Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Hello and thank you for being a DL contributor. We are changing the login scheme for contributors for simpler login and to better support using multiple devices. Please click here to update your account with a username and password.

Hello. Some features on this site require registration. Please click here to register for free.

Hello and thank you for registering. Please complete the process by verifying your email address. If you can't find the email you can resend it here.

Hello. Some features on this site require a subscription. Please click here to get full access and no ads for $1.99 or less per month.

The Supremes say "Stop In the Name of Law"

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected efforts by President Donald Trump and his allies to get the court to quickly consider challenges to President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the November election, effectively shutting the door on the president’s last-ditch legal strategy to overturn his defeat.

The court released an order in the morning denying expedited consideration to suits filed by Trump’s campaign challenging election procedures in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

It similarly denied a request from the conservative conspiracy theorist L. Lin Wood to expedite his challenge to the election in Georgia, as well as other suits filed by Trump allies.

As far as they're concerned, it's over.

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 801/11/2021

This is the best part:

There were no noted dissents from any of the court’s nine justices.

by Anonymousreply 101/11/2021

Not even Amy Covid Barnum?

After all I did for that bitch!

by Anonymousreply 201/11/2021

These little cases are meant to give the court credibility, a smokescreen for when they make the only ruling that matters. The big lie. That, because of social unrest and the previously declared National Emergency, Trump had legal authority to invoke Article 2 or War Powers or TJMax powers or whatever else the fuck he wants to do. GOPigs will say, "Dems can't claim the court is impartial, they ruled against him 5 times." Their plan is going swimmingly. The most important part of this plan is widespread violence. Or, maybe he'll invite an attack by Russia or Iran or false flag. Something that they have planned well in advance.

Just ask yourself, what would Hitler do after a successful attack on the central government?

Encourage your supporters. Check

Explain Nothing. Check

Silence critics of your own party. Check

Do the same thing again on a larger scale. In progress..

by Anonymousreply 301/11/2021

By January 1933, German politics was in a tailspin—unemployment had hit 24%, with 6 million out of work. A new government was desperately needed. After a series of clandestine meetings of behind-the-scenes political players in a posh Berlin villa, Hitler emerged as the secret choice to be appointed chancellor by President Paul von Hindenburg.

However, the secret arrangement depended on a delicately balanced, multi-party cabinet. Then, just hours before his scheduled swearing in by President Hindenburg, the Nazi leader demanded that his prospective cabinet ministers agree to new elections within six weeks—a move that would affirm the Nazis’ hold on power

Offsite Link
by Anonymousreply 401/11/2021

Ginni Thomas couldn't get Clarence to deliver the Court?

She's behind the insurrection movement.

by Anonymousreply 501/11/2021

Ginni Thomas couldn't get Clarence to deliver the Court?

She's behind the insurrection movement.

I was thinking that too! If Clarence offers to throw the January SC potluck at his house - say no everyone (except for you, Amy Covid Barrett)

by Anonymousreply 601/11/2021

[quote] There were no noted dissents from any of the court’s nine justices.

Wait, count again, that can't be right.

by Anonymousreply 701/11/2021

I remember when the term ‘media circus’ was an idiom, now it’s literal.

by Anonymousreply 801/11/2021
Need more help? Click Here.

Yes indeed, we too use "cookies." Don't you just LOVE clicking on these things on every single site you visit? I know we do! You can thank the EU parliament for making everyone in the world click on these pointless things while changing absolutely nothing. If you are interested you can take a look at our privacy/terms or if you just want to see the damn site without all this bureaucratic nonsense, click ACCEPT and we'll set a dreaded cookie to make it go away. Otherwise, you'll just have to find some other site for your pointless bitchery needs.


Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!