Survey: About Scotus dismissing Texas election fraud suite. What is a 'judicously cognizable interest' ? Should the incompetent judge(s) be fired?

submitted by [deleted] from self.AskSaidIt

About Scotus dismissing Texas election fraud suite. What is a 'judicously cognizable interest' ?

About Scotus dismissing Texas election fraud suite. What is a 'judicously cognizable interest' ?

My first impression is that this is language meant to sound smart but is ultimately meaningless and the judge(s) putting this out should be fired. Conceptually, government and judges are employeed by the people to do a good job and fired when not doing their job or doing a bad job. I mean, what if a supreme court judge just stands up, turns around, pulls down pants and moons everyone then yells VIA THE GOOSE, they should be fired for that, right? We really just asked a simple question: does all this election fraud look like election fraud? If scotus can't answer this then what did we hire them for? Does anyone defend Scotus? If not, then I am suggesting it is the opinion of the people that Scotus (or the judges involved) are a failure and have failed to do their job appropiately. We need them to make judgements, not help coverup election fraud.

I think good baby steps to help take back our gov would be to demostrate that saidit consensus agrees with these points: - elections should be legit - massive election fraud has been observed in the recent 2020 US presidential election, involving dead people voting, mail-ballot fraud, fraudent election software, and coordinated election fraud and gaslighting by some election workers, some elected officials, and much of big business owned news outlets. - the Scotus answer to this election fraud scandal is not satisfactory. - Also important and somewhat related: People of Earth are under a biological-warfare attack in the form of mandatory harmful vaccines and the origin of the attack seems to be coming from the UK.

For this to be a successful survey and demostration, I need some comments like "i agree 100% to all points made". or say what do you and don't agree with and perhaps a new revised survey will be issued.

all 6 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]wendolynne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

no 'judiciously cognizable interest' means the court does not find any reason that Texas should be trying to tell other states how to run their elections. Mind your own business, in other words.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you are full of shit and completely stupid. election fraud isn't really election fraud? come'on. the law suite was a test to see if scotus is corrupt. and we found out they are corrupt and the cheif justice is pals with Epstein.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

spelling correction: judiciously

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It's just legal speak. Cognizable means capable of being known or considered. Sounds like a fancy way of saying we ain't touching that issue.

I believe a lot of y'all took the bullshit politicians have been shoveling regarding election fraud and because they told you it's a rose, you say it's a rose. Sniffing your shit rose, shit all over your face, you try to tell other people how good your shit rose smells and you're baffled that everyone doesn't love your shit rose too.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That does not help me understand what 'judiciously cognitive interest' means. obviously they declined to answer directly, but the reason given does not make sense to mevand i have been asked to make a judgement about wether or not our system of justice is a failure. i am the one asking and the one answering, so that means I personnally will decide on all the rules and my own opinion, not say gee seems like im out of my league here and i should just step back go with the flow. maybe they think 'judiciously cognitive interest' a clever and irrefutable agrument by being confusing. anyone could make a creative guess as to what they meant like 'texas, you shouldnt be interested in other states doing massive election fraud' but then texas could agrue that they determine what their own interests are, not an outside party, and we have a serious dispute that needs a mediator and a judge and the supreme court could and should help resolve but they didn't and this is the failure of scotus, in my opinion. I can not tell if you agree with my opinion or not.

Its "just legal speak" does not change my opinion. The people demand justice and scotus failed to deliver. This doesn't need to be rocket science, but even if it is like rocket science and their is some esoteric legal-babble related reason for this failure, then I would still fire the judge(s) and call them criminals for trying to cover-up massive election fraud with esoteric legal-babble.

If you are trying to agrue that election fraud is a bullshit story put out by politicians, then I would disagree. The long list of election fraud evidence is not something put out by politicians and clearly proves there was massive election fraud.

[–]wendolynne 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The "evidence" list is indeed long, but actual fraud is very hard to find in that long list. A much shorter and more precise demonstration of actual significant fraud would be more effective. A few votes here and there will not change the results. You need to accept the fact that a significant number of American citizens, indeed a majority of voters, do not want Trump to have a second term. That's the fact. Get over it.