Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Twitter)   Rudy Colludy: We're actually happy we just got biatchslapped in court, because what we wanted all along was to take our delusions to the Supreme Court. Suck it, libs   (twitter.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm  
•       •       •

4397 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Nov 2020 at 9:05 PM (9 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



310 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-11-21 8:41:11 PM  
Original Tweet:

 
2020-11-21 8:43:05 PM  
What's he going to say when SCOTUS decides not to field their bullshiat?
 
2020-11-21 8:44:46 PM  
It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?
 
2020-11-21 8:44:57 PM  

arrogantbastich: What's he going to say when SCOTUS decides not to field their bullshiat?


See you in court, court!
 
2020-11-21 8:45:19 PM  

Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?


Rudy doesn't remember how to lawyer.
 
2020-11-21 8:46:12 PM  

Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?


When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.
 
2020-11-21 8:46:59 PM  
Packed with McConnel scum; why wouldn't they betray Democracy?
 
2020-11-21 8:47:26 PM  

arrogantbastich: What's he going to say when SCOTUS decides not to field their bullshiat?


"We're gonna take thish to the highesht court in the land! The court of pubic opinion!"

"Where'sh my scosh?"
 
2020-11-21 8:48:10 PM  
What happens when something goes beyond being embarrassing? What is that called? Because that is what this is.
 
2020-11-21 8:50:32 PM  

IgG4: What happens when something goes beyond being embarrassing? What is that called? Because that is what this is.


"Sedition" is a good word.
 
2020-11-21 8:51:22 PM  
Are they trying to argue that those devious Democrats prevented then from presenting all their evidence to the court? The fark?
 
2020-11-21 8:51:36 PM  

IgG4: What happens when something goes beyond being embarrassing? What is that called? Because that is what this is.


"Mortifying"
 
2020-11-21 8:55:49 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 9:00:41 PM  

arrogantbastich: What's he going to say when SCOTUS decides not to field their bullshiat?


And they won't.
Clearly he doesn't understand "with prejudice".
 
2020-11-21 9:00:48 PM  
Know what's going to be fun?  When the supreme court either refuses to hear the case, or, more entertainingly, hears it and listens to Rudy et al make fools of themselves; and decides against them.

Then, for the super fun part: trump & Co start calling SCOTUS the deep state or some other BS.
 
2020-11-21 9:01:50 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 9:02:18 PM  

I am Tom Joad's Complete Lack of Surprise: Packed with McConnel scum; why wouldn't they betray Democracy?


wank.gif
 
2020-11-21 9:02:51 PM  

cretinbob: arrogantbastich: What's he going to say when SCOTUS decides not to field their bullshiat?

And they won't.
Clearly he doesn't understand "with prejudice".


I can see him filing a brief with the 3rd Circuit or the USSC saying that the judge was prejudiced against him so they must overrule the judge and rule in his favor.
 
2020-11-21 9:07:07 PM  
Narrator: there will be no Supreme Court case after this one
 
2020-11-21 9:07:29 PM  
This is starting to get embarrassing.
 
2020-11-21 9:08:08 PM  

Yeast No 7: This is starting to get embarrassing.


Starting?
 
2020-11-21 9:08:59 PM  
the higher court won't disturb the lower court's "findings of fact", or in this case, "findings of no facts whatsoever."
 
2020-11-21 9:09:15 PM  

theteacher: Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.


But you can still appeal the decision.
 
2020-11-21 9:09:28 PM  
WHAT, exactly, are they going to appeal?  The Constitution leaves the method of running elections to the states.  He could appeal to the PA Supreme, maybe, but what federal issue has been raised?
 
2020-11-21 9:10:38 PM  

cameroncrazy1984: Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?

Rudy doesn't remember how to lawyer.


He hasn't been in a courtroom since 1992.
 
2020-11-21 9:10:55 PM  

drewsclues: the higher court won't disturb the lower court's "findings of fact", or in this case, "findings of no facts whatsoever."


They had lots of evidence but Rudy left it in his other pants. I swear he dug real hard to find. It is on video I swear.
 
2020-11-21 9:11:29 PM  
Don't they need a reason to appeal to a higher court? It was my understanding that "they ruled against us and I don't like it" was not a good enough reason to appeal.
 
2020-11-21 9:11:39 PM  

Tinstaafl: theteacher: Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.

But you can still appeal the decision.


No
You have to have a judgment in order to appeal.
They didn't get a judgment, they got a fark off.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 9:11:41 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 9:11:54 PM  
Everyone knows that the best way to prevail in a lawsuit is to keep losing.
 
2020-11-21 9:12:33 PM  

theteacher: Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.


The question being, can they appeal that?
 
2020-11-21 9:12:54 PM  
What is this "Obama-appointed judge" nonsense? Dude was on a Republican Party committee for 18+ years.
 
2020-11-21 9:13:06 PM  
So Rudy Justformen announces his deliberate massive failure in a sneering snide snivel on twitter, is that the gist?
 
2020-11-21 9:13:12 PM  
 
2020-11-21 9:13:39 PM  

unixpro: WHAT, exactly, are they going to appeal?  The Constitution leaves the method of running elections to the states.  He could appeal to the PA Supreme, maybe, but what federal issue has been raised?


They didn't rule the way donnie wanted them to?
 
2020-11-21 9:14:48 PM  
Who's paying this guy?
 
2020-11-21 9:15:00 PM  

unixpro: WHAT, exactly, are they going to appeal?  The Constitution leaves the method of running elections to the states.  He could appeal to the PA Supreme, maybe, but what federal issue has been raised?


RUDY SAYS THE WHOLE DAMN SYSTEM IS FRAUDULENT
 
2020-11-21 9:15:09 PM  

jst3p: Don't they need a reason to appeal to a higher court? It was my understanding that "they ruled against us and I don't like it" was not a good enough reason to appeal.


It's enough reason to file a notice of appeal, it is not enough of a reason to win the appeal.

SCOTUS is different (not that we're at that point) SCOTUS, unlike the circuit courts, has discretion to even consider the appeal (Grant Certiorari, for those that like the latiny wordy words.)
 
2020-11-21 9:15:54 PM  

theteacher: Benalto: It was dismissed 'with prejudice' and 'no amendments possible' so wha?

When a lawsuit is dismissed with prejudice, the court is saying that it has made a final determination on the merits of the case, and that the plaintiff is therefore forbidden from filing another lawsuit based on the same grounds.


And when a case is dismissed with extreme prejudice, the attorneys are executed so that they can't file any more lawsuits, ever. This is somewhat less common.
 
2020-11-21 9:15:59 PM  
And someone else brought up a good point elsewhere: Rudy didn't pay his DC bar fees so he can't argue before the Supreme Court.
 
2020-11-21 9:15:59 PM  
"So much evidence" that he told a federal judge in PA the other day that the basis of their suit wasn't about election fraud.

But hey, let's believe the guy who was leaking hair dye all over the place before blowing his nose on a handkerchief and proceeding to wipe the blown side across his face.

America's Mayor has been marginalized to a national embarassment.
 
2020-11-21 9:16:00 PM  
I'm sure the SCOTUS Justices just lovewhen a President's lawyer sends out a press release implying they intentionally lost a case so they could get it in front of a SCOTUS that will rule on purely political grounds.
 
2020-11-21 9:16:02 PM  
Ah.  The old "I meant to do that" argument.
Pro-tip: when you're trying to find judges sympathetic to your cause, don't admit it out loud. Makes it harder for said judges to look unbiased.
F*ck Giuliani
 
2020-11-21 9:16:06 PM  
Lemme guess... Rudy doesn't have good standing in the federal bar either.
 
2020-11-21 9:16:07 PM  
Big Tech and Big Media and Democrats! Oh my!
 
2020-11-21 9:16:16 PM  

UNC_Samurai: GOP Senators are starting to publicly admit what's been reality for two weeks:

GOP Senator Pat Toomey says that the president has exhausted all legal options and he congratulates "President-elect Biden and Vice-President-elect Harris"


Biden's not even president yet and I'm already sick of all his winning.
 
2020-11-21 9:16:17 PM  

IgG4: What happens when something goes beyond being embarrassing? What is that called? Because that is what this is.


I'm going with discommoding or ignominious. Full list:
https://www.wordhippo.com/what-is/ano​t​her-word-for/embarrassing.html
 
2020-11-21 9:16:38 PM  
This might be a sign of the dam breaking, we'll see.

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-21 9:16:54 PM  
Geez, Rudy, just dye already.
 
2020-11-21 9:16:58 PM  
Of farking course they couldn't help themselves and name dropped Obama
 
Displayed 50 of 310 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.