You have completely missed the point.Quote:
And many of those by-mail voters voted Republican....
|
You have completely missed the point.Quote:
And many of those by-mail voters voted Republican....
Imagine that. A court refusing to take a case for lack of evidence. Even a repub appointed conservative judge. That tell you a lot right there. Or you can stick with the conspiracy against repubs which might have merit if the whole party issue didn't actively and obviously pursue voter suppression against SELECTED voters which has been patently held as unfair, illegal, or unconstitutional. We're trying to kill Jim Crow and it's descendants while repubs want to keep perpetrating voter suppression. Unfortunately for your arguments a number of recounts don't bear out the fraud or undermine the security of the votes, even while the tired old meme of voter fraud is being adhered to without a scintilla of EVIDENCE! It is however clear evidence of intent by repubs to reduce the dems/minority vote and courts have ruled it so.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Can't blame you since that's the only hope you have to win the national vote. I doubt that stops repubs from more suppression antics though, or silences the hollering about fraud either.
That has proved to be a big LIE as have the charges and allegations of irregularities. We have evidence of that because even repubs investigated and found the last election to be fair and accurate and thusly certified the results. Repub efforts to obstruct and delay and change the vote count FAILED.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
And any reasonable person can see that empowering loonies is a disaster, yet that's exactly what the dufus did.
“Fight for Trump”: Video Evidence of Incitement at the Capitol (justsecurity.org)
Lying, cheating to STEAL the election. 5 DEAD!
That was true of some of the court challenges . The significant ones were not thrown out because of lack of evidence as much as the court ruling "lack of standing " .Quote:
imagine that. A court refusing to take a case for lack of evidence.
If there is no redress in the courts then where does he go to address grievances when it is clear by the reading of the Constitution that state legislatures make the laws governing how a state conducts an election ;and just as clearly it was the Governors and the courts themselves that usurped the power from the legislatures ? If the President of the US has no standing according to the courts in an issue involving the election of the President then when does he have standing in the imperial courts ?
Fair question, Tom. But first you must answer how 82+ courts, 2 SC decisions, and 3 state recounts all resulted in zero wins for Trump. Are you saying these judges and recounters are ALL involved in a huge conspiracy to deprive Trump of his rights?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I think he does see a conspiracy against the dufus or doesn't understand standing or evidence. You can allege anything but judges require and the dufus lawyers didn't dare lie and say there was evidence or even probable cause to sustain a case even if you are the president.Quote:
Originally Posted by Athos
Trump: If the President Doesn’t Have Standing to Pursue Wild, Unsubstantiated Claims of Election Fraud, Who Does? – Reason.com
And
Trump's failed efforts to overturn the election by the numbers (usatoday.com)
Many reasons .. Some were bad representation by Trump's lawyers . Most of the challenges ended at the district level and state court level and did not make it all the way to SCOTUS where the larger constitutional issue could be considered .
When cases made it to SCOTUS ; instead of considering the constitutional point about legislatures making the voting rules for the states and not governors and courts; the court generally and Roberts specifically was inclined to give deference to lower court rulings . Roberts is sensitive to the charge that SCOTUS is a political actor and goes out of his way to avoid the charge. So he was determined to make sure that SCOTUS had no significant role in determining the outcome of the election. And Barrett being the new kid on the block was certainly not going to be the deciding justice.
I guess that's why conservative put such high stock in packing SCOTUS, to get a favorable conservative outcome and fits the narrative of liberal activist judges not following the law. All those conservative judges aren't following the law either if I get your point correctly.
To me it is not conservative /liberal in the court .It is originalist /textualists opposed to activists believers in a 'living breathing ' Constitution ie the words of the text don't matter .
John Roberts has been a major disappointment . He avoids taking on the hard issues . This giving deference to lower courts and unconstitutional laws makes me ill .Imagine if the Warren Court in 1954 gave deference to the Fuller Court when deciding Brown v Board of Education .
How long did it take for SCOTUS to hear the Brown case which overturned Plessy?
A year and a half from arguments to decision . Why do you ask ? If you are asking between decisions it was 58 years where Plessy was precedence . Had the Warren court gave deference to that precedence then the decision never would have been reversed .
It took numerous lower court victories spanning decades Tom before Plessy could be overturned so expecting the dufus, Rudy, or practically anyone else to even get a hearing without lower favorable results is pretty pie n the sky.
Lower courts defeats and failure doesn't help things much. Matter of fact it hurts a lot when you cannot make a compelling case in district courts.
More details on the history can be found here.
Brown v. Board of Education: Summary & Ruling - HISTORY
you generally can't get a SCOTUS hearing until you get a negative call from a lower court and repeal .Favorable rulings end at the lower court unless the other side appeals .
Bottom line . There is a theory called the 'independent state legislature doctrine' that says that the Constitution empowers state legislatures with authority to set voting procedures. On this view, any action by other parts of state government; state courts, executive officials, or election administrators that depart from the legislature’s wishes are null and void. This is a view that Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch agree with ;and probably Barrett even though she recused herself as the new justice on the block .
The problem is Roberts who goes along to get along. He can't sacrifice his place in the DC cocktail circuit . Roberts cover is that not one case could've overturned the election result by itself .
But the larger issues remains . Do the state legislatures have the power granted in the Constitution to them to make the election rules or not ?
For Trump in this election cycle it is too late. But one of his contributions before he left is to appoint hundreds of justices that believe in the textual application of the rule of law .
Of course they do, but not in the way the right-wing interprets the theory. The Repub/right unlawfully removes the ability of state courts to review the actions of legislatures. The was never the intention of the US Constitution. In the states in question, they have Republican legislatures which obviously makes it a simple thing to invalidate whatever they want so their Repub candidate wins an election. Hardly the intent of the framers. Your "originalists" or "textualists" rely on an interpretation that isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
A good example of why "originalism" is a strange concept. It assumes the world has never changed from the late 18th century. Tomder, you need to find a new website for your legal cut-and-pastes - one a bit more legally mainstream.
Trump's appointments were ideological appointees - he should have appointed those who rely first on the LAW. I agree both sides do this, and there may possibly be a different method of appointing judges to avoid jurists who apply the law through an ideological filter.Quote:
For Trump in this election cycle it is too late. But one of his contributions before he left is to appoint hundreds of justices that believe in the textual application of the rule of law .
If your saying the states did something ILLEGAL, or UNCONSTITUTIONAL and that's why the dufus lost then that ship has sailed. Even repub legislatures had the time before the election to address their issues and state courts made a decision so crying about them still is just sour grapes. The problem with all the crying is people believe they got robbed. They believe the Giuliani's and the dufus's and the Hawley's. The truth is there was no fraud and the highest turnout we have ever had went decidedly against the dufus.
I think you should learn from that like we learned from the the previous elections. The whole notion of overturning the election results is insane without a clear compelling argument, and strong EVIDENCE. Allegations don't count without proof to back it up.
Call me sick but I enjoy watching your heads explode.
ok I give up I agree that an absence of court approved proof of election fraud is proof it did not happen (did they even let the cases get that far ? Does dismissing a case for standing even qualify as considering the evidence ? ) .Absence of evidence is evidence of absence or something like that . Judges are perfectly rational, infallible, and sworn to be unbiased and apolitical in their decision making , The oligarchs in black robes never make a flawed ruling .
Software systems and voting machines are unhackable, and full election transparency already exists. What was I thinking ? All the experts agree that it was the most secure and transparent election ever because all the new voting methods worked flawlessly on the first try ;something typical for all large changes to complex systems .I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.
Just like the 2016 election was....Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
If Biden had not won, they'd be crying like little girls. The ends justify the means.Quote:
.I believed it was the most secure election in history because the Dems told me it was 5 seconds after Quid started to take the lead.
And since Trump was losing and then lost, what did the repubs do?Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Tomder, I don't think you meant it, but your sarcastic screed was inadvertently close to the truth in all respects. At least you know the argument against your position - a good sign.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Yes transparent you could see right through it
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:03 PM. |