Author Topic: Election Results  (Read 34494 times)

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1050 on: December 11, 2020, 12:28:43 PM »
Anyone want to try and come up with a defensible explanation for why Texas couldn't sue until after the results were certified? Especially since the usual process is to sue over bad processes before the election.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1051 on: December 11, 2020, 03:45:37 PM »
The Trump losses keep piling up. Both the Senate and House have passed the defense bill, which will allow the DOD to rename military installations named after Confederate leaders, and does not include anything on Section 230.  Both houses passed it with veto proof majorities.  Trump has said he will veto.  Let him and them let's see them over ride the veto.  Give him another loss in his final days.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1052 on: December 11, 2020, 04:14:51 PM »
Anyone want to try and come up with a defensible explanation for why Texas couldn't sue until after the results were certified? Especially since the usual process is to sue over bad processes before the election.

Standing.  Look at the twin concepts of laches and ripeness.  TX's standing was not ripe in advance of the election and now the defendants are arguing laches bars them after.  Effectively, as you've seen in multiple court cases across the country, apparently no one has standing to challenge illegality in the election.  That's a real serious problem.

This TX suit is actually brilliant.  They've backed the SC into a corner where whatever they do will have dramatic and severe consequences.  If you've read the filings (which I have), TX's claim converts the DNC practice of using court cases and abusing executive discretion to change election rules, which is something they are really good at and have therefore been using with increasing frequency, into the very basis of its cause of action.  It's like a judo move that turns your opponent's strength against them.  TX's claim is not based on whether fraud actually occurred but rather based on violations of the Constitution inherent in usurping legistlative authority.  Effectively, using state courts and heads of executive agencies to undermine election laws passed by the legislature is charged as a violation of the US Constitution.

In the plain language of the Constitution TX is correct.  As Rehnquist pointed out during Bush v. Gore, the FL SC can not overturn the legislature's decisions on how to conduct the election, that is not a matter of state law.  The Constitution specifically appoints the state legislature as the body responsible for the appointment of electors, and no other official or even the state constitution can remove that authority. 

The defendants most likely source of success is that the SC will refuse leave for TX to file the complaint.  Oddly, the SC views it's own option to allow such a filing as purely a matter of discretion.  If they just decline the case, it's done.  Alternatively, they could take the case and rule either that TX doesn't have standing or that it's claim is barred by laches or because there is no remedy available.

However, every single choice on this is fraught with massive consequences.  Refusing the case on discretion effectively means that there is no recourse for violation of the Constitutional limits and controls on the Constitution.  It may also push TX to seriously consider seceding from the US (and I'm not exaggerating there, refusing the case is tantamount to taxation with representation).

Taking the case and denying standing has a very similar result, though arguably the strongest "denial" position at law.

Taking the case and declaring it barred by laches is in many ways even worse as it means there will effectively never be a remedy for election interference by a state's officers so long as the state court politically agrees (and remember, many state SC's are elected positions).  For example the PA SC that approved the changes is elected and currently has 5 Democrats and 2 Republicans.  The PA legislature was Republican controlled, it's AG and Governor are Democrats.  In that backdrop you have a part time Republican legislature pass (actually on a bipartisan basis) clear election laws, which were modified by its Democrat AG (in collusion by settlement of a law suit filed by a group of DNC friendly voters) and modified further by the DNC majority of its SC.  Even those changes undermined the ballot security included by the legislature in its voting law (which is where mail in ballot voting access was increased) they were never referred back to approved by the legislature.  That looks like a specific violation of the Constitution for which there seems to be no other remedy.

Speaking of remedies, if the SC says this was a violation of the Constitution and you do have standing but there's no remedy we can offer, that pretty much makes clear that there will never be rules that are fair on this and that might will always make right.

If they do take it, the Constitution is in favor of TX, but the precedents probably provide more support to the defendants.  But the consequences of deciding in favor of either group are massive.  Deciding against TX means that any legal or administrative trickery going forward and any court intrusion is presumptively okay.  We can expect MASSIVE manipulation going forward as well as thousands of lawsuits to be filed in advance of elections seeking to manipulate the rules.  On the other hand deciding for TX almost certainly causes a massive voter confidence problem.  While a big group of Republicans are currently convinced that the election was illegitimate, the SC's involvement will ensure that EVERY DNC voter believes that the election has been stolen. 

Ultimately, this mess is the direct result of DNC activists using the courts and abusing discretion to create this mess.  That created the circumstances under which it's impossible to actually verify the legal voting results in these states and any resulting consequence to those states is a direct result of those unConstitutional actions.  If a consequence is applied it's a direct smack down of the increasingly popular and undemocratic manipulation of the voting process that activist lawyers have engaged in.  Still I think the SC is going to find someway to avoid the situation, wrongly I think, believing that this is the better way to "avoid" a consequential decision.

Odd to think Joe Biden's election may trigger the end of the country as we know it, but we seem to be close.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1053 on: December 11, 2020, 04:21:32 PM »
You are the only person I have heard who does not think this suit is a bunch of malarky. Every lawyer I know, on both sides of the political spectrum, think this suit is a joke and an insult to the Constitution.

Texas will not leave the US.

It is not brilliant.  It is a desperate last gasp attempt to steal the election by the suck ups to a looser president.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1054 on: December 11, 2020, 04:38:37 PM »
I don't know if it's going to work msquared, but those who are writing that it's "malarky" are really just relying on the "lack of standing" argument not the substantive argument. 

It's really a brilliant argument as there's no way to dispute the facts in question.  If you read PA's brief (written by its DNC AG, rather than the multiple amici briefs submitted by members of its legislature that support TX), they actually are so nervous about that issue that they are almost deceptive in how they describe it (GA does a similar thing).  PA effectively claims the election complied with the law as passed by the Legislature (but kind of hides the ball, because they really mean complies with the law as interpreted by the AG and the SC that contradicted what the legislature wrote).  Rather than make an argument that the PA SC can modify the law, they just flat assert that the PA SC's modifications are the law the legislature passed, it's breathtaking.

Again though the strongest arguments the defendants have are about standing, they may actually have the stronger case there.  It's just interesting because another ruling on lack of standing will really hammer out that NO ONE has standing to fight this.  TX also did something really really clever on standing, they included a claim that as a state they have a direct interest in the election of the Vice President (which is tied to the Presidential election) because the VP casts the deciding vote in the Senate and in that vote TX is particularly harmed in an evenly (or even close to evenly) divided Senate by seating a VP with the support of illegal votes.

And that's the reality here.  If the actions of non-legislative actors to contradict elections laws by legislatures are wrong then they directly resulted in counting illegal votes.  That means that legal voters were disenfranchised by those actions.  Sometimes the court refuses to impose another disenfranchisement and only provides a forward looking remedy on that - which goes back to what I pointed out the other day - election fraud and election manipulation are crimes for which even those that are caught frequently get away with it.  But that would mean here they are endorsing the disenfranchisement of legal voters.

Anyway you don't have to agree.  There's no one that can predict how the SC as a whole will act on this.  I know how the 3 liberal judges will vote.  If Roberts were still able to be the swing vote, I know he'd swing to the liberal judges.  I don't know how this court will respond, but either way their reputation is going to take a hit.  There's no avoiding that. 
« Last Edit: December 11, 2020, 04:41:10 PM by Seriati »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1055 on: December 11, 2020, 04:44:55 PM »
No their reputation will not take a hit.  How many cases do you have to loose before it sinks in your theories are wrong? There was no wide spread fraud? The rules as written were followed. One state can not complain about how another states runs it elections and choose Electors, just because it does not like the outcome.

My guess is this will be just like the other SC suit that got denied.  There will be no dissent and it will be denied because it is a frivolous suit. I would prefer that the SC writes something like the other judges have telling the plaintiff's that they are so off base as to be almost criminal in bringing the suit.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1056 on: December 11, 2020, 05:14:41 PM »
No their reputation will not take a hit.  How many cases do you have to loose before it sinks in your theories are wrong? There was no wide spread fraud? The rules as written were followed. One state can not complain about how another states runs it elections and choose Electors, just because it does not like the outcome.

Lol.  This is why I took the time to explain what the filing is actually about.  Your rant has little to do with the case and your "facts" are wrong.  The rules "as written" were expressly not followed in each of the 4 states.  The rules "as written" by the only party under the US Constitution with the authority to write the state's rules were deliberately contradicted by those without such authority in each of the four states.

I get it, you're results oriented.  So long as you won you don't care if it was fair or legal.  Maybe the SC will let you have your win.  But you're wrong about what it'll do to their credibility.  No matter what they do they are going to look bad.

Quote
My guess is this will be just like the other SC suit that got denied.  There will be no dissent and it will be denied because it is a frivolous suit. I would prefer that the SC writes something like the other judges have telling the plaintiff's that they are so off base as to be almost criminal in bringing the suit.

Okay, if you want to play at credible, please walk through your analysis of the Electors clause and the facts that actually occurred.  TX is correct on substance.  They may get denied on procedure.  But feel free to educate me.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1057 on: December 11, 2020, 05:22:27 PM »
Texas Republicans sue to stop GOP Gov. Greg Abbott's extension of early voting period during the pandemic

Those darned Democratic executives in Texas and Georgia, using executive discretion to change election rules... wait, what's that?  The executive branches in Texas and Georgia are held by Republicans? Hmph, who knew?

It's weird that Paxton did not include his own state in the list of states in which he would like to nullify the results...

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1058 on: December 11, 2020, 06:26:29 PM »
Lol.  This is why I took the time to explain what the filing is actually about.  Your rant has little to do with the case and your "facts" are wrong.  The rules "as written" were expressly not followed in each of the 4 states.

No, Seriati, please make us a complete list of every one out of the 50 states where the rules "as written" were expressly not followed. Don't just selectively focus on the 4 states where up to now you guys were pretending to care about supposed fraud, and now you very suddenly supposedly care about something completely different, about whether the election rules were properly modified *before* the election.

And, having thus changed what your issue with the 4 states supposedly was, again you have the chutzpah to accuse the *other* side of being "results-oriented", not caring about truth and legality. All in the service of throwing out the *legal* votes, of disenfranchising millions of voters who voted legally and properly.

Again, Trump's playbook, every sin under the sun that you yourself commit, blame it on your opponents. You got into the presidency via Russia's criminal interference (therefore accuse... Venezuela, China, and Iran of interfering now!), now you're desperately trying to grasp onto the presidency by an anti-democratic rejection of millions of worth of LEGITIMATE votes. (while accusing Democrats of trying to subvert the will of the people)

You have the souls of monsters, you criminal bull*censored*ters. There's no lie and no method that you're not willing to undertake to perpetrate your evil.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1059 on: December 11, 2020, 06:59:14 PM »
And the US SC says no to Texas.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections," the court said in a brief order. It dismissed all other related claims as moot.


msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1060 on: December 11, 2020, 07:07:45 PM »
A great loss for Trump.  It pushes his agenda forward and plays right into his hands. His 70 dimensional  chess game is heading towards its end game.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1061 on: December 11, 2020, 07:18:35 PM »
Aren't there term limits for presidents?  It seems like Biden has already won the presidency, like, 50-odd times now.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1062 on: December 11, 2020, 07:19:40 PM »
If Trump got checkmated, he would call the tournament director over and claim his opponent touched a piece and didn't move it. He wouldn't be able to say which piece or what move it was. He wouldn't be able to explain why he didn't complain at that time. When the TD denied his request, he would then demand that his opponent's clock be forensically tested to make sure that it wasn't tampered with to run slow. Then he would claim that his opponent didn't even have the right rating to play in that class. Then he would want proof that the player really was the one registered in the tournament, and not some entirely different player.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1063 on: December 11, 2020, 07:25:31 PM »
Quote
Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

I await with bated breath the resulting dramatic and severe consequences.  What will they be?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1064 on: December 11, 2020, 08:32:25 PM »
Another observation - all 9 justices ruled against Texas in this case.  The only way Texas could have lost by more would have been if the Democrats had first managed to expand the court so the ruling could have been even more unanimous.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1065 on: December 11, 2020, 08:35:54 PM »
To be fair two (Alito and Thomas) said they would be willing to hear the case but that they probably would not have found anything in favor of the plaintiff. Their position was that the SC is supposed to be the place where States sue each other.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1066 on: December 11, 2020, 08:42:41 PM »
Yup - basically, they would have let Texas in the door, just so that they could have turned around right away and thrown them back out onto the lawn.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1067 on: December 11, 2020, 10:04:59 PM »
Hoo boy - the Texas GOP (or at least, their chairman) has gone completely off the rails: Texas GOP Chair Allen West Suggests ‘Law-Abiding States’ Should ‘Form A Union’ After Supreme Court Rejects Lawsuit On Election Results

Quote
The Supreme Court, in tossing the Texas lawsuit that was joined by seventeen states and 106 US congressman, have decreed that a state can take unconstitutional actions and violate its own election law. Resulting in damaging effects on other states that abide by the law, while the guilty state suffers no consequences. This decision establishes a precedent that says states can violate the US constitution and not be held accountable. This decision will have far reaching ramifications for the future of our constitutional republic. Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.

SCOTUS, which hasn't been this conservative since the 1950s, rules overwhelmingly against your argument, and you don't pause even for a moment to think "hmmm... maybe I should rethink my position." Politically, if he thinks that demonizing Democrat voters, who made up 46.5% of the Texas electorate in November, is going to get him enough support for secession... I'm just wondering how long it will take til we see his resignation.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1068 on: December 11, 2020, 10:28:01 PM »
It pushes his agenda forward and plays right into his hands. His 70 dimensional  chess game is heading towards its end game.

Well duh - clearly he wanted to be forced to do a coup after having proven that even Republican justices that he appointed are secretly democrats. /s

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1069 on: December 11, 2020, 11:07:18 PM »
Quote
Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections.

I await with bated breath the resulting dramatic and severe consequences.  What will they be?

Will have to look more closely at the congressional process for ratifying the EC votes. They could invalidate the "disputed states" and thus cause Biden to not clear 270 EC votes. Although I think the Democratic Majority in the House should prevent that from happening. The 2 senate seats from Georgia being out of action also complicates matters.

It might be possible the Republicans could use their control of the Senate to invalidate at least the vice presidential results, and you thus end up with Biden - Pence - Pelosi for presidential succession. But from what I recall of how the process is supposed to work they won't be able to do that because the Democrats in the House can stop at least that much.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1070 on: December 12, 2020, 12:27:58 AM »
You got into the presidency via Russia's criminal interference

Afaik Russia has not been demonstrated to have done anything illegal, although perhaps things that are highly annoying. But also afaik Comey is not a Russian agent?

Dude, you are going way overboard. This is a discussion forum, not the inquisition. Let's try and tell each other we're wrong without destroying the terrain.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1071 on: December 12, 2020, 12:47:39 AM »
The SC decision tonight spells the death knell for the Democrat party. Half the nation believes there was widespread election theft.

The SC did not rule on merit, only on standing. Dershowitz and others think they are wrong. There are still lawsuits going through, and the media blackout is the only thing protecting the Democrats' stone-walling. There will be a reckoning, and the political harm the Dems have accrued will tarnish them beyond redemption. The American people do not give kudos to criminals who get away with murder due to tricking the court.

There was vote theft of a huge amount in the battleground states. Everywhere else, Trump won easily and his coattails were long and supporting. Even non-battleground states, like California, saw lost Democrat seats in congress. How is supporting vote-scamming here any different than banana republics stealing the votes for dictators?

The Democrats will not live this down.

It was a dangerous decision they made. The polling was so far off with Trump's widespread popularity, that they thought the prearranged vote scams they had planned would be enough to win the day without getting caught. However; Trump's victory was so huge that they surpassed the prearranged scamming, and they had to close down the vote to work up more fake ballots. They got too blatant, and the secrecy was penetrated. Affidavits by the truckload have authenticated the various votes being stolen. Like Nixon did when faced with an impeachment, even though he would have won, the politicians are afraid to fight it out openly.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1072 on: December 12, 2020, 03:00:35 AM »
Just looking at standing and jurisdiction, let's take it to the extreme for a moment to make a point.

If, and that's the big IF for hypothetical purposes, not saying this happened, but if a state violated it's own election laws and permitted or even encouraged massive voter fraud and then the government of that state along with the state supreme court did nothing about it and said it's all good, then our Supreme Court is saying that there is nothing any other state can do about it.

That seems dangerous. There are no legal remedies if a state itself turns a blind eye to massive voter fraud. All other states just have to let their voters get disenfranchised in the Presidential election and nobody has any further say in the matter.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I still haven't seen the evidence to prove it. But the Supreme Court smackdown means it's over without any really satisfying redress of grievances.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1073 on: December 12, 2020, 03:06:02 AM »
Having said that, it's now over. Just like when the Mueller investigation made it's conclusion about Russian collusion. But of course that's not going to stop anybody from believing whatever it is they want to believe and pushing it for political benefit.


Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1074 on: December 12, 2020, 05:49:18 AM »
The SC decision tonight spells the death knell for the Democrat party. Half the nation believes there was widespread election theft.

The SC did not rule on merit, only on standing

The lawsuit they dismissed didn't even allege election theft. They alleged the elections should be invalidated for a reason that would have also invalidated the Texas election and probably half the other states too.

Quote
There was vote theft of a huge amount in the battleground states.

Nope. You've been blatantly lied to, and you are merely parrotting those same lies.

Just looking at standing and jurisdiction, let's take it to the extreme for a moment to make a point.

If, and that's the big IF for hypothetical purposes, not saying this happened, but if a state violated it's own election laws and permitted or even encouraged massive voter fraud and then the government of that state along with the state supreme court did nothing about it and said it's all good, then our Supreme Court is saying that there is nothing any other state can do about it.

That seems dangerous. There are no legal remedies if a state itself turns a blind eye to massive voter fraud. All other states just have to let their voters get disenfranchised in the Presidential election and nobody has any further say in the matter.

Again, this election suit has nothing to do with election fraud. Stop confusing the issue.

You're doing another 180 degrees reversal of reality, since this election suit is the one that wanted to get the voters of other states disenfranchised, and wanted to have the SCOTUS just negate the resulta of the elections, and decide after the fact that the opinions of the states themselves on what their own election laws mean don't matter, and the voters themselves of course just don't matter as a consequence.

If this suit had not been dismissed, is what would have been a very dangerous precedent, as you could invalidate any election after the fact, based on not liking after the fact how their election procedures were changed.

Afaik Russia has not been demonstrated to have done anything illegal,

It has, thoroughly.

Dude, you are going way overboard. This is a discussion forum, not the inquisition. Let's try and tell each other we're wrong without destroying the terrain.

Trump (the Chosen One) and his supporters are trying to destroy the terrain of the American nation.

It's time to take a stand, and just tell his supporters that the's a bloody lying conman, that Trump's the one trying to steal the elections, and that excusing him and parroting his lies is collusion with his crimes.

People should stop excusing the inexcusable.
« Last Edit: December 12, 2020, 05:54:31 AM by Aris Katsaris »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1075 on: December 12, 2020, 08:10:28 AM »
Even when every court in the country is telling you that your case has no merit because you are not presenting any credible evidence, you still say they are all wrong. Even judges that were appointed by Trump, they are all wrong (or corrupt).

The other option is Trump lost and his stories about fraud and corruption on a vast scale are wrong and lies. And honest people of integrity can see that the facts do not support his claims. In 5 different states, several Federal district courts, Appeals courts and the US Supreme Court. Trump's team keeps talking about all of the evidence, but what they present is court is not convincing anyone.

So Occam's Razor says that the most simple solution is that Trump lost fair and square.  But you are so blinded by your loyalty to Trump (and not the country) that you can not admit that.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1076 on: December 12, 2020, 08:17:41 AM »
So since the SC case was dismissed on procedural grounds, why didn't Trump crack legal team see this as a possibility and go through the normal channels? Was it because they were sure their 3 judges would side with them?

This legal team has not been much of a legal team.  1-58? now in cases. Trump sure is not getting his moneys worth.  Oh yeah, he is not paying them.  Again, when someone else has to foot the bills he is all for it.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1077 on: December 12, 2020, 10:47:37 AM »
For the Trumpist on the site who are saying the SC did not decide on the merits of the case, maybe that is a win for you. Since there are no merits.  Do you think if 5 of the 6 conservative judges thought there were any merits of the case they would not have voted to accept the case, or at least filed a written dissent to the dismissal? Even the two who said they would accept the case on the grounds of original jurisdiction said they would not have found in favor of the plaintiffs?  Maybe the conservative judges were trying to help Trump save face, due to the fact that if the SC had taken up the case they would have found that it was with out merit and made Trump and his cronies look even worse than they already do.  I would have loved to have read Sotomayor decision on this case.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1078 on: December 12, 2020, 11:20:06 AM »

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1079 on: December 12, 2020, 11:58:27 AM »
Even the two who said they would accept the case on the grounds of original jurisdiction said they would not have found in favor of the plaintiffs? 

A minor correction: I don't think they said exactly that they wouldn't have found in favour of the plaintiff -- I think they said they would have not made any injuction to pause the ongoing electoral process while it was being heard.

This certainly implies what you said though: that they considered the case to be lacking merit clearly enough that there'd be no need to pause the process of the electoral college for a decision to come out (because, yeah, they did know how it would it turn out, even if discussed on the merits).

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1080 on: December 12, 2020, 01:41:29 PM »
If the state legislature is supposed to be absolutely sovereign in terms of choosing electors, then how could anyone sue to overturn a certified slate of electors?

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1081 on: December 12, 2020, 02:15:27 PM »
Texas was saying that the rules they passed about the elections might lead to fraud, so the other states results, which led to a Biden win, was unfair to the results in their state, where Trump won.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1082 on: December 12, 2020, 04:06:08 PM »
Wow... just... wow.

So supporting a lawsuit is sedition now?

https://www.yahoo.com/huffpost/bill-pascrell-house-lawmaker-traitors-texas-lawsuit-023004107.html

"Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) has called on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) to bar 126 GOP representatives from the House, arguing that their support for the failed, baseless Texas lawsuit seeking to hijack the presidential election violated the Constitution...

... Pascrell accused the House members who signed an amicus brief supporting the action — including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) — of violating the Constitution by seeking to nullify Americans’ votes and instead choose a “dictator.” He cited Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, enacted after the Civil War and designed to keep traitors out of government.

The section prohibits anyone who had gone to war against the union or given aid and comfort to the nation’s enemies from running for federal or state office.

The Pennsylvania brief responding to the Texas lawsuit referred to its “seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

Pascrell said in a tweet accompanied by a statement on Friday: “Today I’m calling on House leaders to refuse to seat any Members trying to overturn the election and make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.”

-------------------------------------------

And people said that Trump was crazy... I've got a feeling the Democrats are about to stand up and tell America, "Hold my beer."

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1083 on: December 12, 2020, 04:23:43 PM »
I understand the sentiment but I think it is going too far.  However, we should remember who these people are in the future. They were putting partisan  politics at a time when they should have been supporting the Constitution.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1084 on: December 12, 2020, 04:44:05 PM »
The difference is Pascrell is nuts but I don't he'll get more than three other house members to agree with his grandstanding with no legal support. As opposed to nearly every republican house member supporting trumps delusion.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1085 on: December 12, 2020, 05:08:57 PM »
And people said that Trump was crazy... I've got a feeling the Democrats are about to stand up and tell America, "Hold my beer."

Is Pascrell the president, or the Democratic candidate for the presidency? If not, then perhaps you should for once look at what Trump is doing -- instead of still whining about the Mueller report or trying to find something to blame the Democrats about, just to distract from the walking doomsday catastrophe that is Trump, and the civil war that he's trying to inflame in your nation.

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1086 on: December 12, 2020, 05:23:13 PM »
It's an interesting test - let's see how many Democrats follow this nut bar over the cliff.  Will there be 130 members of congress?  More? Fewer? Will Pelosi agree with him? 

What will you say, Cherry, if Pascrell gets no more than one or two nibbles, and nothing comes of it?

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1087 on: December 12, 2020, 06:31:07 PM »
'Conservatives' eating their own, after ordering from the menu:

Quote
Lindsey Graham
@LindseyGrahamSC

If we nominate Trump, we will get destroyed.......and we will deserve it.

5:05pm - 03 May 2016

Pro-Trump Rally Chants 'Destroy the GOP,' Boos Georgia 'RINOs' Loeffler and Perdue

Quote
Supporters of President Donald Trump took to the streets in Washington D.C. on Saturday to protest the Republican Party's failed efforts to help Trump reverse his election defeat.

<snip>

"As we gather here in Washington D.C. for a second Million MAGA March, we're done making promises. It has to happen now. We are going to destroy the GOP," he continued, to thunderous applause.

The large crowd, wearing MAGA apparel and carrying patriotic flags, then began chanting: "Destroy the GOP! Destroy the GOP!"

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1088 on: December 12, 2020, 08:27:20 PM »
Dominion is a company that is majority owned since 2018 by Staple Street Capital, whose co-founder is Stephen Owens, part of the extended Biden family. Valerie Biden Owens is Joe Biden's daughter.The Chinese seem to have a piece of the company as well, and the video clip which has made the rounds with the MSM refusing to notice it, has Chinese officials admitting they have people inside the top of the politics in DC. Also, Dominion user manual says it can create ballots.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1089 on: December 12, 2020, 08:37:46 PM »
Evidence of any of that? From what I can find Biden's kids are named Beau, Hunter, Naomi and Ashely.  No Valerie on the list.  Maybe you want to fact check your statement first. Like the Trump team should have done.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1090 on: December 12, 2020, 10:18:04 PM »
The "spider" in Powell's Kraken has been revealed and is not what she claimed.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sidney-powells-secret-source-used-054223393.html

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1091 on: December 12, 2020, 10:24:00 PM »
I think that means the Kraken is dead.  As conservatives here had said many times in the past, if one bit of the case is suspect, then all of the case must be thrown out. I wonder what will happen to Powell and her Kraken now?  I bet just a few hours of back ground check/research would have show the sources true status and expertise, but that would not have made as good a story.  No wonder she wanted to keep his identity such a closely guarded secret.  Her case just fell apart.  To the surprise of no one.

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1092 on: December 12, 2020, 11:16:56 PM »
Sidney Powell has named four operators who were instrumental in the vote fraud: https://populist.press/sidney-powell-list-four-leaders-who-are-behind-the-fraud/

$400 million from China four weeks before the election. George Soros named Smartmatic’s Lord Mark Malloch-Brown as President of Open Society, then they all shared office space with the Chinese. Where are the investigational journalists?

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1093 on: December 12, 2020, 11:17:58 PM »
Dominion is a company that is majority owned since 2018 by Staple Street Capital, whose co-founder is Stephen Owens, part of the extended Biden family. Valerie Biden Owens is Joe Biden's daughter.
Evidence of any of that? From what I can find Biden's kids are named Beau, Hunter, Naomi and Ashely.  No Valerie on the list.  Maybe you want to fact check your statement first. Like the Trump team should have done.

"Valerie Biden Owens" is actually Joe Biden's sister (not his daughter), but her husband's name is John T. Owens, not Stephen Owens.

But if there's any actual connection between Stephen Owens (co-founder of Staple Street Capital) and John Owens, I've not been able to find it. It seems a very common last name in America ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owens_(surname) ), so I'm guessing the Trumpists are still making things up and hoping some fiction they've invented will end up sticking, though all their previous attempts failed.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1094 on: December 12, 2020, 11:37:41 PM »
Wm why do you still trust her?  Even the Trump campaign has disowned her.  She says those 4 are involved. What evidence did she supply?  Nothing that counts in court.

Of course the Soros angle comes around again.  It must be nice to have such a easy to locate boogy man.

Will you admit you got the info wrong on Biden's familial relationship with Owen?  Or are you just going to ignore that like you did the claim that MI was going to not certify their votes for Biden?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1095 on: December 13, 2020, 03:33:25 AM »
Just looking at standing and jurisdiction, let's take it to the extreme for a moment to make a point.

If, and that's the big IF for hypothetical purposes, not saying this happened, but if a state violated it's own election laws and permitted or even encouraged massive voter fraud and then the government of that state along with the state supreme court did nothing about it and said it's all good, then our Supreme Court is saying that there is nothing any other state can do about it.

That seems dangerous. There are no legal remedies if a state itself turns a blind eye to massive voter fraud. All other states just have to let their voters get disenfranchised in the Presidential election and nobody has any further say in the matter.

I'm not saying that's what happened. I still haven't seen the evidence to prove it. But the Supreme Court smackdown means it's over without any really satisfying redress of grievances.

In the event that a Federal Election is involved, Federal Law enforcement should be able to get involved, but as the Feds, as reported by Barr, are not finding evidence of fraud on a sufficient scale to change the election outcome. You are out of luck.

States don't get to tell other states how to enforce their respective state laws. That's up to the state in question.

If a state does something that encroaches on an area of Federal Concern. Like a federal election, there is another party who can bring forward a case--the Federal Government, they're the only other party besides the citizens/governments of the state itself, which would have sufficient standing.

If they'd managed to get a multitude of counties to bring forward a suit, things might be a bit different, but that case would likely die at the state supreme court.

In any case, the Dems better hope it wasn't a case of massive fraud, or they're going to be in serious trouble in two years, and possibly 4 years as well. Sure they can try to fire up the fraud machine again, but the more they use it, the more likely it is they're going to get caught. And in several of those states, the Republicans will have a chance to more properly address the judicial revisions to their legislation--and Covid19 won't be an available excuse for waiving things next time.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1096 on: December 13, 2020, 03:41:27 AM »
Pascrell said in a tweet accompanied by a statement on Friday: “Today I’m calling on House leaders to refuse to seat any Members trying to overturn the election and make Donald Trump an unelected dictator.”

-------------------------------------------

And people said that Trump was crazy... I've got a feeling the Democrats are about to stand up and tell America, "Hold my beer."

Oh man, if the Dems try to follow through on that. Comedy gold, they might score points with their own base, but that'd just turn 2022 into even more of a political bloodbath in the Republican's favor.

They do realize that the congress critter's that backed the suit probably hail from deep red districts that the Dems have no chance of taking in the foreseeable future? And they do realize that doing something like that would cause a LOT of other people sit up and take notice of what the Democrats are doing, and not view it in a favorable way at all.

Aris Katsaris

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1097 on: December 13, 2020, 07:58:16 AM »
Oh man, if the Dems try to follow through on that. Comedy gold, they might score points with their own base, but that'd just turn 2022 into even more of a political bloodbath in the Republican's favor.

Elections? Haven't you heard Trump? The elections are rigged, mate. You can't trust them. In 2022, you should just have Trump tell you who is the true winner in every congressional district, and put those people in.

Anyone who disagrees with the above, is part of the corrupt deep state. /s

wmLambert

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1098 on: December 13, 2020, 10:51:51 AM »
Wm why do you still trust her?

The fraud investigator hired to debunk her came to an iteresting conclusion. He says Dominion is definitely corrupted and may have stolen the election and has officially urged an audit of the election: https://electionwiz.com/2020/12/12/fraud-investigator-who-sought-to-disprove-sidney-powell-says-his-analysis-shows-biden-did-1-5-better-where-dominion-machines-were-deployed-expert-recommends-audit/

DonaldD

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Election Results
« Reply #1099 on: December 13, 2020, 10:56:18 AM »