Supreme Court rejects Texas' and Trump's bid to overturn election — CNN Politics

SFC Bernard Walko - believe it or not, the British generally respected General Washington during the Revolution. And they generally respected President Washington years later, after he became President.

Of course, feel free to do your own research on the matter, but a good starting point might be looking into the Jay Treaty.

I don’t understand your narrative. SGT (Join to see)

MAJ Ken Landgren - At the top of the thread, SFC W stated, “The English said much of what you do… about President Washington.“ (in response to your ‘Rogue’ comment).

I’d tend to disagree with his assertion. The British rather respected Washington, both before and during his presidency. The Jay Treaty was a key point in US-British relations in the late 18th century that greatly helped to improve relations and keep us out of another war; at least for a decade or so.
Then again, the British might have actually referred to Jefferson as a rogue POTUS...
As always, I recommend all to do their own research and draw their own conclusions.

Washington wanted to free the country from the yoke of England which would eventually become democratic. Trump on the other hand if he wins, but he will not, will usher in an era where we are not a democracy.

it was a joke from the beginning

Their laughter will be turned to mourning LT Brad McInnis

I am aware of that, I am also aware that they use that as a catch all excuse for not hearing a case they don't want to get entangled in. That was, in fact the easy way out I was referring to.

PO1 Kevin Dougherty .
1. This case never went through the lower Courts.
2. There was no evidence.
3. The case was to interfere into the election laws of other states.
4. The goal of the case was Judicial Activism to overturn an Election.
5. The case those who were parties to the case were acting to overthrow a duly elected offical.
6. Sedition. Insurrection and Treasonous aptly describe the case and its supporters.

SGT (Join to see) - “This case never went through the lower Courts“. What lower court could this case possibly have gone through?

SGT (Join to see) - Many other cases have indeed gone through the lower courts. This case having original jurisdiction under the Constitution should have been heard, and a decision rendered. Instead it was sidestepped on a technicality. It was not to interfere with the election in other states, but to force states to adhere to their own laws which had been violated by elected and/or non-elected officials lacking constitutional authority to make changes.

There was no sedition, and in fact there is nothing that has not happened before in elections. Two have been decided in the House, multiple elections have had various and sundry challenges, and Electors have been urged to vote for a candidate other than the one they were sworn to. Most recently in 2016. When a number of Democratic leaders were urging Electoral College members to switch their votes to Clinton. Was that seditious, treasonous, insurrection too?