I'm no legal scholar, but I think they are saying they choose to ignore the Constitution to avoid making people feel bad. Am I close? https://twitter.com/tracybeanz/status/1332830580325699585 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Maybe. They are in fact saying that they should have brought the application sooner after the law was enacted and not not, later, when the whole state has acted on in being the law (and suffered prejudice). That is exactly what the equitable doctrine of laches is
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
There is no logic in your reasoning. The court is right on calling Rudi on these things. If they didn’t like the rules they should’ve objected before the game started. Not after when they’ve lost.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
well the act was at the time illegal to pass since the legislature legally could not do so under their own constitution which they never changed or amended apparently. A illegal law is still illegal even if it is used. Glad Im a SC democrat where we dont cheat to win. bernie 2024
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Part of the issue isn’t just with the law itself, but in how it was misused by SOS and local election boards.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
To be fair Trump has complained about this for a year via Twitter. Maybe he should have considered legal action. Did he?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Well evidently it is logical to judges
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The idea is if you have a problem with an election law, you can't wait until after you lose to bring it. Make it seem like it's not about the law at all, but a bad faith request for a mulligan.
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.