Davin News Server

On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 10:33:39 -0700,  Alan says...  

> > No... there was plenty produced and subsequently thrown out by liberal judges.
> 
> Give a single example.

I can't... give a single example, liberal. 

The problem is not a lack of evidence supporting Trump's allegations. Rather, 
it's that judges across the United States have refused to even look at the 
evidence, and have instead dismissed case after case based on legal 
technicalities.

This argument really came into focus last Friday, when the US Supreme Court 
REJECTED a lawsuit from Texas Attorney-General Ken Paxton.

Mr Trump had largely pinned his hopes of overturning the election result on 
that lawsuit, which he labeled "the big one" and "the case everyone has been 
waiting for".

Reacting to the Supreme Court's decision, Mr Trump said it had "zero interest 
in the merits" of Mr Paxton's case and had "chickened out" of considering them. 

"We've not gotten any court to judge this on its merit," he said on December 
12, quoting Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick.

"WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT IN OUR PROOF. They say you don't have standing," he 
told Fox Business in an interview on November 29. 

Mr Trump's lawyers have echoed this argument, repeatedly insisting the evidence 
proving fraud exists and they merely need a chance to present it.

"What we have asked for in court is to not have the certification of false 
results. And so to say, 'Hold on a minute, we have evidence that we will 
present to the court.' We haven't had an opportunity yet to present that to the 
court," Rudy Giuliani said during his rather famous media conference on 
November 19.

You get the picture. So, is Mr Trump's explanation correct? Have judges really 
refused to hear the evidence?

What I'm going to do here is walk you through the key judgments from the last 
six weeks, examining whether or not judges at federal and state level 
considered the merits of the President's allegations before throwing out each 
lawsuit.

THE SUPREME COURT

Let's start with the Supreme Court's decision on Friday, for which the answer 
is an unambiguous no.

"The state of Texas's motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied 
for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution," the court said in 
a brief order shutting down the case.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in 
which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are 
dismissed as moot."

That order says nothing at all about the merits of Mr Paxton's voter fraud 
claims, which were broadly the same as Mr Trump's.

Some context is required here. When a plaintiff files a lawsuit - and this is 
not just true of election cases, by the way - they must convince the court that 
they have a right under the law to do so. The legal term for this is 
"standing".

If the plaintiff does not have that right, the case fails at the first hurdle 
and everything else becomes irrelevant. That is what happened here.

Texas was trying to sue four other states - Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and 
Wisconsin - over their handling of mail-in ballots for the presidential 
election.

Under the US Constitution, however, each state gets to decide how it runs its 
own election. Texas might not like how, say, Pennsylvania chooses to do things, 
but legally it has no say on the matter. The only way to challenge 
Pennsylvania's rules is from within Pennsylvania.

This works both ways. Democrats in California, for example, could not sue Texas 
for something like voter suppression. It's none of their business.

=====

Liberals Are Wimps (New Study Shocks Scientifc Community... 

https://freedomwire.com/liberals-are-wimps-new-study-shocks-scientific- 
community/ 

Liberal men are physically smaller and weaker than conservative men - and it's 
measurable. 

===== 

Vice Admits Liberal Men are Weaker, Less Attractive than... 

https://phillipschneider.com/vice-admits-liberal-men-are-weaker-less- 
attractive-than-conservatives/ 

Vice Admits Liberal Men are Weaker, Less Attractive than Conservatives By 
Phillip Schneider on August 11, 2020 ( Leave a comment ) While the flames of 
the culture war rage, even far-left media publication Vice admits that liberal 
men are weaker and less competent than conservatives. 

===== 

TRUTH: Why Liberals Are WEAKER Than Conservatives 
https://thefederalistpapers.org/us/truth-liberals-weaker-conservatives 

TRUTH: Why Liberals Are WEAKER Than Conservatives. Speaking of weak liberals, 
who can't even stand the sight of history: Texas Restaurant Defending 
Controversial Sign Some Are Calling Racist - by Robert Gehl. A Texas restaurant 
is under attack on social media for what many are calling its racist décor. The 
neon sign hung at Cook's Garage... 

===== 

Science Proves That Liberals Are Crazier Than Conservatives 

https://freedomwire.com/liberals-are-crazy/ 

Well, I recently came across a fantastic article about another study of 
Liberals - except this time, instead of focusing on the weak males, it focuses 
on the average Liberal woman instead. A Ph.D. candidate at Georgia State 
University has analyzed the data out of a recent Pew Research Center poll, and 
the results are amazing. 

===== 

Shocker: Study Shows Physically Weak Men Tend to be Liberal 

https://redstate.com/terichristoph/2017/05/26/shocker-study-shows-physically- 
weak-men-tend-to-be-liberal-n72373 

Shocker: Study Shows Physically Weak Men Tend to be Liberal. In news that will 
surprise absolutely no one, a new study reveals that girly men are more likely 
to favor socialist policies. The study, conducted by researchers at Brunel 
University London, looked at the height, weight, physical strength, and bicep 
circumference of 171 men, along... 

===== 

Liberalism Breeds Soft, Weak, Young "Men" - Louder With... 

https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/liberalism-breeds-soft-weak-young-men 

by Steven Crowder I know some of you think when I say "liberalism breeds weak, 
fat men," that I'm merely politicizing an issue to be polarizing. I assure you 
that's not the case. Allow me five hundred words to make my case. I was a 
chubby kid. Strike that, I was a jiggly shrimp. Skinny-fat. The kind of kid who 
was relatively thin, yet managed to ma 

===== 

Why Liberals Are So Physically Monstrous And Repulsive... 

https://www.returnofkings.com/118536/why-liberals-are-so-physically-monstrous- 
and-repulsive 

Liberals are not born uglier. They voluntarily remain ugly or become uglier to 
fit a narrative. "Appearance is ideology". It takes a special kind of hypocrisy 
to call something that is universally seen as ugly "beautiful" and vice-versa. 

===== 

Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic 

https://nypost.com/2016/06/09/science-says-liberal-beliefs-are-linked-to- 
pyschotic-traits/ 

Jun 9, 2016 Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians. A political-science 
journal that published an oft-cited study claiming conservatives were more 
likely to show traits associated with "psychoticism"... 

===== 

12 Reasons Why Liberals And Progressives Will Always Be... 

https://www.returnofkings.com/100887/12-reasons-why-liberals-and-progressives- 
will-always-be-losers 

Liberal men however are inexcusable, they are either effeminate enough to be 
emotionally manipulated or are weak and yielding to social pressures. December 
10, 2016 Take The Red Pill Don't forget that Liberal men are usually the 
offspring of domineering feminists or divorced feminists and sometimes single 
mothers. 

===== 

Men With Weak Upper Bodies Tend to Be Liberal - Physically Strong Men Tend to 
Be Conservative 

Men who are physically strong are more likely to take a right wing political 
stance, while weaker men are inclined to support the welfare state, according 
to a new study. 

Researchers discovered political motivations may have evolutionary links to 
physical strength. 

Men's upper-body strength predicts their political opinions on economic 
redistribution, according to the research. 

The principal investigators - psychological scientists Michael Bang Petersen, 
of Aarhus University in Denmark, and Daniel Sznycer, of the University of 
California in the U.S., believe that the link may reflect psychological traits 
that evolved in response to our early ancestral environments and continue to 
influence behavior today. 

Professor Petersen said: 'While many think of politics as a modern phenomenon, 
it has - in a sense - always been with our species.' 

In the days of our early ancestors, decisions about the distribution of 
resources were not made in courthouses or legislative offices, but through 
shows of strength. 

With this in mind, Professor Petersen and Professor Sznycer hypothesized that 
upper-body strength - a proxy for the ability to physically defend or acquire 
resources - would predict men's opinions about the redistribution of wealth.