monitoring Trump and relevant contemporary events

Yes, Trump's fault. Period.

Is The President Our Daddy Who’s Supposed To Keep Us Healthy?

This should not have to be said, and won’t be well received by those relieved that America will have a “mommy” again in Jill Biden, but the president is not our father. It’s not his job to keep us healthy, to make personal decisions for us, to protect us from disease. We are not Washington’s children, and the government, from the White House and U.S. Capitol down to the smallest town, is not our nanny.

The president is our leader when we are threatened by outside forces, when we were attacked at Pearl Harbor and Lower Manhattan and Arlington, Virginia. But when someone says “who’s your daddy,” the answer is never the president, no matter which party he aligns with.

funny, that's the nearly universal opinion of your posts, except for your one or two partners in lunacy.

Sidney Powell to Appeal Dismissal of Georgia Lawsuit

The legal team led by former federal prosecutor Sidney Powell will appeal the dismissal of the Georgia election lawsuit by a federal judge on Dec. 7.

Powell told The Epoch Times in an email that they “will proceed as fast as possible to the Supreme Court.”

AZ Legislators To Call For Decertification Of Election

Republican Arizona lawmakers said in a press release Sunday they will make a joint statement addressing the “urgent need” to decertify the state’s 2020 election results.

The group of 28 state Republican legislative members and members-elect, including Arizona House Majority Leader Warren Petersen, will announce Monday their view that the number of fraud allegations warrant an investigation.

“The election should not have been certified with the number of irregularities and allegations of fraud. Especially troubling to me are the allegations surrounding the vendor Dominion,” Petersen said in the press release. “It is imperative that a forensic audit occur immediately of the equipment and software. Upon any showing of fraud the legislature should immediately convene to decertify the vote.”

No. It's the finely honed ability to recognize batshit crazy when we hear it after four years of trumpian horse pucky. the real group think is the mindless roars of approval at the at-least-one-lie-a-minute trump rallies, and the baseless embrace of those lies by the trumpies here.

the epoch times, now there's a reputable news outlet. NOT. SCOTUS will not give her the time of day.. They're not real big on conspiracy theorists, and they look at cases where courts divide in their opinions, and forty or so to sero is no indication of divided courts.

The U.S. Supreme Court moved up a key deadline Sunday for Pennsylvania officials to respond to a last-minute bid by one of Trump’s top boosters in Congress to decertify the state’s elections results.

Previously, Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who oversees emergency matters arising out of Pennsylvania for the court,had given state election administrators until Wednesday to file their response to the appeal from U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R., Butler), who has argued that Pennsylvania’s vote-by-mail law is unconstitutional and that every mail ballot cast in the state should be thrown out.

But on Sunday, Alito moved the schedule in Kelly’s case up by a day, ordering state officials to respond by 9 a.m. Tuesday instead.

The difference of just a day is significant given that the previous deadline of Wednesday fell one day after what is known as the “safe harbor date,” the federal cutoff date for states to resolve any remaining election disputes and lock in their slate of electors for the Dec. 14 Electoral College vote.

Many legal observers read Alito’s initial selection of Dec. 9 as a sign that the court had no intention of acting on the Kelly’s case in a way that would interfere with Pennsylvania awarding its 20 electoral votes to President-elect Joe Biden.

Still, experts said it remains unlikely that the wider Supreme Court will be persuaded to take up Kelly’s appeal, given that the remedy it seeks — disenfranchising millions of Pennsylvania voters — is so drastic.

“I would not read too much into this,” said Richard L. Hasen, an election law professor at the University of California-Irvine, in a post on his blog Sunday. “It shows more respect to the petitioners [Kelly], and does not make it look like the court is simply running out the clock on the petition. I still think the chances the court grants any relief on this particular petition are virtually zero.”

It just gets worse as credible information breaks.

Brad Heath
@bradheath
·
3m
Replying to
@bradheath
Four of Powell's main exhibits "are 'expert' analyses conducted by anonymous individuals whose credentials - or even existence - cannot be tested or assessed." One is an analysis of election technology by a person claiming to have a degree on physiology.

BREAKING: Ted Cruz to argue the Pennsylvania election case before the Supreme Court

If the Supreme Court takes up the Pennsylvania election case from Congressman Mike Kelly and Sean Parnell, Senator Ted Cruz will be the one arguing the case before the high court
Ted Cruz last week urged the high court to take up the case:

It just gets worse as credible information breaks.

Brad Heath
@bradheath
·
3m
Replying to
@bradheath
Four of Powell's main exhibits "are 'expert' analyses conducted by anonymous individuals whose credentials - or even existence - cannot be tested or assessed." One is an analysis of election technology by a person claiming to have a degree on physiology.

Arizona Supreme Court agrees to hear election challenge case

Unlike Pennsylvania, the Arizona Supreme Court doesn’t sound like an activist court:

The Arizona Supreme Court is composed of seven justices appointed by the governor from a list of proposed nominees derived by a bipartisan commission.

Two of the current justices were appointed by former Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, while five others were appointed by current Gov. Doug Ducey, a Republican.

According to KTAR news, there won’t be any oral arguments:

The Supreme Court confirmed receipt of the case Monday and said it would decide the matter without oral argument.

The parties were ordered to file simultaneous briefs of no longer than 3,000 words and an appendix with their exhibits by noon Monday.