It literally says "order in pending case". Denying an application for injunctive relief in a pending case doesn't exactly sound like a dismissal of the case itself to me. You have to admit, the fact that there's no reasoning for their decision yet makes more sense this way...Someone should tell r/conservative that ain't it...
The traffic court lawyer who hasn't paid her bar fees has spoken, y'all.
If anyone "has to admit", it is you, Xarog, and what you have to admit is called "defeat".
Nope, sorry it really is over.
Remember, Jenna is going on faith.
Sure.No, that's just the excuse you came up with to avoid having to address the issue. But that's okay, that sort of attitude will come in handy, later.
Indeed, one alleges fraud in specific areas where evidence supports such a conclusion and an explanation for the statistical anomalies that the result presents is conspicuously lacking.
Nonsense. You can say it a million times, but it will remain as much a figment of your imagination as ever.
Except that the political process has stalled out regarding this very issue because one side treats meaningful reform as an attempt to engage in voter disenfranchisement, and I expect if we do a search on voter ID laws and your handle, we will indeed find that you have repeated those same talking points in the past.
If your puerile responses to the matter ever stooped to low as to actually respond to the allegations on the substance of their merits, maybe your retort would be worth something. But you're just another partisan hack repeating talking points you don't even fully understand.
Oh brother. Assuming that this is true, that does not in any way prejudice the merits of the case, rather it implies that the submission itself has a procedural deficit that is eminently rectifiable.
Except the dispute is exactly that the votes were not legal, proving your bad faith engagement yet again.
Says the guy who can't explain all the statistical anomalies and historical tells that wildly misjudged the mark with no explanation for the collective 1 in a bazillion chance outcome aside from more "orange man bad".
No, not only. But it is rather convenient, and I make no apologies for hamming it up.
Well time runs out ... today.
Your denial borders on delusion.
According to some arguments. I have seen no refutations of the arguments that argue otherwise, to date.
Again, painting a whole slew of cases brought by multiple parties with the same broad brush. This over-generalisation of yours is boring and not worth responding to.
51-1 and more than 4 weeks after the election with no actual fraud presented to the courts blows your assertions out of the water.Except the dispute is exactly that the votes were not legal, proving your bad faith engagement yet again.
Says the guy who can't explain all the statistical anomalies and historical tells that wildly misjudged the mark with no explanation for the collective 1 in a bazillion chance outcome aside from more "orange man bad".
No, not only. But it is rather convenient, and I make no apologies for hamming it up.
Let your soul rest, brother. Accept the outcome and move on.According to some arguments. I have seen no refutations of the arguments that argue otherwise, to date.
Again, painting a whole slew of cases brought by multiple parties with the same broad brush. This over-generalisation of yours is boring and not worth responding to.
Ipse dixit.
Disingenuous. Even 30% of Democrats have admitted in polls that there's a suspicion of voter fraud in the elections. You refuse to actually speak to the evidence, instead you say that the courts will do that and point to pending court cases, only to interpret rulings based upon procedural issues to mean a pronouncement on the substance of the matter. Do you really expect people cannot see through your hollow trolling?
No, actually, making sure that widespread perceptions of possible voter fraud get heard out and investigated and ruled on definitively is the very cornerstone of a viable democratic process, and that you have judged all those who favour such a response as acting in bad faith is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that nobody needs to take anything you say on the matter seriously.
Sign up with Google