3 ms·
Yes, this is the argument... and the courts keep rejecting it. As the rulings keep pointing out, you can't tell people they can vote one way, and then challenge
by cortesoft 6y ago
Yes, this is the argument... and the courts keep rejecting it. As the rulings keep pointing out, you can't tell people they can vote one way, and then challenge it after they have already voted. It doesn't matter if it might be against some rules; the time to challenge was before people voted.
- logicslave 6y agoLook if 20 states are claiming it, its not news that you can censor. You can censor half the government
- ekianjo 6y agoThe courts keep rejecting it because they dont want to take responsibility and see the country in riots. As simple as that.
- jcranmer 6y agoCourts can't reject a case because they don't want to hear it (except for SCOTUS, although Thomas and Alito would argue they don't have that right for original jurisdiction). In order to reject a case, the case has to be lacking in merit or procedurally deficient. That so many of the cases have been rejected due to their procedural deficiencies should be in an indication of the quality of the legal teams pressing the issues. (Note that rejecting for procedural deficiencies doesn't mean that the court approves of the merits of the case, it just means that the court also doesn't want to decide the merits. Although if you piss it off hard enough, they will also go own to berate you on why your claims lack merit in addition to enumerating procedural deficiencies).
- GreenHeuristics 6y agoIf you challenge it before hand you have no damages to base a case on.