucking joke.

They ignored an EXPLICIT ORDER by Alito to segregate the ballots.

They unambiguously violated the laws governing their elections by allowing laughably late voting.

They intentionally mixed the votes, laughed in Alito’s face, and dared him to do something about it, and they just slunk away and let them do it.

The steal is in, and the RINOs aren’t going to do a goddamn thing to stop it.

    stablesort in reply to Olinser. | December 8, 2020 at 8:51 pm

    Alito made no such order until it was too late; the ballots had already been mixed.

    randian in reply to Olinser. | December 8, 2020 at 9:57 pm

    What I think is happening is this strange urge I see in “conservative” (but never liberal) judges to show they’re “independent”. They’re going to do exactly that, never mind that letting this election stand will destroy the Republic.

freespeechfanatic | December 8, 2020 at 5:50 pm

Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Carolina and South Dakota just joined the Texas lawsuit.

And posted downstairs on another thread why the 5 states that stopped the vote count officially but proceeded to count votes privately, why those mass votes should be counted at all.

    randian in reply to Skip. | December 8, 2020 at 9:58 pm

    Indeed. I find the fixation on proving the ballots to be fraudulent to be bizarre and misguided when their manner of counting was obviously unlawful.

“It also signals that there likely is almost no chance that the case filed by Texas today will get a favorable ruling, if SCOTUS rules at all”

That seems completely unsupported except possibly by fervent wishes.

The supreme court, the final arbiter in things legal in the USA republic, just proved it is owned by the chicoms, who own the communist democrats.

No doubt, major pressure on the judges to be American Judges, but they turn out to be just petty bureaucrats in black robes kneeling to their masters, the chicoms.

So all levels of government are now illegitimate, no law exists for the people, the government lackeys can do as their models did, the NAZIs, the communist russians and the muslim jihadis,

raids in the night, citizens thrown into jails, then gulags, then concentration camp ovens.

If a blatant disregard for voting laws that the SoS Kathy Boockvar and the Pa SC stomped all over them isn’t a case for the Supreme court what is?

Is that probably the end of the road for the Trump legal appeal? Without PA, it seems like the numbers don’t work.

So much for Trump major accomplishment of getting to appoint 3 new “conservative” judges. SCOTUS only handles meaningless small cases of minor consequence.

We always make the mistake of believing that “conservatives” would do the right thing if only they were in the majority. But once again, we learn that “our” side is spineless. It is never EVER the right time to do the right thing.

Levin is excoriating SCOTUS for their cowardice. We do not live in days of courageous leaders.

We are down to our last shot. Trump creating a new party. Looks like I will be re-registering to unaffiliated independent as soon as Trump concedes. I hope his speech inspires most of us to do the same thing.

I must be missing something here. I thought the Pa case that is the subject of this post dealt with the laches defense to the Pa constitutional argument raised in that case. The Texas case seems to me more encompassing, and I don’t see that today’s SCOTUS action indicates that there is almost no chance that the Texas case will get a favorable ruling (from our point of view).

    Rick in reply to Rick. | December 8, 2020 at 6:45 pm

    It ain’t over yet. From the SCOTUS docket: Main DocumentProof of ServiceOther
    Dec 08 2020 Response to the motion for leave to file a bill of complaint and to the motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order or, alternatively, for stay and administrative stay requested, due Thursday, December 10, by 3 pm.

    randian in reply to Rick. | December 8, 2020 at 10:00 pm

    That “laches” ruling was so bogus only a lawyer could approve of it. If suing before was premature because you haven’t been harmed, and suing after is too late, when should you be suing?

I ain’t time to really use it, but it might be time to start unloading that fourth box.

Katy L. Stamper | December 8, 2020 at 7:23 pm

Just saw on Gab, a copy of a twit by Jenna Ellis that SCOTUS denied injunction, but NOT CERT.

This may be true….

If so, briefs are due shortly!

Katy L. Stamper | December 8, 2020 at 7:26 pm

Here’s her twit


The Supreme Court only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the order, it did NOT deny cert.

’s suit is still pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Katy L. Stamper | December 8, 2020 at 7:31 pm

Then this response from a twerker on twit:

Replying to

Important point

is missing in PA suit:


hasn’t even *filed* a petition for certiorari in his case; he had sought an injunction pending a *future* appeal. So there was nothing else for #SCOTUS to deny.

Other than that though…

Based on the actions and behavior of the left the past few years, and their total abandonment of the rule of law, the “conservative” Justices probably should try gazing into their own futures IF biden/harris prevail. The left will steal the Senate and get rid of the filibuster, which will allow them to pack the court. Then the “conservative” Justices will be impeached. Their past rulings will be declared treason. After kangaroo court proceedings, off to the re-education camps they go (or out back for Summary you-know-what). Their families will suffer the same fate. I think Thomas can see this as more of a possibility than the others, but the one who KNOWS this is a likely outcome is Kavanaugh. The left has promised a purge of their political enemies. If they don’t protect the Constitution now, it will fall upon others, and they lose either way.

Ruling on PA changes nothing
The Texas case is something else
Perhaps they just want it streamlined

So what do we do and how do we organize? If we can’t depend on the institutions of gov’t and the republican party, how do we move forward on our own? Seems to me that the time to rely on someone else to do it are over. How do we start?

    From what Faux/Hannity is reporting with Greg Abbot being interviewed-The Tx multistate suit seems to address more issues.
    Could be the court didn’t want to shoot Biden down piecemeal, so had they granted it any resolution would be far down the road.

    Not sure the PA suit addressed the equal protection argument but Tx+ however many have joined does

    Let’s say I’m cautiously optimistic that I won’t have to conspire with my fellow patriots to see if the founders intent of the 2nd A was to thwart tyranny as there still appear to be other roads to pursue

      VaGentleman in reply to rduke007. | December 8, 2020 at 9:48 pm

      2A is a last resort. What can be done now, while there’s still a chance. How do we organize demonstrations, get our voice back into academia (k – phd), etc. We need to stop waiting for someone else to do it and take charge. We need to get used to the idea that politics is now full time and hands on if we want to keep our freedom. Where do we start? Who will lead?

        The Fussy Rabbit in reply to VaGentleman. | December 8, 2020 at 10:08 pm

        I’m sorry, you lost me at “How do we organize demonstrations…” We are way past the demonstrations stage. These legal challenges and demands of the legislators are our last CIVIL resort. I don’t savor the possibility of violence or war, but we are there now. The election is the last attempt at getting our voices heard CIVILLY. We were patient as our businesses were burned to the ground, our institutions made hostile to us, and our public fora barred from us. 2A is next.

          VaGentleman in reply to The Fussy Rabbit. | December 8, 2020 at 10:24 pm

          Who’s going to lead this glorious revolt? Or are you all going to try to work it out on the fly? Is there a plan? When do you declare victory? Who is your Washington to lead the troops?

          The relief from criminal charges for use of force in self defense is codified in the statutes of all 50 states.

          But it is far more likely the founders had tyranny in mind more than defense of one’s self when crafting the second amendment.

          I’m unaware of any statutory relief from use of force against tyranny and I suspect between RICO, other anti terror laws and the consistent liberal erosion of our liberty that any disparate action would be crushed.

          On the other hand, seven states have joined Texas in recognition of what has all appearances of a tyrannical coup and overthrow of our right to a lawful election.

          If a hot war is needed to right this at the end of the day, the odds of success are greatly increased if such action was initiated by a block of states, as opposed to a few well intentioned patriots going out in a blaze of glory.

          I don’t see these seven states laying down and crying uncle if SCOTUS abandons us

          The Fussy Rabbit in reply to The Fussy Rabbit. | December 9, 2020 at 9:46 pm

          @VaGentleman: Don’t know yet but probably not you.

          @rduke007: Defending against tyranny is the ultimate form of self-defense.

    jhkrischel in reply to VaGentleman. | December 9, 2020 at 9:22 am

    Sand. Gears. We need to drive the #MediaIndustrialComplex into oblivion.

In 2024, there will be 180 million ballots dumped at the post office. The media polling will be 99.9% accurate and they will tell us who the President will be a month before the election occurs.

Our civilization has failed; there is no justice to be found in the courts…

I feel so helpless. Like a potted plant. Too old and infirm to fight and can not travel to protest in the street. I just sit here and watch the fall of the republic unable to do anything about it but write a few letters and try to call my useless representatives. Now even voting is useless. When they throw out the Texas lawsuit then what? Glad that I grew up in a time of freedom and liberty. That is all gone now.
I guess they are trying to figger out a way not to get ‘packed’ by the democrats.

    GatorGuy in reply to Elzorro. | December 9, 2020 at 10:29 pm

    Your lot is a sympathetic one, Elzorro. I appreciate the grounds for your despair; and while your despair is, to be very sure, unfortunate, the good news is this: it’s very likely unnecessary.

    The USSC will neither dismiss the Texas case by not granting its petitioners cert, nor will the High Court, in granting the petitioners Certiorari, rule for the outlaw Respondent states, against Texas, along with the many other states that have joined the Lone Star.

    (By the way, to help cheer you up for the Holidays, catch the Lone Star State’s CD-2 representative tear another into existence in the wholly rotten body and soul of the House’s Speaker. She deserves every word, nuance, and decibel Rep Crenshaw cries out as he rises in revolt against all the current, Dem-led infamy, the attempt to tear down our great republic: )

    Rather, upon hearing Texas v WI, MI, PA, and GA’s merits argued by its petitioners before the Court, the Nine-Member tribunal will, in the end, hold the now-unauditable mail-in ballots in WI, MI, PA, and GA facially INVALID — with the upshot being as follows.

    Those respective numbers of unauditable mail-in ballots in all four of the abovementioned Respondent states shall not count toward the previously achieved and certified final tally of counted votes as doing so violates the rights, set forth in the US Constitution’s First and Fourteenth Amendments, of the Petitioner states’ electorate; and, therefore, the number of electoral college votes for each of the same four Respondent states shall be subtracted from the current total assigned to JB and allotted — not arbitrarily, but by all relevant law — instead, to, effectively satisfying the constitutional requirement to factually and legally reelect PDJT.

    This outcome, because it is prophesied, and unlike the electoral ways and means themselves, will come to pass. The above means is simply and readily a convenient, currently handy way there. Anyway, I believe the outcome will be realized, very likely via the present manner, and invite you to join the emerging groundswell of such belief.

      GatorGuy in reply to GatorGuy. | December 10, 2020 at 12:03 pm

      IMPRTANT UPDATE: My belief in the final outcome of this election stands.

      What now supersedes the “very likely” “ways and means” to that end, however, is the Plaintiff State, Texas’s, brief submitted “in support of its Motion for Leave to File a Bill of Complaint against” WI, MI, PA, and GA, the Defendant States, included very helpfully in the professor’s most recent article,

      Legal Civil War – 17 States Join Texas Lawsuit In Supreme Court Against PA, GA, MI, and WI
      Posted by William A. Jacobson Wednesday, December 9, 2020 at 6:30p

      I regret stating the previously posted, inaccurate information. I am guilty of an unfortunate instance of good will wrapped in haste and neglect.


Many times, I feel the same as you. Only thing I can do is to keep up on the events and pray for those that are on the front lines. I know that this might be an over used cliche, but I pray for the President, his legal team, and the week kneed republicans to grow a spine!

Don’t loose hope!

Close The Fed | December 9, 2020 at 3:56 am

Gentlemen, the Founding Fathers had many many leaders. It’s time for us, those that have the courage, to pick up the shield of battle and lead the march.

If you have the knowledge, the talent, and the wherewithal, now is the time to lead. If you have those things yet decline to lead, then you have no one to blame but yourself for the fall of the republic.

    Close The Fed in reply to Close The Fed. | December 9, 2020 at 3:58 am

    And I will add, that if you have those skills and talents yet you decline to lead, you are no better than the spineless legislators who duplicate your inactivity.

Close The Fed | December 9, 2020 at 5:26 am

Those of you that also frequent Ace of Spades Hdqtrs., know they have Mo’Me’s in person. These are social events.

I think it’s time for LI readers to establish at minimum an online connection off this site. The site is great for news, but not designed for networking and coordination of action.

The Telegram app has many privacy features and the ability to have up to 200,000 in a group. Since i just signed up, I don’t understand how it works yet, but other groups have used it very effectively.

I recommend we start a group or channel on Telegram, if we’re serious about working on a path forward. I don’t understand the important differences between channel or group yet; I believe group is much more private or perhaps it’s vice versa.

Regardless, you can find me there under user name CloseTheFed. It’s not case sensitive.

It seems to be high time that an exclusively Republican election official team finds a few boxes with “mail-in ballots” without a legible post mark. About 100k ballots with 99% Trump votes should do it.
While they are at it, how about 100% of those ballots go to the Republican Senate candidates?

After all, all ballots must be counted. And the PA Supreme Court has ordered every ballot found in such a manner must be presumed to be valid, legal, and on time.

Don’t tell me that would be fraud or suspect. We just were told all that is entirely irrelevant. Unless you can prove it.
And even if someone witnessed the act – that evidence need not be heard. After all, according to the new standards it is not evidence at all, it is hearsay.

On top of that, it would only affect the PA electors and therefore the Presidential election’s outcome cannot be affected. After all, PA doesn’t get 270 electors.

    felixrigidus in reply to felixrigidus. | December 9, 2020 at 8:26 am

    A couple of the PA was supposed to read GA – you figure out which is which while I lament the fact of the missing edit functionality…

Have or keep the faith.

PDJT is — ie, the reincarnation, or the worldly vehicle embodying the spirit, the metaphysical being of — the Biblical Esau, the Patriarch Jacob (Israel)’s once-estranged but later reconciled brother, according to a respected, rabbinic tradition and current eschatologist.

President Trump is foreordained both to be reelected and, in the end, triumph to sustain our republic, and to advance the faith of Jews and Christians faithful to Torah and Biblical Prophecy worldwide, but especially those in today’s Holy Land, the State of Israel. The Book of Daniel, and Jacob’s own prophetic words to Esau, found at Genesis 32-33, are key in this series of events, beginning with what will be perceived by his supporters, including the faithful, to be the president’s miraculous, but legitimate and well-earned reelection.

The God of the Patriarchs, YWHW, LORD, has this; it’s a wrap, I understand and believe. (S)He goes through these seemingly convoluted but actually intended detours and political gyrations — ie, letting the satanic Dems and JB in particular believe the 2020 election is in the bag, etc — for a bigger, more dramatic divine denouement. It’s Who (S)He is; it’s how (S)He acts in the world to remain preeminent.

Those in “in the know” know Trump’s alter-identity. I believe they’ve informed him. He really is fighting the ultimate, good fight against JB, who, and what, is actually a 5,780 year-old opponent, and his host of evildoers in the world.

Kids, it’s over. Don’t turn into this:

Those who pity the conservative SCOTUS Justices for the pressure and threats they’re under should think about the signers of our Declaration of Independence and what they had to go through at the hands of the British and Loyalists.

    The Fussy Rabbit in reply to RAM500. | December 9, 2020 at 9:43 pm

    Where is this pity coming from? They enjoy the utmost respect and distinction, and they are practically the only ones who will never lose their paycheck no matter what. I have no pity for them.

Seems there are quite a few other States joining the Texas action now. The more that join the harder it will be to ignore.

17 States have joined the action according to TGP (so take that with caution).

In this case, the only avenue left is for the President to invoke the Insurrection Act, declare limited Martial Law, and start cleaning this mess up with our military. Of course, this bypasses the corrupt judiciary at every level.

“since the U.S. Supreme Court denied injunctive relief as to the Pennsylvania certification in a separate case”

SCOTUS has not punted the Pennsylvania case. I believe it is still docketed and will move forward. It (and possibly other suits that are coming down the pike) may be joined with Texas v Pennsylvania et al and all issues are decided together.

It is important that they did not kick the Kelly/Parnell case because it specifically addresses lower level races in cheating states.

“Signals that there likely is almost no chance that the case filed by Texas today will get a favorable ruling, if SCOTUS rules at all ”

I see it differently. Not even comment or dissents were given, which is suspicious. IMHO I think this signals that they want to wrap it all in this Texas case, will hear it and acknowledge what is obvious: these state’s officials did violate their state laws, violated the Constitution and gave the red states the shaft. Trump wins on the case cleat merits.
OK, I’m not infallible but we’ll see.

    CMartel732 in reply to CMartel732. | December 10, 2020 at 5:50 pm

    Actually, Supreme Court only denied emergency injunctive relief. In the PA case, it did NOT deny cert. Still pending, but will be moot.