Of course I finally found someone else who likes imperial stout out here now that they have moved away to a free state.

It’s hard to find stouts of any type in a place where it is warm year round. Stouts unfortunately have been wrongfully labeled as cold weather beers. Stouts and porters and strong dark ales are all I drink BTW. Should you should ever be out this way I’ll take you over to the deli which has an amazing selection of beers and wine and great food! Your eyes will bug out at the selection. My newest beers are German Smoked Beers. Really 😋.

Wisconsin Supreme Court case…

https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/12/wisconsin-supreme-court-hears-trump-lawsuit/6521387002/?utm_campaign=snd-autopilot

Deep Divisions In Wisconsin

MADISON – The state Supreme Court showed deep divisions Saturday as it contemplated a final push by President Donald Trump to throw out Democrat Joe Biden’s narrow win in Wisconsin.

The three liberals on the state’s high court showed extreme skepticism toward Trump’s arguments. Three conservatives showed some support for at least parts of his claims.

Unclear were the views of Justice Brian Hagedorn, who was elected last year with the support of Republicans but has sided at times with the liberals. He joined the liberals last week in turning down three other challenges to Wisconsin’s election results.

In the latest case, the justices are expected to rule before the Electoral College meets at noon Monday.

Trump brought a lawsuit directly to the state Supreme Court, but the justices rejected it on a 4-3 vote last week, saying he should start in lower court.

Trump then filed a new challenge and Reserve Judge Stephen Simanek on Friday ruled against Trump, saying officials had run a fair election that was free of widespread fraud and misconduct.

Hours later, Trump appealed and asked the Supreme Court to take up the case rather than have it go to the Court of Appeals. The justices agreed to take the case and scheduled Saturday’s arguments.

Trump attorney Jim Troupis argued several election practices in Wisconsin — some of them long-standing — were illegal. He said voting was tainted by fraud, but the fraud was perpetrated by clerks and poll workers rather than voters. “This whole case is about fraud,” Troupis says. “The statutes are in place because they presume if you do not follow them there is fraud.”

He faced tough questioning from the court’s liberals, who said it was unfair for him to try to eliminate more than 220,000 ballots in the state’s most populous counties while letting stand ballots that were cast in the same ways in other counties.

“This lawsuit, Mr. Troupis, smacks of racism,” Justice Jill Karofsky said.

“This isn’t about the amount of money that this recount cost,” she said. “This is about disenfranchising voters in two counties, and only two counties, in the state of Wisconsin.”

Karofsky won a seat on the court this year. She said before the election she would never vote for Trump, saying there were so many reasons she opposed him she didn’t know where to start.

Troupis argued clerks were wrong to fill in the addresses of witnesses on absentee ballot envelopes, and Justices Rebecca Bradley and Annette Ziegler showed sympathy for those concerns.

Wisconsin Supreme Court case…

So they do not need to look at evidence because according to them the remedy Trump is seeking is racist? It seems like the Judges are all terrified of some sort of retribution and it is preventing them from allowing any sort of due process.

There is no link at CFP to either an original article or the decision itself...

Wisconsin judge, appointed by Trump, dismisses election lawsuit…

A federal judge in Wisconsin on Saturday dismissed a lawsuit filed by President Donald Trump against the state elections commission.

The judge in the case, Brett Ludwig, who was appointed by Trump to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, held a hearing where the president’s lawyers made their arguments to set aside the result of the state’s popular election.

“This is an extraordinary case,” wrote Ludwig in his decision Saturday.

“A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred.”

“This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits,” the judge wrote. In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed’ …. It has been,” the judge continued.

Ludwig dismissed the lawsuit “with prejudice".

Trump’s lawyers had argued that guidance issued by the Wisconsin Elections Commission related to absentee ballots, “along with election officials’ conduct in reliance on that guidance,” deviated so much from state election law “that the election was itself a ‘failure,’ ” Ludwig wrote.

But Ludwig wrote that Trump “has not proved that defendants violated his rights under the Electors Clause. To the contrary, the record shows Wisconsin’s Presidential Electors are being determined in the very manner directed by the Legislature, as required by Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution,” the judge said.

I watched the first hour and last 2 hours of that "hearing".  The judge, after asking if there were any more statements anyone on the video call wanted to make said, "I'm ready to make my ruling."  He then read from about 5-8 pages of his "ruling," words that were obviously authored and edited long before the hearing began. 

In effect, nothing the judge "heard" that day was part of the hearing OTHER THAN the comments the judge himself made while discussing the statements of the other participants -- words taken directly from his ruling.

The only legal issue that the judge apparently focused on was the recount of 2 counties that Trump paid to have recounted.  Even though the witnesses described horrible instances of GOP Observer harassment, observers being kept farther back from the ballots being counted than where they could see, and dozens of other stories of fraud and tampering, the judge was hyper-focused on 2 counties to look for evidence of fraud -- not the state as a whole.

Yeah.  The hearing had as much honor, integrity and accuracy as the crooked election.

Powell Asks Supreme Court to Immediately Order States Decertify Election Results

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/powell-asks-supreme-court-to-immediately-order-states-to-decertify-election-results_3616170.html

I highly doubt the SCOTUS will oblige Powell in her attempt here. But this is still relevant to this thread. It is interesting to note that this lawsuit is being brought by the people which challenges SCOTUS denial of the states not having standing. Because if the states don’t have standing, the only other entity that does is the people. So if SCOTUS is not hypocritical they will hear this case. But I think they will wuss out like they did on the Texas lawsuit. It remains to be seen what excuse they will use...

Also, more lawsuits have been filed at the state supreme courts based on the SCOTUS denial to hear the texas lawsuit. I doubt any of these will have traction either.

Powell Asks Supreme Court to Immediately Order States Decertify Election Results

https://link.theepochtimes.com/mkt_app/powell-asks-supreme-court-to-immediately-order-states-to-decertify-election-results_3616170.html

I highly doubt the SCOTUS will oblige Powell in her attempt here. But this is still relevant to this thread. It is interesting to note that this lawsuit is being brought by the people which challenges SCOTUS denial of the states not having standing. Because if the states don’t have standing, the only other entity that does is the people. So if SCOTUS is not hypocritical they will hear this case. But I think they will wuss out like they did on the Texas lawsuit. It remains to be seen what excuse they will use...

Also, more lawsuits have been filed at the state supreme courts based on the SCOTUS denial to hear the texas lawsuit. I doubt any of these will have traction either.

If a state ignores its constitutional election rules doesn’t it  disenfranchise the voters in other states? Why would the Texas suit not have standing?

If a state ignores its constitutional election rules doesn’t it  disenfranchise the voters in other states? Why would the Texas suit not have standing?

"Texas has not generated a judicially cognizable interest." Any other questions?

If a state ignores its constitutional election rules doesn’t it  disenfranchise the voters in other states? Why would the Texas suit not have standing?

Puna answered your question best. I just want to add that I think it was denied because they really don’t want to get involved in state elections. So they took the easy way out. I know Alito and Thomas were itching to get at this lawsuit. Some are guessing that SCOTUS was sending the states a message that they better get their shit together and take care of the election fraud themselves. But since the denial was not stated that way it is hard to tell if they meant to convey that.

The one thing that is clear, that they didn’t say anything about the evidence presented so in essence leaving it open that they might consider the evidence if presented in a different way or from some entity with the proper standing. Otherwise if they thought the evidence had no merit they would have stated that as well so it would not be presented again (with prejudice). So there is always that train of thought. This may explain why the Trump legal team filed a bunch more lawsuits at the state Supreme Court level right after SCOTUS denied hearing the Texas suit. If I had to guess I would think they were prepared for the lawsuit to be denied. By presenting the same evidence as the Texas suit on to the state supreme courts it puts pressure on the states to actually hear the cases because if they don’t or rule against Trump then it goes back to SCOTUS which has left the evidence portion without comment. Meaningr they might be open to hearing the evidence on a state by state basis from the people.

This is all very speculative so take it with a grain of salt.

Puna answered your question best. I just want to add that I think it was denied because they really don’t want to get involved in state elections. So they took the easy way out. I know Alito and Thomas were itching to get at this lawsuit. Some are guessing that SCOTUS was sending the states a message that they better get their shit together and take care of the election fraud themselves. But since the denial was not stated that way it is hard to tell if they meant to convey that.

The one thing that is clear, that they didn’t say anything about the evidence presented so in essence leaving it open that they might consider the evidence if presented in a different way or from some entity with the proper standing. Otherwise if they thought the evidence had no merit they would have stated that as well so it would not be presented again (with prejudice). So there is always that train of thought.

This is all very speculative so take it with a grain of salt.

I also am thinking that it was SCOTUS's way of saying get your shit together and take care of this issue yourselves.

But I also think SCOTUS acted cowardly, gutless, and took the easy way out.

Was it Pennsylvania's supreme court that shot down a lawsuit about officials overriding the state's legislature as far as election procedures and implemented new procedures without legislature approval.  I think this rejection is a slap to the face of all state legislatures and I cannot comprehend why the court rejected the lawsuit.

It just scares me when I see these events unfolding.  What scares me the most lately is seeing kamala's smiling face in my mind and her irritating voice.  joe doesn't scare me as much.  He's an idiot.

Puna answered your question best. I just want to add that I think it was denied because they really don’t want to get involved in state elections. So they took the easy way out. I know Alito and Thomas were itching to get at this lawsuit. Some are guessing that SCOTUS was sending the states a message that they better get their shit together and take care of the election fraud themselves. But since the denial was not stated that way it is hard to tell if they meant to convey that.

The one thing that is clear, that they didn’t say anything about the evidence presented so in essence leaving it open that they might consider the evidence if presented in a different way or from some entity with the proper standing. Otherwise if they thought the evidence had no merit they would have stated that as well so it would not be presented again (with prejudice). So there is always that train of thought. This may explain why the Trump legal team filed a bunch more lawsuits at the state Supreme Court level right after SCOTUS denied hearing the Texas suit. If I had to guess I would think they were prepared for the lawsuit to be denied. By presenting the same evidence as the Texas suit on to the state supreme courts it puts pressure on the states to actually hear the cases because if they don’t or rule against Trump then it goes back to SCOTUS which has left the evidence portion without comment. Meaningr they might be open to hearing the evidence on a state by state basis from the people.

This is all very speculative so take it with a grain of salt.

I also am thinking that it was SCOTUS's way of saying get your shit together and take care of this issue yourselves.

But I also think SCOTUS acted cowardly, gutless, and took the easy way out.

Was it Pennsylvania's supreme court that shot down a lawsuit about officials overriding the state's legislature as far as election procedures and implemented new procedures without legislature approval.  I think this rejection is a slap to the face of all state legislatures and I cannot comprehend why the court rejected the lawsuit.

It just scares me when I see these events unfolding.  What scares me the most lately is seeing kamala's smiling face in my mind and her irritating voice.  joe doesn't scare me as much.  He's an idiot.

Here's my opinion (equally as worthless as all others):

The SCOTUS majority (being either cowards or heavily intimidated one way or another) is going to punt or kick at every opportunity to intervene in this series of "irregularities", they are NOT going to play smashmouth and run  the ball up the center  of the field every time, or any time.

Her's one take on the intimidation angle:

Dick Morris: Dems Preemptively 'Intimidated' SCOTUS on Packing

https://www.newsmax.com/newsmax-tv/court-packing-scotus-democrats-intimidation/2020/12/12/id/1001231/

All the campaign talk about packing the Supreme Court, if not term limits on justices, was by design in the Democrats' election playbook to "intimidate," according presidential strategist Dick Morris on Newsmax TV.

"The Supreme Court is after justice, of course, but primarily they are after making sure the Supreme Court survives – that's their institution and that's their duty," Morris told Saturday's "The Count." "I believe the Supreme Court was sent a message by Joe Biden and Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party during the election.

"And the message was: 'If you overturn this election, we will pack you, and make your Court basically meaningless."

[I'm pretty sure they're gonna try to do that anyway, if they have the Senate confirmation votes... so... I don't get it... how can you be intimidated by the inevitable, when you're only chance to avoid the apparently inevitable is to litigate on the merits?]

Here's my opinion (equally as worthless as all others):

I’m glad I’m not the only that realizes that. The pissant seems to think what he says is worth more than everyone else’s opinions. He’s too stupid to realize no one wants to hear from him. 

I’m glad I’m not the only that realizes that. The pissant seems to think what he says is worth more than everyone else’s opinions.

Well, I bet he/she has more participation trophies than you, and a lot more gold stars and award ribbons.   His/her self esteem is boundless.

What I see is the US Supreme Court doesn't want to tell the states HOW to handle their elections, but they also are refusing to enforce the CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that the LEGISLATURES of the states, not the Governors, Secretaries of State, or State Supreme Courts, have the power to choose electors. 

If the Legislatures relied on a State Constitution or state statutes to dictate the method of selection, and then they violated that process, who do the people go to for that to be fixed?  in the SCOTUS Justices' minds, you run to the state.  The problem with that is, you're asking ELECTED OFFICIALS to not only agree that the elections are rigged (or at the very least capable of being rigged), and that the election in question was bogus.

Elected officials in office today where the process has always been known to be corrupt might be reluctant to bring into question not only their election wins, but those wins of other candidates that were sketchy.

The politicians who benefited from a corrupt election system are not about to bite the hand that feeds them -- fed them in past elections AND may well feed them again in future elections.

When evidence of fraud, which is a crime, cannot find a judicial venue to be heard it means there is a criminal class that is above the law.

When evidence of fraud, which is a crime, cannot find a judicial venue to be heard it means there is a criminal class that is above the law.

Agreed.  It is called the government. Those that rule it, those that run it, and those that trust it( and have really good lawyers).

When trumps judge picks dismiss cases i was hoping maybe you all might start to figure out it isn't because evil democrats. That the cases might actually not have merit.... but it appears that's not the case.  I guess everyone but yall are in on the conspiracy.   

Hard to believe there is anyone who is interested in the evidence that hasn't found it, but just in case, from Emmy-award winning former CBS investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson. Plenty of live links to the original documents or accounts.

https://sharylattkisson[dot]com/2020/11/what-youve-been-asking-for-a-fairly-complete-list-of-some-of-the-most-significant-claims-of-2020-election-miscounts-errors-or-fraud/

What you've been asking for: A (fairly) complete list of (some of) the most significant claims of 2020 election miscounts, errors or fraud.

When trumps judge picks dismiss cases i was hoping maybe you all might start to figure out it isn't because evil democrats. That the cases might actually not have merit.... but it appears that's not the case.  I guess everyone but yall are in on the conspiracy.

What do you have against conservatives and the 2a community that makes you want to keep coming back here and acting like a jackass? Did someone wearing camo pick on you in high school or something?

When trumps judge picks dismiss cases i was hoping maybe you all might start to figure out it isn't because evil democrats. That the cases might actually not have merit.... but it appears that's not the case.  I guess everyone but yall are in on the conspiracy.

Kav & Barret didn't dismiss the case,  so by your logic still get chance

One third of all Americans believe there was voter fraud.  Of the republicans that voted, 70% believe the election was rigged.  One poll revealed 30% of democrats that voted believe there was voter fraud.

Now that SCOTUS and the Pennsylvania supreme court refused to hear the cases it will incite a permanent dissatisfaction and mistrust in the election system.

This dissatisfaction and mistrust will stew and only get worse moving forward.

The courts did a grave disservice to the people of America.

And to the leaders of our country who show disdain and contempt to those of us fighting the 2020 election:  We are not trying to disrupt the democratic process.  We are actually trying to preserve it.  We are fighting not because we hate America.  But because we love it.