SCOTUS GIVES GA, MI, WI, AND PA UNTIL THURSDAY DEC 10 AT 3PM TO RESPOND TO SUIT

Bigdog said:
No doubt the pandemic was also used to remove election security safeguards.

All the earlier cases were dismissed simply because they did not effect enough votes to change the NATIONAL election results.
Click to expand...

The courts of those states determine whether the law was violated and the Supreme Court rarely interferes.

The courts of those states have ruled changes in law were allowed. PA Supreme Court precedent included a flood which interfered with voting and resulted in extensions of the voting period. Keeping to the exact days set by the legislature seems less important than requiring citizens to vote in a flood.
 
I read Trump's lawsuit intervening in the Texas case. The lawyer, Eastman, seems very sloppy. For example, he included an argument made by Trump which is not factual:

"The fact that nearly half of the country believes the election was stolen should come as no surprise. President Trump prevailed on nearly every historical indicia of success in presidential elections. For example, he won both Florida and Ohio; no candidate in history—Republican or Democrat—has ever lost the election after winning both States. And he won these traditional swing states by large margins—Ohio by 8 percentage points and 475,660 votes; Florida by 3.4 percentage points and 371,686 votes."

Nixon lost in 1960 but won both Ohio and Florida.

Eastman is the same guy who said Harris does not meet the qualifications for VP because her parents were immigrants.
 
BartenderElite said:
At least you corrected it to 57. Kind of funny to make fun of someone's gaffe w/ your own gaffe.

We're in a pandemic year. No one went "rogue." People made accommodations for high-risk citizens and others to be able to vote. These were all reviewed ahead of time and legally allowed.
Click to expand...

What gaff? :laugh: I was making fun of Bamaboy's ridiculous "57 States" gaff. Geeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeez.:palm:
 
Concart said:
Actually they don't. Each state picks it's own method for choosing electors. So if Texas decides that the legislature picks it's electors, and Minnesota allows weeks of early voting and mail in balloting, the citizens of those two states are not treated equally when it comes to voting in a presidential election. But they ARE treated equally under the law, the law in this case being the US Constitution. So the equal protection clause in Bush v. Gore was invoked ONLY because there was only one state involved, and the allegation was that different counties within that state were being treated differently. So once again, you are grotesquely wrong about the equal protection clause. It does not demand that people in one state are treated in the same manner as people in other states, except insofar as the Constitution weighs in to protect certain classes from being treated differently. It's amazing how often you can be wrong.
Click to expand...

For the umpteenth time. The wrong people (NOT the legislatures) were changing the rules day by day on a whim to suit their needs! They did not do it Constitutionally. :palm:
 
Stretch said:
For the umpteenth time. The wrong people (NOT the legislatures) were changing the rules day by day on a whim to suit their needs! They did not do it Constitutionally. :palm:
Click to expand...

No need to post spurious and unintelligible legal theories even one time, hayseed.
 
Micawber said:
No need to post spurious and unintelligible legal theories even one time, hayseed.
Click to expand...

That one has been on ignore for a long time. An administrative change that is consistent with state law (as determined by state courts) is of course not done by 'the wrong people'. They are just too stupid to engage with.
 
Stretch said:
That's the whole point. They (PA) did not act Constitutionally.
Click to expand...

The state supreme court ruled the actions were constitutional. Those administering laws always have discretion to accommodate changes for good reason. Only the state courts have the power to determine a violation of state law.

However, the Texas case is using the Electoral clause of the U. S. Constitution as the basis. It only deals with the method of selecting electors and all those states chose electors according to those laws. The laws that were modified involved a different constitutional provision.
 
Concart said:
That one has been on ignore for a long time. An administrative change that is consistent with state law (as determined by state courts) is of course not done by 'the wrong people'. They are just too stupid to engage with.
Click to expand...

Changing election rules must go through procedures in the state legislatures, not governors and secretaries of state.
 
Flash said:
The state supreme court ruled the actions were constitutional. Those administering laws always have discretion to accommodate changes for good reason. Only the state courts have the power to determine a violation of state law.

However, the Texas case is using the Electoral clause of the U. S. Constitution as the basis. It only deals with the method of selecting electors and all those states chose electors according to those laws. The laws that were modified involved a different constitutional provision.
Click to expand...

The state made changes to election rules as they went along by everyone other than the proper channel..................THE STATE LEGISLATURES.
It's NOT up to a governor or secretary of state to invent new rules day by day, even going PAST election day.
 
Concart said:
That one has been on ignore for a long time. An administrative change that is consistent with state law (as determined by state courts) is of course not done by 'the wrong people'. They are just too stupid to engage with.
Click to expand...

Senseless to speak to him. When he loses this too, he will still say everyone else was wrong. It's a power thing now. We have the power of law, they have zip.
 
Stretch said:
The state made changes to election rules as they went along by everyone other than the proper channel..................THE STATE LEGISLATURES.
It's NOT up to a governor or secretary of state to invent new rules day by day, even going PAST election day.
Click to expand...

Government is not set up so that every necessary change has to go back to the legislature. They often have provisions giving those implementing the law power to make rules meeting new situations.

The Georgia response to the Texas case describes the authority of the State Elections Board to make changes and explains those changes. This authority was provided by the state legislature:

"Under Georgia law, the State Elections Board has authority “[t]o formulate, adopt, and promulgate such rules and regulations . . . as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections” so long as those rules are “consistent with law.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-31(2). The State Elections Board exercised that statutory authority by adopting State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15. Indeed, a different statute—O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386—allows the State Elections Board to preliminarily review absentee ballots before Election Day, and expressly provides the county election superintendent with “discretion” to tabulate ballots prior to the close of the polls even in regular times."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...0145849997_Georgia -- Brief in Opposition.pdf
 
Bigdog said:
Nixon was cheated in 1960. Three Chicago election workers were convicted of voter fraud in 1962 and served short terms in jail.
Click to expand...

Nixon could have won Illinois and still lost the election in 1960.

Kennedy got 303 Electoral Votes - Ill had 27 electoral votes - 270 are required to win the Presidency in 1960.

Why is math so hard for conservatives?
 
PostmodernProphet said:
lol.....
Click to expand...

Laugh all you want. It would, in effect be a law that says whoever the party in control of the legislature is will get the electors, since if Democrats took over the legislature, they would just change it. It is absolutely constitutional. The only thing that prevents that from happening is the wrath of the voters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top