I believe (but am not fully sure for all of those states) that they already were, and were rejected by the highest state courts in those states. The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws.
> The Supreme Court will almost certainly defer to the state's highest courts when it comes to interpreting that state's election laws.
That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law.
I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections.
EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2.
> does anyone know who does have an interest if not texas?
The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.)
OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.
Trump and pro-Trump litigants have barely been able to articulate English sentences, let alone arguments. The complaints were laughably full of typos, errors, and just plain old falsehoods.
It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.
According to the WSJ article I read, states have the privilege of petitioning the court directly. Anyone else attempting to file a similar suit faces years of filings, appeals, and then the Supreme Court actually deciding to hear the case, so highly unlikely.
No one would have standing to go directly to the SC over it. Theoretically any citizen of the state, and potentially the losing candidate would have standing to bring the case, but they'd first have to go through the lower courts (as the Trump campaign did in PA), before going to the SC.
There is a team of lawyers and politicians still trying to exploit every loophole and legal hack in the books, including the joint session to formally declare the winner:
There remains one last-ditch chance for electoral votes to be tossed. On January 6, the Senate and the House will convene to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner of the election. The joint session of Congress is required by law to ratify presidential results, but also allows "members to object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced," according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Procedure calls for Vice President Pence to open each state's "certificate of ascertainment" — documents prepared by the state after it has completed its vote count and ascertained the official results. He will then present the certificate to four "tellers," who announce result tallies. Once a candidate reaches 270 electoral college votes, Pence will declare the winner.
Lawmakers may object to the results — even if it's not their home state — leaving the door open for representatives who support Mr. Trump's unproven claims of widespread election fraud to interrupt the typically ceremonial process.
According to a Washington Post survey, only 25 congressional Republicans have acknowledged President-elect Biden's victory. And 222 Republicans — in the House and Senate — will not say who won the election. Some may lodge their objections during the January 6 session. Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has already said he would challenge Georgia and Pennsylvania's results, claiming flawed election systems, Politico first reported.
Nothing short of plucking out the 3 horns of the government will prevent the regular logical constitutional succession of the country's executive. And putting his little horn in it's place...
Bear in mind that one of the options being considered is suspending the Constitution and declaring martial law, as suggested by retired Army General Michael Flynn, Scott Grady and leaders of the Tea Party.
And of course, thanks to the Second Amendment, civil war is always an option.
These are lunatic options but we appear to be living in lunatic times.
I can't help wondering if Biden shouldn't take these lunatics up on their offer. The US armed forces would probably follow his orders and be able to win Civil War 2.0 in very little time, with probably less than 1000 Americans losing their lives (so a lower body count than that attributable to Trump's mishandling of Covid).
A line needs to be drawn between people who support the peaceful transition of power, and those that support violence and armed intimidation of civilian election officials. If Biden doesn't settle that during his first term, he risks 2020 being the last free election that the country has.
> "The US armed forces would probably follow his orders and be able to win Civil War 2.0 in very little time, with probably less than 1000 Americans losing their lives ."
Are you willing to bet your future on that? Seems like a bad gamble to me.
"In a poll released this week, 52 percent of veterans said they would vote for President Trump, while 42 percent backed former Vice President Joe Biden. ...
In 2016, Trump was favored by 60 percent of veterans who voted, according to exit polling."
Expanding on that "last-ditch chance" a little more, if an objection is raised during the joint session of Congress, there are then votes held in the House and Senate separately to decide whether to reject the electoral votes that are in question. Unless both chambers agree, the electoral votes remain valid and must be tallied.
At least that's my non-expert understanding from reading 3 U.S. Code § 15:
I have a serious question I want to ask all of these supposedly serious men and women:
What if you get what you want and this comes to pass?
A purely political coup, in America, with no findings of fact in any court of law. The dog that caught the car.
How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience no legitimate fraud has occurred, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people?
Uh, well, I don't know that. Let me turn it around for you:
How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience that fraud changed the results, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people?
You are presuming that your opponents knowingly commit evil. They feel exactly the same about you.
"In good conscience" is not just "I wish it to be true"; it also means you're satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted.
Sure. Many millions of Americans are satisfied by the evidence presented, and the arguments against it have been weighted. They believe that an illegitimately elected person is about to seize power. They believe that you are gleefully dancing on the grave of democracy. They are wondering "How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass?" right now. They'd like a fix for this nation-destroying injustice.
So you are basically answering the original question with "yes." Half the citizens in America have lost confidence in the electoral process, which is tantamount to saying that the nation is already doomed.
A lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Republican voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics. That would be distasteful, but less alarming.
Likewise, a lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Democrat voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics, not that it is much better.
You didn't want this result?
You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security. Republicans aren't buying your excuses about the virus, or about black people being unable to get an ID card, or about anything else. You broke security on purpose. Any lack of evidence is because you purposely make it impossible to collect the evidence. (like a cop turning off his camera before doing evil) The result has been expected for months: a fraudulent Biden victory.
Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?
Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses.
You asked for the current situation when you dismantled what little security we had. Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. You broke security because you knew that fraud in your favor would happen if people didn't have to worry about getting caught.
Overall, yes, but not for all seats. New Hampshire was untrustworthy in 2016, both for the presidential electors and for the senator. Some of the house seats, particularly in California, were untrustworthy. Florida was nearly stolen via Broward County, and then again for governor/senator in 2018. Numerous seats were stolen in 2018 and 2020, though I do believe that overall control of the House could be legitimate.
I think you're implying that fraud could reasonably go both directions. I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Election workers who are willing to commit crime are clearly going to favor democrats. That just isn't the law-and-order party.
In any case, if you had an issue with the 2016 results, you should have cooperated to secure the elections. You didn't, because you know that you benefit from insecure elections.
The situation with fraud evidence is like a cop found with a dozen dead people, all shot between the eyes, and his body camera turned off. He says they all attacked him, and he was just a really lucky man. There is no evidence otherwise, because he disabled the camera. Didn't do anything bad? Sure...
Causation goes the other way. Nobody thought felons should vote until democrats realized that it would tip elections.
Oh, my mistake on the law and order. I should go Burn Loot Murder, rioting every night. Seriously? Portland is not a republican stronghold. The most crime-ridden places vote democrat.
I'll grant that Kamala Harris loved to prosecute crack users with a law that Joe Biden introduced, and that Donald Trump reduced the penalty. I'm not sure you want to take credit for the law that locked up lots of black people, but you may.
> You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security
It's difficult to take Republicans seriously when they didn't file a constitutional lawsuit against every state who implemented vote-by-mail in response to covid-19, just the four states that would need to be disqualified in order to make Trump the winner.
> Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?
Sure, no problem. Fund the FEC and make it their mandate to find every eligible citizen and issue them a free election ID card. If your answer continues to be 'make it a state ID, and by the way we will make it so DMV is only open one day every two weeks for a couple hours in this black neighborhood over here' then it just looks like continued attempts at voter suppression.
You can't try to pretend you are acting in good faith when it is so obvious you aren't.
Nobody sane would waste money on a lawsuit in a state that doesn't matter.
It's just plain racist to suggest that black citizens don't have ID. It is required for guns, which are actually a constitutional right unlike voting for president. It is required to buy beer, rent an apartment, use most government benefits, or get a job. It's even required to enter many campaign events for democrats! So, that doesn't sound like good faith at all.
Funding the ID is fine. Some bullshit election ID card is no good. It needs to meet the normal standard, as specified by the Real ID Act of 2005. The US passport would be acceptable; let's make those free. The military ID would be acceptable.
Say, want to bias it against republicans who never travel to foreign countries? Make a US passport the only valid identification. I'm fine with that.
At this point in time, it's too late. Step 1 of the steal was the intentional security reduction. It prevented most evidence from being collected, and this made it easier and less scary to commit the crime. (we did get a horrifying Georgia video and then some absurd excuses, plus the Minnesota ballot purchase video, plus the Texas Judge with the pile of fake ID, plus the Texas door-to-door coercion, etc.)
As I wrote above, for future elections:
"Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses."
There was no legitimate excuse for destroying what little election security we had. You wouldn't have done that if you wanted to hold a valid election, but you wanted to "win" at any cost.
Some ominous words slipped out of Biden's mouth when speaking to voters in Michigan: "I don't need you to get me elected!"
Any widespread fraud (and it would need to be widespread indeed, without the benefit of hindsight) would leave ample evidence. The conspiracy required to pull it off is mind-boggling, and keeping that a secret essentially impossible.
Ironically, Biden supporters have a better argument for believing in fraud conspiracies, given that Trump over-performed significantly compared to expectations in both of the last two elections. One man's "oh the polls must all have been wrong" is another man's "there were millions of illegal votes."
This is a scary time for the country. I sincerely hope this is just a personality cult and will fade along with Trump. Garden variety issue politics are at least halfway rational.
No. It's hard to keep a vast conspiracy secret, but I certainly never claimed that there was a vast conspiracy.
There was nothing secret about weakening the election security. It was done publicly, by elected officials, using the virus as an excuse. That happened months before the election.
Once that happens, people don't worry about getting in trouble. Individuals can act alone. There may be small conspiracies, like the 4 people who fed ballots into the machine after the observers left. Keeping a secret with just 4 people isn't so hard, aside from the video surveillance they didn't notice.
I will agree that it is a scary time for the country. When an improperly elected person seizes power, we should be scared. When a person taking bribes from foreign countries is supposed to be the negotiator against those countries, we should be scared. When a tired old man with dementia is all we have to respond to fast-changing world events, we should be scared.
You missed the point if you thought Trump was about a personality cult. The personality was fun, but the policy was what we wanted. He built over 500 miles of badly-needed wall, raised tariffs on China, didn't attack a new country, appointed decent judges, appointed a wonderful person for the Department of Education, put an end to racist anti-American hate sessions at federal employers, improved the H1B visa situation, ditched the Paris Accord, cut our taxes, got that pipeline approved, stopped China from using NAFTA via Mexico, got several peace treaties signed, and cut lots of economy-choking regulations. Just before that virus hit, he got us to the lowest unemployment numbers in recorded history (half a century) for black people and he got income inequality to go down a bit for the first time in ages. That's not personality. That's results.
Pretty sure the people didn't want a war monger with credible rape allegations against him that touches children too much. We got the candidate that billionaires who control the media wanted.
You don't want to go into "credible rape allegations" defending Donald Trump, of all people[0].
Also, there is no credible evidence, and there are certainly no legal allegations, that Joe Biden is a pedophile. That's literally just a right-wing meme based on him looking kind of creepy in pictures and on video.
As far as being a warmonger... that may be fair. Unfortunately, Trumpists lose any moral high ground with Biden trotting out shit like him being a creepy touchy old man, or him being senile, or other obvious nonsense like Hunter Biden's laptop. They just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks because it worked once with Hillary Clinton.
But then, Trump assassinated Qassem Soleimani, bragged about operations against ISIS and Syria, and has never backed down from threatening to use the military against anyone, like North Korea. I mean, he even tried to use the military against civilians in Portland. Hardly a dove. A dove doesn't increase the military's budget every year and add carriers to the fleet while cutting domestic health and education programs.
Second, yes, the people did want him. Joe Biden got more votes than Obama. More votes than any Presidential candidate in history. People voted for him despite historic attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement by the Republican Party. People voted for him in the midst of a pandemic.
Thank effing god this nightmare of sore losing is over. It's tough to say if America can recover from Trump, but the first step is removing the problem from your life.
Trump will continue to bellyache about it because his supporters will send him money to defeat the “deep state,” so expect more moronic headlines until the media decides to stop paying attention to him.
>Trump will continue to bellyache about it because his supporters will send him money to defeat the “deep state,”
A good point. the Trump "Legal Defense Fund" fundraising effort[0] sends the vast majority of donations to the RNC and Trump's own PAC.
What's more, that fundraising effort has netted more than USD$200,000,000[1], yet the total monies spent on litigation by Trump and his campaign are less than USD$5,000,000.
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
The dissents relate to the issue of "Original Jurisdiction."
In cases where there is a "controversy between the states," as the Texas suit falsely claimed it to be, The Supreme Court is the appropriate venue for first filings (i.e., as trier of facts, or the original jurisdiction).
For all other matters the Supreme Court is strictly an appellate court (hearing appeals after inferior courts have already ruled).
The Supreme Court has only very rarely denied such cases, as it's the only jurisdiction for them.
Thomas and Alito thought that the case should at least be accepted.
However, and it's a big however, both "dissenting" justices joined with the other seven in denying the "injunctive relief" requested by Texas (IIUC, delaying the appointment of electors in GA, MI, PA and WI).
Since that relief wouldn't have been granted (that denial was unanimous), the certified electors would have been seated on Monday to cast their votes in each state.
Remember, this isn't an appellate case. In these cases, SCOTUS sits as the trial court.
Unless the court heard each side make their case, enter evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, rule on any further motions, objections, etc., heard closing arguments, debated amongst themselves, came to a decision and wrote an opinion prior to Monday (60 hours or so from now), the electors would have already cast their votes.
Once that's done, it would render the the proceedings and the suit (because the relief requested by Texas was to invalidate the certified votes and the elections in all four states and have the respective legislatures appoint new electors) moot since the electors had already voted before they could rule.
So. No. Unless the justices had granted the preliminary injunction, there was pretty much no way they could (let alone would) rule for Texas, since the relief requested would no longer be available.
> They also said Texas waited so long to sue -- 34 days after the election -- that its claims became legally moot.
Regarding this point, if there were lots of voter fraud as had been alleged, would it not take a considerable amount of time to gather the evidence necessary and write a complete suit?
If there were lots of voter fraud, the people arranging the fraud would have also arranged to flip a couple more Senate seats.
It's really silly to believe that Democrats were able to orchestrate a massive conspiracy to fraudulently flip votes, and do it in such a masterful way that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence to get a court case to last long enough for a trial, yet somehow forgot to do anything about the Senate.
62 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 137 ms ] threaddoes anyone know who does have an interest if not texas? Will the suit be refilled be some fringe group of voters in those 4 states?
That's a bold statement. Based on their decisions over the past several months, and especially some of the most recent ones, I don't think your presumptions are true. I think most if not all of the conservative justices (I'd have to confirm precisely where Roberts sits) have expressed their opinion that in Federal elections Federal courts have a unique role in interpreting state law legislation. And that's exactly why many of the recent filings, including this most recent one (Texas v. Pennsylvania), complained about state courts modifying legislative rules in seeming contravention of Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution.
I think it's a nuts interpretation that shows how facile the neo-textualist approach has become. But in any event you might want to revisit your assumptions about what the law is or will become in terms of applying traditional separation of powers principles and precedent in the area of election law.
I'm also comfortable putting down some money that with Barrett on the court there's a greater-than-even chance that SCOTUS will invalidate state constitutional amendments that move redistricting to independent bodies. The last time it came up it was only saved by Kennedy, IIRC. Even if Roberts decides to adhere to precedent (notwithstanding that he ignored it the first time around), his vote won't be enough to save independent redistricting. But I'm not even sure Roberts would try because, IIRC, he seemed to drop some hints in one of his recent opinions as a swing voter that he'll get his pound of flesh on the next redistricting case--that is, to vindicate Federalist Society arguments about Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1, a sister to 2.1.2 that uses the same wording regarding legislatures and the manner of Federal elections.
EDIT: Fixed last sentence to refer to 1.4.1 instead of 2.1.2.
EDIT: s/2.1.1/2.1.2/
The defeated candidate clearly would be able to articulate the kind of particularized harm necessary to establish standing. For some of the fact claims involved, insofar as they might raise a legally cognizable case, in-state political parties and other groups and possibly in some cases particular voters have claims (e.g., where an equal protection claim is raised based on differential treatment of voters within the state, voters on the disadvantaged side would potentially have standing.)
OTOH, having jumped through the standing hoop, Trump and pro-Trump litigants have fallen down on actually being able to establish anything illegal, despite having tried in each of the affected states, in both federal and state courts, in well over 50 different lawsuits total.
It was an embarrassment on the world stage for Trump but at least he's finally going to be gone.
Here's what the Court said [2].
[1] https://text.npr.org/2020/12/11/945617913/supreme-court-shut...
[2] https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p86...
There remains one last-ditch chance for electoral votes to be tossed. On January 6, the Senate and the House will convene to count the electoral votes and officially declare the winner of the election. The joint session of Congress is required by law to ratify presidential results, but also allows "members to object to the returns from any individual state as they are announced," according to the Congressional Research Service (CRS).
Procedure calls for Vice President Pence to open each state's "certificate of ascertainment" — documents prepared by the state after it has completed its vote count and ascertained the official results. He will then present the certificate to four "tellers," who announce result tallies. Once a candidate reaches 270 electoral college votes, Pence will declare the winner.
Lawmakers may object to the results — even if it's not their home state — leaving the door open for representatives who support Mr. Trump's unproven claims of widespread election fraud to interrupt the typically ceremonial process.
According to a Washington Post survey, only 25 congressional Republicans have acknowledged President-elect Biden's victory. And 222 Republicans — in the House and Senate — will not say who won the election. Some may lodge their objections during the January 6 session. Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks has already said he would challenge Georgia and Pennsylvania's results, claiming flawed election systems, Politico first reported.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/electoral-college-presidential-...
And of course, thanks to the Second Amendment, civil war is always an option.
These are lunatic options but we appear to be living in lunatic times.
A line needs to be drawn between people who support the peaceful transition of power, and those that support violence and armed intimidation of civilian election officials. If Biden doesn't settle that during his first term, he risks 2020 being the last free election that the country has.
Are you willing to bet your future on that? Seems like a bad gamble to me.
"In a poll released this week, 52 percent of veterans said they would vote for President Trump, while 42 percent backed former Vice President Joe Biden. ... In 2016, Trump was favored by 60 percent of veterans who voted, according to exit polling."
https://www.kpbs.org/news/2020/oct/29/veterans-usually-vote-...
In any event, it’s a terrible idea for all concerned.
While I don't think most of the military support him or anything, I think you should consider scenarios where the chain of command fractures.
We've seen this in non-defence agencies (look at the backflips in the Justice department), and it's odd to think the military is somehow immune.
Civil war isn't a good thing. I don't know how old you are, but I remember Yugoslavia.
At least that's my non-expert understanding from reading 3 U.S. Code § 15:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15
What if you get what you want and this comes to pass?
A purely political coup, in America, with no findings of fact in any court of law. The dog that caught the car.
How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience no legitimate fraud has occurred, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people?
How will we continue as a nation if this comes to pass? How will you, knowing in good conscience that fraud changed the results, claim to represent the people when you have discarded the votes of 80 million people?
You are presuming that your opponents knowingly commit evil. They feel exactly the same about you.
A lot of us are hoping that a significant number of Republican voters know the truth and are just playing hardball politics. That would be distasteful, but less alarming.
You didn't want this result?
You should have thought about that when you supported weakening election security. Republicans aren't buying your excuses about the virus, or about black people being unable to get an ID card, or about anything else. You broke security on purpose. Any lack of evidence is because you purposely make it impossible to collect the evidence. (like a cop turning off his camera before doing evil) The result has been expected for months: a fraudulent Biden victory.
Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?
Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses.
You asked for the current situation when you dismantled what little security we had. Expecting opponents to trust the result is absurd. You broke security because you knew that fraud in your favor would happen if people didn't have to worry about getting caught.
Did you trust the result in 2016? Do you trust the House results, or the Senate results?
I think you're implying that fraud could reasonably go both directions. I call your attention to the fact that felons are 5 to 7 times more likely to vote for democrats than republicans. Election workers who are willing to commit crime are clearly going to favor democrats. That just isn't the law-and-order party.
In any case, if you had an issue with the 2016 results, you should have cooperated to secure the elections. You didn't, because you know that you benefit from insecure elections.
The situation with fraud evidence is like a cop found with a dozen dead people, all shot between the eyes, and his body camera turned off. He says they all attacked him, and he was just a really lucky man. There is no evidence otherwise, because he disabled the camera. Didn't do anything bad? Sure...
Well, that is what happens when one party seeks to remove your ability to vote, and the other defends your ability to vote.
> That just isn't the law-and-order party.
I’m amazed that you can imply that the Republicans are the law and order party, and not realize that you’ll get laughed at. Mad props.
Oh, my mistake on the law and order. I should go Burn Loot Murder, rioting every night. Seriously? Portland is not a republican stronghold. The most crime-ridden places vote democrat.
I'll grant that Kamala Harris loved to prosecute crack users with a law that Joe Biden introduced, and that Donald Trump reduced the penalty. I'm not sure you want to take credit for the law that locked up lots of black people, but you may.
But maybe you’ll think of a way to secede without a bit of the ol’ Burn Loot Murder, you’re a bright lad.
It's difficult to take Republicans seriously when they didn't file a constitutional lawsuit against every state who implemented vote-by-mail in response to covid-19, just the four states that would need to be disqualified in order to make Trump the winner.
> Next time, maybe cooperate on election security? Is that too much to ask?
Sure, no problem. Fund the FEC and make it their mandate to find every eligible citizen and issue them a free election ID card. If your answer continues to be 'make it a state ID, and by the way we will make it so DMV is only open one day every two weeks for a couple hours in this black neighborhood over here' then it just looks like continued attempts at voter suppression.
You can't try to pretend you are acting in good faith when it is so obvious you aren't.
It's just plain racist to suggest that black citizens don't have ID. It is required for guns, which are actually a constitutional right unlike voting for president. It is required to buy beer, rent an apartment, use most government benefits, or get a job. It's even required to enter many campaign events for democrats! So, that doesn't sound like good faith at all.
Funding the ID is fine. Some bullshit election ID card is no good. It needs to meet the normal standard, as specified by the Real ID Act of 2005. The US passport would be acceptable; let's make those free. The military ID would be acceptable.
Say, want to bias it against republicans who never travel to foreign countries? Make a US passport the only valid identification. I'm fine with that.
You are right that many people believe it did. And that's a huge, huge problem.
Can you explain any evidence at all that would convince you?
As I wrote above, for future elections:
"Ink the fingers, since we're 3rd-world now. Have ID, just like India and Mexico do. All votes must be cast in person. Take extra pictures when voting (face, fingerprints, iris, retina), to better enable prosecution of misbehavior. No machine goes on a network. Every machine is observed by multiple unrelated people (don't know each other) for the entire time, starting from verification that it is empty and continuing until all recounts are completed. No excuses."
There was no legitimate excuse for destroying what little election security we had. You wouldn't have done that if you wanted to hold a valid election, but you wanted to "win" at any cost.
Some ominous words slipped out of Biden's mouth when speaking to voters in Michigan: "I don't need you to get me elected!"
> Can you explain any evidence at all that would convince you?
And your response (TL;RD): "no".
You've drunk the cool aid, and it's a religion for you. I'm sorry for the state you have reached.
Ironically, Biden supporters have a better argument for believing in fraud conspiracies, given that Trump over-performed significantly compared to expectations in both of the last two elections. One man's "oh the polls must all have been wrong" is another man's "there were millions of illegal votes."
This is a scary time for the country. I sincerely hope this is just a personality cult and will fade along with Trump. Garden variety issue politics are at least halfway rational.
There was nothing secret about weakening the election security. It was done publicly, by elected officials, using the virus as an excuse. That happened months before the election.
Once that happens, people don't worry about getting in trouble. Individuals can act alone. There may be small conspiracies, like the 4 people who fed ballots into the machine after the observers left. Keeping a secret with just 4 people isn't so hard, aside from the video surveillance they didn't notice.
I will agree that it is a scary time for the country. When an improperly elected person seizes power, we should be scared. When a person taking bribes from foreign countries is supposed to be the negotiator against those countries, we should be scared. When a tired old man with dementia is all we have to respond to fast-changing world events, we should be scared.
You missed the point if you thought Trump was about a personality cult. The personality was fun, but the policy was what we wanted. He built over 500 miles of badly-needed wall, raised tariffs on China, didn't attack a new country, appointed decent judges, appointed a wonderful person for the Department of Education, put an end to racist anti-American hate sessions at federal employers, improved the H1B visa situation, ditched the Paris Accord, cut our taxes, got that pipeline approved, stopped China from using NAFTA via Mexico, got several peace treaties signed, and cut lots of economy-choking regulations. Just before that virus hit, he got us to the lowest unemployment numbers in recorded history (half a century) for black people and he got income inequality to go down a bit for the first time in ages. That's not personality. That's results.
Also, there is no credible evidence, and there are certainly no legal allegations, that Joe Biden is a pedophile. That's literally just a right-wing meme based on him looking kind of creepy in pictures and on video.
As far as being a warmonger... that may be fair. Unfortunately, Trumpists lose any moral high ground with Biden trotting out shit like him being a creepy touchy old man, or him being senile, or other obvious nonsense like Hunter Biden's laptop. They just throw shit at the wall and hope it sticks because it worked once with Hillary Clinton.
But then, Trump assassinated Qassem Soleimani, bragged about operations against ISIS and Syria, and has never backed down from threatening to use the military against anyone, like North Korea. I mean, he even tried to use the military against civilians in Portland. Hardly a dove. A dove doesn't increase the military's budget every year and add carriers to the fleet while cutting domestic health and education programs.
Second, yes, the people did want him. Joe Biden got more votes than Obama. More votes than any Presidential candidate in history. People voted for him despite historic attempts at voter suppression and disenfranchisement by the Republican Party. People voted for him in the midst of a pandemic.
That's how hard Trump lost. Cope with it.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_sexual_misconduct...
A good point. the Trump "Legal Defense Fund" fundraising effort[0] sends the vast majority of donations to the RNC and Trump's own PAC.
What's more, that fundraising effort has netted more than USD$200,000,000[1], yet the total monies spent on litigation by Trump and his campaign are less than USD$5,000,000.
The grift is on and it's working marvelously.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-usa-election-trump-fundra...
[1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/03/trump-pac-fundraisi...
> Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon. Videos of pratfalls or disasters, or cute animal pictures. If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic.
They are still 170k votes in Michigan that have just need discovered.
https://twitter.com/therightmelissa/status/13374041262637342...
And Georgia’s signature verification needs to be done
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/13375266064458096...
In cases where there is a "controversy between the states," as the Texas suit falsely claimed it to be, The Supreme Court is the appropriate venue for first filings (i.e., as trier of facts, or the original jurisdiction).
For all other matters the Supreme Court is strictly an appellate court (hearing appeals after inferior courts have already ruled).
The Supreme Court has only very rarely denied such cases, as it's the only jurisdiction for them.
Thomas and Alito thought that the case should at least be accepted.
However, and it's a big however, both "dissenting" justices joined with the other seven in denying the "injunctive relief" requested by Texas (IIUC, delaying the appointment of electors in GA, MI, PA and WI).
Since that relief wouldn't have been granted (that denial was unanimous), the certified electors would have been seated on Monday to cast their votes in each state.
Remember, this isn't an appellate case. In these cases, SCOTUS sits as the trial court.
Unless the court heard each side make their case, enter evidence, examine and cross-examine witnesses, rule on any further motions, objections, etc., heard closing arguments, debated amongst themselves, came to a decision and wrote an opinion prior to Monday (60 hours or so from now), the electors would have already cast their votes.
Once that's done, it would render the the proceedings and the suit (because the relief requested by Texas was to invalidate the certified votes and the elections in all four states and have the respective legislatures appoint new electors) moot since the electors had already voted before they could rule.
So. No. Unless the justices had granted the preliminary injunction, there was pretty much no way they could (let alone would) rule for Texas, since the relief requested would no longer be available.
N.B. IANAL.
Edit: Reorganized for clarity.
Regarding this point, if there were lots of voter fraud as had been alleged, would it not take a considerable amount of time to gather the evidence necessary and write a complete suit?
It's really silly to believe that Democrats were able to orchestrate a massive conspiracy to fraudulently flip votes, and do it in such a masterful way that no one has been able to find sufficient evidence to get a court case to last long enough for a trial, yet somehow forgot to do anything about the Senate.
This is not a fraud case - Rudy Giuliani https://youtu.be/Wuwl2p9TIDE
"Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, ... If they'd cover it on TV news, it's probably off-topic."