This is true.
Nope. It's all true. The fact that one judge thought she should have filed her case before the election doesn't show that the other judges who ruled in her favor don't exist. The matter is currently being appealed up the chain as appropriate.
I never said any of it was untrue did I?
I said the last judge found that they didn’t have standing in a federal court. This is an extremely reasonable and accurate position and will mean that any higher appeal to a federal court will be rejected. I know you won’t believe me, so just wait and see. State appeals are done and although she might spend the time appealing to SCOTUS the likelihood that they all of a sudden find standing where none was before is vanishingly small.
Tumeni just said there was nothing to deny, not that it was rejected. Seems like you agree.
Tunemi said that the case was rejected by the Supreme Court. It was not.
Not in the portion you quoted but regardless, you are scrambling to find a justification. Safe Harbour is passed and the case was already laughable in that it’s well established that State SC’s have ultimate authority over State statutes. If that principle were the crux of the case it MIGHT have been heard by SCOTUS, but it’s not, laches are the crux of the case and on that basis, the case was ruled against.
Now we wait to see if the Texas suit will be heard (it probably will) and then watch as it’s dismissed for lack of standing.
EDIT: The PA case asked SCOTUS to treat the request for injunctive relief as ceritori.
https://mobile.twitter.com/stevenmazie/status/1336511573234429954/photo/1So it looks like the case has been rejected at this time.
EDIT the 2nd (So as to please Honk): A bunch of lawyers talking about either how fucking dumb the Texas suit is, or how its a Chinese communist plot.
https://www.law.com/2020/12/08/no-chance-of-success-lawyers-demolishes-ken-paxtons-latest-election-lawsuit/?slreturn=20201109104747