From "Texas Unleashes an Absurd Kraken" by the Editors of The National Review.
Also in The National Review, "Texas’s Frivolous Lawsuit Seeks to Overturn Election in Four Other States" by Andrew McCarthy. Excerpt:
Texas’s principal claim... is that by administering the election in a way that deviated from their states’ laws, election officials in the defendant states usurped the authority of their state legislatures, in violation of the Constitution’s Electors Clause (Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2). The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing?...
Federal law provides a procedure under which, on January 6, Congress will convene to count the electoral votes. If Texas’s elected representatives, or those of any other state, object to the counting of any state’s electoral votes, Congress will hear, debate, and vote on those objections at that point — mindful of what such disputes may portend for comity between the states. There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit. There is also no way, I suspect, that [Texas Attorney General Ken] Paxton doesn’t know that.
UPDATE: And now the Supreme Court has said that Texas lacks standing. I've put up a new post — here.
पोस्ट्स
२२८ टिप्पण्या:
228 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Andy is the one guy who would actually be shocked to find there was gambling going on.
AA, why are you posting this from Andrew McCarthy? What creditability has he exhibted other than he hates President Trump.
"What creditability has he exhibted other than he hates President Trump."
He endorsed him for reelection.
Sorry but Pelosi's sham impeachment and the Left's other "colluding" nonsense about Trump have shown that the way to victory is to endlessly contest an election when it does not go your way.
There is, however, no way the Supreme Court is going to entertain Texas’s lawsuit.
And it's not just Texas' lawsuit. It's 17 other states, and delegations, one even from the PA legislature. Is the SCOTUS just going to tell 18 states to go fuck themselves, that no matter how corrupt another states voting practices may be, you're just stuck with them?
That'll surely improve "comity" between the states.
Vote fraud excuse narrative established prior to the election in order to cover for massive fraudulent ballot dumps? Almost like it was planned ahead of time...
Say it aint so!
But, the supposed illusory red wave that would be over come by the late blue tide never materialized down ballot....
Lets not look to close, we might find fraud going on here, shockeding. Shocking!
Civil rights denied through a progressive spread of irregularities and fraud of minor and major consequence.
"The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim"
--------------------------
Whut??!!!???
It was predicted that Trump would establish an early lead in states that counted in-person ballots first, and then Biden would gain as the states began to count mail-in ballots...
Left out was "and once the counters had an idea of how many additional mail in ballots they would need."
The interstate lawsuit alleges mail-in ballot shenanigans, and let's hope it can lead to answers on the questions of how many mail ballots were real, legal and honestly counted. Because the actions pre-election to make those questions un-answerable stink to the heavens.
I'd bet the quadrillion is already a thousandth to the fourth power, and for one state it's one in a thousand.
Statistical certainty actually works backwards from what everybody, including statisticians, thinks.
If I'm certain to one in a quadrillion, it doesn't talk about a thin cloud of uncertainty surrounding the thing, but an assertion:
"If you build the test for fair elections that we suggest, it will call a fair election an unfair one only one time in one quadrillion, if the behavior of the numbers underlying everything behaves in the way we assume."
The assume part is the right part to look at.
"It was predicted that Trump would establish an early lead in states that counted in-person ballots first, and then Biden would gain as the states began to count mail-in ballots,"
Just a question from a skeptic of anything anyone says in the press: predicted by whom? Or was it the groundwork well laid to later provide the ability to say that it was predicted?
When I heard it noised about that such would be the case, my thought was "ground work". Preparation. Just as the whole nonsense about Trump attacking the postal service. It struck me that it was all advanced prep work.
I don't know the truth; I'm too far away from the evidence to make a judgment. But I'm not blind to all the attempted gamesmanship that occurs over the top. From both side of the spectrum.
The Third Circuit has explained that not even the citizens of the states where this happened nor candidates for office have standing to press such a claim. How on earth would a different, comparatively unaffected state have standing?
So who in the bloody hell DOES have standing? Is standing only reserved for aggrieved Democratic politicians on the off chance that they actually lose a rigged and fraud filled election process?
@Althouse, the more you try to wave your hands that Donald Trump would have lost the election even without massive election fraud, the more contemptible you appear.
but Pelosi's sham impeachment and the Left's other "colluding" nonsense
Yes, 16 trimesters of witch hunts, warlock trials, and protests. However, they weren't wrong, but merely projectioning. It was Democrats from the Obama/Biden administration that were peddling influence, colluding with foreign powers, forcing catastrophic anthropogenic immigration reform, engaging in democratic gerrymandering, denying civil rights, etc. Social progress, and social justice, too. #HateLovesAborion
The mail-in ballots are the main reason I remain unconvinced beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other. Basically, I think it was a giant mistake to insist on mail in ballots. I'm stuck at a point that I can't ever be sure that this election was or wasn't stolen. I wish we had an honest media, political class, and judiciary. But we don't. We have what we have. I wish we had people who wouldn't be tempted to cheat on something so foundational to our entire way of life as our election system. But I know they do. I wish such a critical election didn't have to happen in the middle of a pandemic. I wish we had a media that didn't spend an inordinate amount of time terrifying voters into choosing to mail in their votes rather than phyisically going to the polls. I wish the various powers that be in these critial states didn't ignore their own constitutions to accommodate mail in ballots.
I wish a lot of things weren't the way they are.
"The mail-in ballots are the main reason I remain unconvinced beyond a reasonable doubt one way or the other."
The virus was weaponized specifically to enable vote fraud.
A feature, not a bug (so to speak).
Never let a crisis go to waste.
it was the scenario, that blackfish, bloomberg's outfit, outlined back in september, but they were a busted flush in texas, florida and ohio, even his high profile prisoner vote gambit, failed to succeed,
McCarthy has dropped the ball, re fitz, mueller and now these vote fraud schemes, and this is over a period of 20 years,
What the heck is The National Review and why doesn't National Review sue them for infringement?
So sloppy. I guess getting names wrong is only bad if it is a member of your tribe, otherwise piss on 'em and their name whether erroneous or not.
"It was predicted that Trump would establish an early lead in states that counted in-person ballots first, and then Biden would gain as the states began to count mail-in ballots,"
That's what's known as battle-prep. Setting the narrative. What factual basis existed to support such a claim. These statements were made to prepare the media for what the fraud would bring about.
Flock of geese. Herd of bison. What's a collection of loonies like the folks posting the comments here?
Just shows how far Paxton will go for a pardon. Maybe someone can sue him for misappropriating public funds for a private purpose.
What's the story behind no senators participating in the suit?
Yeah, that crazy Texas lawsuit that would be laughed out of the USSC, just added 100 GOP House members as amicus.
On Thursday, 106 House Republicans signed an amicus brief in support of the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, which seeks to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin over widespread irregularities and accusations of voter fraud.
Hmmm. The stakes are building.
Haven't read NR for a few years now, ever since they were one of the first 'conservative' sites to go full-on never-Trump.
They must be hemorrhaging money (I hope).
Don't bite the hand...
The lefties seem to have forgotten any arguments but ad hominem.
Rhhardin
Maybe you should reconsider your bet. From the proposed complaint:
The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant
States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and
Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s
early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4,
2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,000. For former Vice President
Biden to win these four States collectively, the odds of
that event happening decrease to less than one in a
quadrillion to the fourth power (i.e., 1 in
1,000,000,000,000,0004). See Decl. of Charles J.
Cicchetti, Ph.D. (“Cicchetti Decl.”) at ¶¶ 14-21, 30-31.
See App. 4a-7a, 9a.
Bunch more GOP Reps joined today. That Trump is one frightening guy to have on your side.
The lefties put their arguments in legal filings. I invite you to read some of them. Dozens and dozens. All persuasive to judges. (Federal Judge in Wisconsin appointed by Trump filed this morning adopting the defendants' proposed findings in toto.)
I hate that they included the bogus stats in the filing. It feels like they are trying to lose.
Oh no! Andy fucking McCarthy!
The same Andy that vouched for the FBI, Comey,
Rosenpenis, Mueller et al? THAT Andy McC? Never gets tired of defending the swamp.
You mean New California and New Nevada not real?
Worse not to be using real numbers. 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0004?
The virus was weaponized specifically to enable vote fraud.
But by who - DNC, Soros, Biden, Xi?
I don't think the Texas lawsuit is frivolous at all.
I wrote a blog post on the Reply filed by Texas today. It is linked on my twitter feed @DavidDBegley1.
Point: If 4 big cities can steal the election with the help of state officials, we'll never have a fair election for President again.
Bush v. Gore allowed the candidate, Bush, to raise the issue of the Electors Clause. It also allowed the candidate to raise equal protection violations.
The Third Circuit’s dicta is not the law.
Also, the state legislature, as an institution, of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan each have standing to raise the issue that the executives and judiciary in their state violated the Electors clause.
The problem here is that the other states do not have standing.
the bigger picture,
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/12/will-america-become-chinas-vassal-gary-gindler/
nonapod:
Texas makes that same point. We can't know who "garnered" (yes, that word was used) and therefore SCOTUS needs to remand the election to the state legislatures in the 4 defendant states and let them decide. Seems fair and constitutional to me.
And, I must say, I sure wish the retired WI constitutional law prof would weigh in.
Blogger tommyesq said...
The virus was weaponized specifically to enable vote fraud.
But by who - DNC, Soros, Biden, Xi?
Yes? All of the above? Are they not all identical at this point--one massive entity? And of course the media as well, every single one of them singing from the same hymnal.
Begley,
Texas raised equal protection and due process claims under the 14th Amendment.
Those claims are frivolous in that neither Texas nor its voters are “within [Pennsylvania or any other states] jurisdiction.
Justice Thomas is the most conservative justice on standing. There is no way he’s going to agree that the states have standing on any of these claims.
The liberals are the least restrictive on standing. So it will be fun to watch them eat shit when they say Texas has no standing.
""And, I must say, I sure wish the retired WI constitutional law prof would weigh in."
Note the "lawsuits I hope will fail" tag on this post.
I am Laslo.
Texas Reply of today.
"Texas asks this Court to recognize the obvious facts that Defendant States’ maladministration of the 2020 election makes it impossible to know which candidate garnered the majority of lawful votes. The Court’s role is to strike unconstitutional action and remand to the actors with authority for the next step.”
So the Supreme Court remedy is going to be to remand this case to the state legislatures to pick the electors even though their state election laws delegated this decision to the voters?
Texas is asking for an unconstitutional remedy to fix a constitutional violation.
Perfect.
I guess Ann has weighed in.
I say Texas wins. This is one of the five most important SCOTUS cases in US history. If Texas loses, it is Goodbye Republic.
I remember the predictions that Trump would lead on election night and then watch his lead drain away as the mail in ballots were counted, and the warning that this set the perfect table for claims of a stolen election.
Which is precisely how it worked out.
Except for one thing--ballot requests didn't cooperate with the predictions. In the weeks leading up to the election, Democrats underperformed across the board in ballot requests--expecting 60-40 or better and getting much less than that. And then on election night, what surprisingly strong Republican mix of Republican and Democratic mail in ballots came out jaw-droppingly pro-Joe Biden. But not pro other Democrats.
If I were a judge hearing an election suit, I wouldn't accept that as determinative (I would expect the lawyers to talk about it). But I'm not a judge, I'm just a regular person and this definitely gets filed under, "things that make you go 'hmmm'..."
Denying Texas's motion for leave to file a complaint in the USSC against 4 sister states over their conduct of their own elections seems fair and constitutional to me.
Democrats are exceptional at projecting, gaslighting and battlefield preparation.
Republicans are wusses.
"the calculation assumed that every batch of ballots would have roughly the same partisan breakdown"
Has this been the assumption in all these places? Jesus.
After all the stupid ignorant claims I've seen, leading up to Nov 3 and after, it appears nobody knows shit. Even and esp the lawyers.
There could have been cheating everywhere, but assumptions and expectations and mathematical odds are not going to prove it.
All this commenting without reading the legal filings establishing that the election was conducted fairly I file under "things that make you go 'hmmm' ..."
Andy McCarty and the Dems are saying that no one has any standing to stop an unconstitutional theft of a presidential election by hack Dem state politicians and big city pols. The rest of the country just has to sit back and take it good and hard. We're helpless. Fuck them all.
The president hasn't been well served by his attorneys and those working independently on the case. It's hard to avoid pointing that out if one writes about what's going on. It's also hard to avoid pointing out that the president's chances of coming out on top are not very good at this point.
So frivolous That every State but 5 has joined the suit?
The NR with David French, Jonah Goldberg and others have been as anti-Trump as the Lincoln Project. There are no “turns at bat”. This all started with the false scare during the Wisconsin Supreme Court Election in April 2020. It’s been planned since then. Madison, WI is an epicenter of the corruption. Laws were changed outside the legislature, and in some cases via soft-settlement after Democrats sued. All of this violates equal protection for other states that played by the rules. The counting stopped in Election night for a fraudulent reason. The lead was bigger than Democrats anticipated. What we have learned about Dominion (for those that pay attention) is American isn’t in charge of counting its own votes. There was more than one fraudulent method used to declare Biden the fake president-elect. I read this article this morning. It’s garbage.
Since Dems tend to vote more by absentee than GOP, and since the number of absentee ballots was much greater this year, and since some of these states did not start counting the absentee ballots until after the polls closed on Election Day, the quadrillion to one claim is total bullshit.
The place to contest the election of president for these states is in Congress when they count the electoral votes.
These states have representatives and senators.
Their interests and the interests of their voters is to be protected by their representatives and senators.
It gets even better:
The same less than one in a quadrillion
statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the
popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia,
Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—
independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance
in each of those Defendant States is compared to
former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s
performance in the 2016 general election and
President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020
general elections. Again, the statistical improbability
of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in these four
States collectively is 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,0005. Id.
10-13, 17-21, 30-31.
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't this mean that Trump's win in 2016 was almost certainly the result of fraud since he did better than Romney?
“Lawsuits I hope will fail” tag. Interpreted. "I haven’t read the filing. I just want it to fail. Not on its merits, but because I earned my pension going along with the Madison bullshit for 30 years and now I just want to ride my bike by the lakes. If Texas wins, it’s going to screw up my personal utopia. Even though I’m in the twilight years of my life, screw the five-year-olds who will never know the freedoms I enjoyed during my childhood and prime. Fuck ‘em."
If I were a Supreme court justice, and I knew that not taking this case could lead to the end of our constitutional republic, I might be thinking good and hard right now.
Suppose they let Biden in, and the court packing scheme happens.
Does anyone think that even the most liberal justices would want to see their influence, status and power decimated by the addition of hacks put on the court precisely to make it a de facto rubber-stamp legislature for the radical left?
Browndog
50 - 18 = 32
32 > 5
steve uhr said...
Browndog
50 - 18 = 32
32 > 5
Fuck off.
4 States are defendants, the other libtards States joined them, you fucking idiot.
mccullough said...
Also, the state legislature, as an institution, of Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, and Michigan each have standing to raise the issue that the executives and judiciary in their state violated the Electors clause.
The problem here is that the other states do not have standing.
The PA State Legislature and Trump have both signed on to the lawsuit with 18 other States.
This is just the nice way to let you all know we are never going to accept an election run in this manner.
steve uhr said...
Browndog
50 - 18 = 32
32 > 5
You are easily the dumbest person on your side when Inga is not around.
Browndog:
50 - 18 = 32
32 > 5
Pretty basic math, even for a dimwit like you.
mccullough said...
Since Dems tend to vote more by absentee than GOP, and since the number of absentee ballots was much greater this year, and since some of these states did not start counting the absentee ballots until after the polls closed on Election Day, the quadrillion to one claim is total bullshit.
If we have a real election with purple thumbs, ID, and paper ballots filled out in person, like the one we oversaw in Iraq 1 quadrillion in 1 is a generous estimate of Joe Biden's chances.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
"Andy McCarty and the Dems are saying that no one has any standing to stop an unconstitutional theft of a presidential election by hack Dem state politicians and big city pols. The rest of the country just has to sit back and take it good and hard. We're helpless. Fuck them all."
What they are saying is that prescribing the manner of choosing of Electors is a prerogative of the State Legislature, and only that body has standing to object if its prerogative is usurped. No State has any right to an honest election in any other State. As a matter of law, that seems a good deal more convincing than Lincoln's claim that States have no right to secede from the Union.
I would imagine Althouse and others like those writing for the National Review know the voter fraud is real. Perhaps they all have their own motivations, but I’m guessing they have some things in common. 1) They live in areas that were already trashed by BLM violence this summer, and know full well if Texas is granted relief their communities will go up in flames again. 2) They got to enjoy America the way it used to be, so why concern yourself with the freedoms of those under 10-years old. Put a mask on those little shits. 3) They participated and made money in the system that has now proven itself corrupt and destroying the United States. 4) They have to put up with liberals a lot more than the rest of us do. 5) They are convinced they are smarter than the rest, based on their fake understanding of David Brooks type nuance.
It’s mostly about self-preservation, not truth and justice. If Maggie Haberman is free to analyze the inner thoughts of Donald Trump, than we are free to do the same about anyone else, correct? Besides, my anonymous sources inside Madison confirmed all of this.
Jupiter said...
Blogger Dave Begley said...
"Andy McCarty and the Dems are saying that no one has any standing to stop an unconstitutional theft of a presidential election by hack Dem state politicians and big city pols. The rest of the country just has to sit back and take it good and hard. We're helpless. Fuck them all."
What they are saying is that prescribing the manner of choosing of Electors is a prerogative of the State Legislature, and only that body has standing to object if its prerogative is usurped. No State has any right to an honest election in any other State. As a matter of law, that seems a good deal more convincing than Lincoln's claim that States have no right to secede from the Union.
Well, the PA State Legislature has joined the Texas lawsuit so that question of standing is moot.
Democracy's numerous and varied enemies are fond of saying that "Democracy is like a streetcar - when you get to your stop, you get off."
The Left appears to believe that this is their stop, and Democracy is over. They may well be right. But the analogy is faulty. When you get off the streetcar, the streetcar goes on. But if this is the end of the Democracy line, then this is where we all get off. So, that was fun while it lasted.
Justice Thomas is the most conservative justice on standing. There is no way he’s going to agree that the states have standing on any of these claims
The best preview of the thinking of Justice Thomas in #TexasLawSuit would probably be the concurring opinion he joined in Bush v. Gore. Same goes for Alito Scalito, given Scalia joined that concurrence, as well as Gorsuch. As for Kavanaugh & ACB, they both litigated Bush v. Gore.
-Robert Barnes
I think that everyone that has an opinion that this is either an easy win or an easy loss overestimates their legal acumen.
The first question I had when I heard about the suit was standing, and I initially thought "Oooh, interesting and good try, but they'll slap it down."
I then did some reading, and the more I looked, the less sure I was that it was a slam dunk. Then a huge number of states, the Penn. legislature, and the President all talked about getting in on it.
Standing is a key hurdle, and still the one most likely to cause problems. But to anyone saying what the court will or won't do without providing at least a 5 page brief with citations may as well be using a magic 8-ball, IMO.
Blogger Dave Begley said...
"Andy McCarty and the Dems are saying that no one has any standing to stop an unconstitutional theft of a presidential election by hack Dem state politicians and big city pols. The rest of the country just has to sit back and take it good and hard. We're helpless. Fuck them all."
No. They are just saying we have no Due Process.
At this point it becomes a contest of Wills.
The side that wins is the side that believes it is right and is willing to go farther than the other side.
As the lefties are demonstrating here they really have nothing to fight for.
NR's editorial is terrible and, as many commenters there have said, it is highly unlikely that they even bothered to read the complaint.
Margot Cleveland does an excellent job of laying out Texas' filing.
I would think Ann would be eager to comment on it.
The Founding Fathers put in the Electoral College for just this situation. When a one or a few states go rogue and corrupt there is a remedy. The State Legislatures of PA, MI, GA, and today WI have all held voter fraud hearings, with compelling testimony, all censored by the MSM. Witnesses have been openly harassed by Democrats in public. USPS workers have come forward risking their careers.
But those are just deplorable plebes, who would perjure themselves in mass, right Ann? Not the intellectual elite.
In Wisconsin today, Democrats are calling the hearings a sham and logging off when it is their turn to question. I’d call that a tacit admission of guilt. Madison Wisconsin is corrupt and a pox upon the rest of our beautiful state, and it uses Milwaukee for its own comfort and gain.
The reality is that at this point it doesn't matter what anyone in the media or on the left (BIRM) says or does since nobody on the right really believes that they're acting in good faith anymore. Not that I expect that will stop people on the left from bloviating at, insulting, and mocking people on the right. I expect that there will continue to be endless screeds written in the pages of the NYT, Washington Post, New Yorker, and elsewhere about how wrong and bad basically one half of the country is for not just shutting up and accepting the results of this election. And talking heads on the mainstream media networks will echo those sentiments. But none of it will matter. The bridges have been burned and can't be unburned.
It seems like we're heading into some rough times over the next few years. We thought 2020 was bad... but things may get a lot worse.
What they are saying is that prescribing the manner of choosing of Electors is a prerogative of the State Legislature, and only that body has standing to object if its prerogative is usurped.
Well, objectively that is false. Congress explicitly has the right to object, and indeed interfere:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives,
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of Chusing Senators.
The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which
they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
and more importantly:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of
Government, (They actually meant small r republican.)
Republics require fair and honest elections.
But the calculation assumed that every batch of ballots would have roughly the same partisan breakdown, despite there never having been any real-world expectation of this. It was predicted that Trump would establish an early lead in states that counted in-person ballots first, and then Biden would gain as the states began to count mail-in ballots, which were heavily Democratic. The last-counted ballots were universally understood to be the Democrats’ turn at bat, given who they were and where they came from...."
First of all, no it made no such assumption. That said, you can't get me to believe that the mail-in ballots were 99% Biden, which would have to be the case for what happened. Second, Dems who've never voted before (18 million of them) because they couldn't be bothered to in prior elections, finally decided that Trump was horrible and they needed to vote them out, but ONLY if they could do it by mail. Yup, the odds of these two events happening are really good. Pull the other one.
Those baffled by the idea of states limiting other states in how they conduct Presidential elections might want to read the Electors Clause of the Constitution, which is where states dictated to each other how they would conduct Presidential elections.
-Robert Barnes
"Well, the PA State Legislature has joined the Texas lawsuit so that question of standing is moot."
Arguably, if the Legislature has done so as a body, by a majority vote. Although it would seem that if they have the votes to join the lawsuit, then thy have the votes to choose Trump Electors. Which would make the matter moot, as far as Pennsylvania goes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shit-canning that election and having an honest one instead. I'm just pondering the possibility that the Constitution is, in fact, a suicide pact. Because Democracy is, in fact, a streetcar. And the answer to Lincoln's question is, No, any nation so conceived cannot, in fact, long endure.
minnesota farm guy said...
NR's editorial is terrible and, as many commenters there have said, it is highly unlikely that they even bothered to read the complaint.
Margot Cleveland does an excellent job of laying out Texas' filing.
I would think Ann would be eager to comment on it.
Ann doesn't do serious engagement of concerns.
She would rather just blow us off and ban us when we point this out.
This is the issue that is going to lead to dissolution of the Union. The Union exists by popular sufferance. When the elites are this condescending to the masses the masses just start sharpening pitchforks.
FYI --
This is NOT a discretionary certiorari review case.
It was filed under the Court's original jurisdiction, with the Court itself being the trial court.
No State has any right to an honest election in any other State. As a matter of law, that seems a good deal more convincing than Lincoln's claim that States have no right to secede from the Union.
Lincoln claimed that the language of the Constitution barred secession without the assent of the other states. Possibly, the assent of every other state. Not that secession was not a right of the states. Just a very narrow one, only constitutionally legal in very confined circumstances.
The first sentence is a succinct explanation of the legal position being adopted by the defense in this case, which is shockingly contradictory to the political ideals this country was founded on and which are legally and customarily the pillars of its political structure, but who cares right?
This is all deeply antithetical to the ideals and principles this country has endlessly screeched like an eagle to itself and the world about for over 200 years, but again who cares?
Jupiter said...
"Well, the PA State Legislature has joined the Texas lawsuit so that question of standing is moot."
Arguably, if the Legislature has done so as a body, by a majority vote. Although it would seem that if they have the votes to join the lawsuit, then thy have the votes to choose Trump Electors. Which would make the matter moot, as far as Pennsylvania goes.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for shit-canning that election and having an honest one instead. I'm just pondering the possibility that the Constitution is, in fact, a suicide pact. Because Democracy is, in fact, a streetcar. And the answer to Lincoln's question is, No, any nation so conceived cannot, in fact, long endure.
I agree with all of this. I don't think the SC is going to take this seriously.
Trump and Texas are giving them one last chance to save the union.
When the Supreme court hands down the decision all of the Beautiful People will declare the issue settled. Comcast will continue to black out OAN and will start cutting out Newsmax. Facebook and Youtube will ban all dissent. Anyone who speaks up in a corporate job will be fired.
It will be Nazi Germany 1938 with tools that Hitler could only have dreamed of and 50 million heavily armed citizens.
A judge ordered a forensic anaylsis of 22 Dominion voting machines after 6,000 Trump votes were flipped to Biden in Antrim County,MI.
The results were to be released at 3 p.m. yesterday. Our AG filed for an emergency restraining order to stop the released two hours before their release, and a lib judge granted it.
Mark said...
FYI --
This is NOT a discretionary certiorari review case.
It was filed under the Court's original jurisdiction, with the Court itself being the trial court.
And I a assuming that the court will dismiss it without hearing any evidence.
Browndog said...
A judge ordered a forensic anaylsis of 22 Dominion voting machines after 6,000 Trump votes were flipped to Biden in Antrim County,MI.
The results were to be released at 3 p.m. yesterday. Our AG filed for an emergency restraining order to stop the released two hours before their release, and a lib judge granted it.
Shocking.
"She would rather just blow us off and ban us when we point this out."
Achilles, that is deeply unfair to Althouse. Both her inclinations and her training lead her to encourage debate, however pointless, scurrilous or juvenile. This blog is a salon, not a sentencing hearing.
So, where is this Margot Cleveland article?
No State has any right to an honest election in any other State.
States have a right to expect other states follow the Constitution.
If not, why continue the union?
Those were the terms they accepted for the sovereignty they gave up.
I'm still trying to figure out why we have a Dominion Software with proprietary software.
I can download an entire operating system, and a suite of business software for free. I can even download the original source code, and see who has done what. What makes Dominion special?
......and who the fuck named that organization!?!?! Are SPECTRE, and Goldfinger next?
mccullough said...Since Dems tend to vote more by absentee than GOP, and since the number of absentee ballots was much greater this year, and since some of these states did not start counting the absentee ballots until after the polls closed on Election Day, the quadrillion to one claim is total bullshit.
Yes. The one in quadrillion claim I bullshit and hurts the case. However, it was not absentee ballots that turned the tide. It was mail-in ballots, many of which I assume (as a native Chicagoan) to be fraudulent.
I have serious concerns about electronic manipulation of votes, but cannot figure out if Sidney Powell and Lin Wood are trying to help or hurt Trump with that allegation.
"Are SPECTRE, and Goldfinger next?"
I'd expect KAOS first, but that's just me.
......and who the fuck named that organization!?!?! Are SPECTRE, and Goldfinger next?
*********
It's a Canadian company. Canada's official name is "The Dominion of Canada".
Jupiter said...
"She would rather just blow us off and ban us when we point this out."
Achilles, that is deeply unfair to Althouse. Both her inclinations and her training lead her to encourage debate, however pointless, scurrilous or juvenile. This blog is a salon, not a sentencing hearing.
I disagree.
Even if you believe the election is legitimate the grounds upon which these courts are making these rulings is atrocious. If you believe it is legitimate you should want everyone who participated to believe it was legitimate too. Especially violent angry mobs who are having their police laid off and businesses shut down.
Ann should be out there demanding that normal processes be followed. Instead she reacts with condescension. Nothing is more corrosive to a relationship than condescension. And banning people for pointing this out just puts you in Youtube land.
So, where is this Margot Cleveland article?
Margot Cleveland Article.
Alaska just joined this "frivolous" lawsuit, leaving 4 States unaffiliated.
Francisco D said...
I have serious concerns about electronic manipulation of votes, but cannot figure out if Sidney Powell and Lin Wood are trying to help or hurt Trump with that allegation.
The problem is the same as any case trying to prove fraud.
Without the source code and the machine and the compiler and the original ballots it is impossible to prove that the machines are changing votes or not.
They got 22 of the machines in Antrim county for forensic audit which is basically just making an electronic mapping of the drives. The Michigan SoS just filed a motion to block the release of that forensic audit and a democrat pretending to be a Judge granted it.
I will say again I could trivially write a vote counting program that was open source, completely secure, could produce an audit log you could rebuild an election from vote by vote, and you could even use a 3rd party encryption system to allow voters to see who the state recorded their vote for that would be blind to the state. This could probably be done for close to free.
The only reason to use Dominion machines is to commit fraud.
Althouse is just thinking like a woman. Mostly uninterested in the system if the result accords with the feelings.
"But, the supposed illusory red wave that would be over come by the late blue tide never materialized down ballot...."
Who says there was or had to be a "red wave?"All there had to be, and apparently was, was a sufficient number of people who rarely or have never voted who were spurred by their hatred of Trump to vote against him in this one election.
rhhardin said...
Althouse is just thinking like a woman. Mostly uninterested in the system if the result accords with the feelings.
It was never about who won the election. People like Ann can't see this.
It was always about the system. That is what the country was built on. The people were ancillary.
It is the destruction of the process that is going to lead to dissolution.
Next to last gasp for the conspirators and wanna be seditionists up in here.Soon the United States Supreme Court will reject the Texas case, most likely by refusing to consider it, or by issuing a ruling rejecting it, almost certainly by a unanimous vote of justices.
The Supreme Court will end the attempted legal coup d'etat by Donald Trump, once and for all, consigning it to the dust binds of American history to be scorned by historians of democracy for a thousand years.
January 6th the very last gasp where trump has the votes counted by Pence and crew and tries to talk the electors out of the votes for Joe, then the fat lady (and the fat man )will finally have sung. trump will have siphoned all the $$$ from the sycophants for his(wink wink) court hearings and folks here will have to move over to the "new" site for conspiracies, mundanity and nonsense, everyvotecounts/OANN/BREITBART/PARLER etc where they can continue the debate for next 8 years ad nauseum, with still no court proven evidence after going at least 50 or more to 1 on the loss charts. January 6th very last gasp. Duped by Don the Con...still time to send your $$$ in though... not serious people.
@RC,
All there had to be, and apparently was, was a sufficient number of people who rarely or have never voted who were spurred by their hatred of Trump to vote against him in this one election.
Has there ever been a US or election in any country with democratic elections where that occurred? Where the supposedly "hated" incumbent not only increased his number of voters by an amount/percentage unprecedented in US history for a losing candidate, but also dragged his down-ballot comrades to victory in federal, state, and local contests far past the expectations not only of pundits, but also of his own party?
I've seen the reason of "well, a lot of folks hate Trump" trotted out as if it's just obvious without an analysis of, well, what were the signs that such a large fraction of the electorate really hated Trump just that much?
My point is that "people just hate Trump" is/was not obvious from the stats, except for the one stat it seeks to explain. In other words, however weak the arguments for massive voter fraud may be, the explanatory power of "Trump hate" is every bit as weak.
National Review, home of the NeverTrump.
Like I need to read an article there to understand NR's position on anything.
@DINKY DAU 45,
And yet another lefty comes here to spew, totally unable to form a coherent argument or marshal evidence.
I really don't like it when Righties say things like "Liberalism is a mental illness", but I'll be dipped in dog yummies if I don't see the reason why they say it on a daily basis -- DD45 case in point.
All there had to be, and apparently was, was a sufficient number of people who rarely or have never voted who were spurred by their hatred of Trump to vote against him in this one election.
I don't believe this for one single minute. 18 million people voted for Biden more than voted for Obama; almost all in large cities. Do you really believe that to be true? Utterly laughable.
The problem with the Dems argument is that it ignores the fact that turnout in one city in each of the states of interest had massive turnout over other dominant Dem cities and that turnout voted more heavily for Biden than other similar Democrat cities. Also those states violated their own election laws AND mysteriously stopped counting on the night when massive vote drops occurred.
Could all of this have happened by natural causes? Sure, but the odds of that are preposterously low, leading to high suspicion of fraud that must be examined in detail.n an honest, ethical Democrat would insist on an investigation. The fact that they want to move on as fast as they can without an investigation is prima facie evidence of their recognition of fraud.
People who hate Trump really, really hate him. My spouse goes off on Trump almost daily. No, I don't have any convenient statistics. But I think he was the high school rich kid jock who kicked sand in their face, or something.
No State has any right to an honest election in any other State. As a matter of law, that seems a good deal more convincing than Lincoln's claim that States have no right to secede from the Union.
I don't know whether that is the law or not, but the implication would seem to be that the election supervisors of a group of states with 270+ electoral votes can collude to determine the election without regard to their voters, and the other states have no legal recourse.
A judge ordered a forensic anaylsis of 22 Dominion voting machines after 6,000 Trump votes were flipped to Biden in Antrim County,MI.
The results were to be released at 3 p.m. yesterday. Our AG filed for an emergency restraining order to stop the released two hours before their release, and a lib judge granted it.
That right there is so utterly indefensible, so completely brazen in its contempt for those who believe there was fraud, that it merits serious political violence if it succeeds.
Ah, Chuck's here. The "man" who openly wants to hurt women who disagree with the left. The man who wants the entire Trump family executed without trial. The man who would gladly hold the coat of whichever leftist threw the "Zylon B" lever for a camp full of conservatives.
I hope this lawsuit wins, just to see chaos on the left... "how dare we not be allowed to cheat with impunity!"
Also: this argument that "we can commit fraud and steal an election and no one can do anything about it" is rather sick, don't you think? Still: if we are going to play that game, why don't we "find" 5 million "mail in ballots" in San Diego or Orange county that are 99.% percent in favor of Trump... totally believable, according to every leftist out there with respect to Wisconsin mail in ballots. That should flip California to Trump. How could Readering, Chuck, or Inga complain? How could New York or other leftist states complain? No standing! And it's what you guys did, so it's all good, right?
"Still: if we are going to play that game, why don't we "find" 5 million "mail in ballots" in San Diego or Orange county that are 99.% percent in favor of Trump..."
I am down with this plan.
And we need to find these ballots not just there, but everywhere.
By the time we're done mimicking leftists, Trump will have 420 million votes.
Yes, I realize that exceeds the population of the US.
"Statistical anomalies" like that haven't bothered the leftists either.
Texas has standing. When it joined the Union, it did not agree that the President would be chosen in whatever banana-republic-like way some other states might chose to do so. But that is exactly how PA, MI, GA, and WI acted here. States can run their elections for dog catcher in any whackadoodle way they want. But it is a matter of legitimate concern for all states that every other state choose presidential electors in the constitutionally prescribed manner (i.e., in the manner chosen by the legislatures).
My prediction is that Thomas and Alito will vote in favor of Texas, and (of course) the three liberals will vote for the mini banana republics. The others are much harder to call. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret go with Texas, while Robert's goes with the mini banana republics, to make it look like the Court did not split on purely partisan lines. But all I am confident about is that it will not be unanimous.
So the Supreme Court remedy is going to be to remand this case to the state legislatures to pick the electors even though their state election laws delegated this decision to the voters?
Texas is asking for an unconstitutional remedy to fix a constitutional violation.
As I understand it, the states wouldn't magically flip their electoral votes to Trump, they simply wouldn't have EVs at all...which would put both candidates under 270, and thus send the election to the House.
The most egregious violations alleged came from Pennsylvania, where election officials ignored the statutory bar on inspecting ballots before election day, then illegally provided voter information to third parties and allowed illegal curing of the ballots. Significantly, in Pennsylvania these illegal practices only occurred in Democratic strongholds, with Republicans following the law.
I am sure the Supreme Court will find some way to ignore things like this.
From the Citizens United brief, which is wonderfully written:
The membrane that holds the Union together is the willingness of each State to subordinate its interests and sovereignty to the constitutional duties imposed on it as part of our Union. The federal arrangement cannot survive if any State can ignore the reciprocal obligation to abide by the terms of the Constitution, particularly the provisions governing how the President — the most important official in the Nation — is chosen.
RMc said...
As I understand it, the states wouldn't magically flip their electoral votes to Trump, they simply wouldn't have EVs at all...which would put both candidates under 270, and thus send the election to the House.
This was my most likely scenario a few weeks ago.
I am no longer believing this.
I just think we are heading towards dissolution.
From an article elsewhere on the interwebs...
Four years ago Justices Thomas and Alito took the view that the Supreme Court cannot, in an exercise of discretion it has conferred upon itself, deny States a forum to litigate disputes with other states because, under the Constitution, the Supreme Court is the only forum where such disputes can be resolved.
What is unknown on this day is the views of Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett on this key issue.
In reference to:
Four years ago, Nebraska filed a motion in the Supreme Court seeking permission to file a complaint against Colorado over issues involving Colorado’s passage of legislation that legalized the recreational use of marijuana in contravention of federal law. Nebraska alleged that its interests as a state were harmed by that legislation.
Thrust being that SCOTUS is the one and only venue for disputes directly between states. Further reading of this article also seemed to discard the issue of standing as the case itself is only presented to SCOTUS and all judicial findings are the finings of the SC itself and there is therefore no lower court to send it back to or to reprimand or correct.
I still think at least 5 justices will vote against taking the case but we'll see.
I have reliable sources that AL and MS are going to legalize slavery. To hell with the 13th Amendment!
Now do NE, TX, WI, MI, PA and GA have standing to stop this? Can the federal government stop legalized slavery?
Or are we just some lawless mess?
History may show the lawsuits were the 1st volley in our national split into two or more loosely aligned sovereign countries.
Isn't this grand new world of leftist arrogance wonderful? "All we have to do is just cheat in 4 cities as much as we want and we win the election! And no one can complain about it because they don't have standing! We can just run roughshod over the rest of the states!"
--Readering, Robert Cook, Ann Althouse (apparently, as she is actively opposing this suit).
Inga and Chuck prefer the more direct James Hodkinson approach to dealing with Republicans and conservatives who do not worship Stalin.
I am praying the SC agrees there was significant level of egregious and illegal behavior and then levels the states in writing. And hopefully their written admonition will be historic evidence that the election was not fair even if the SC can't change the result of Biden winning.
Demos... democracy is aborted in darkness, behind a wall, a curtain, at the twilight fringe. So true, WaPo. So true.
Thomas will have to do a 180-degree change on his views of standing not to dismiss this case.
The Supreme Court is in a pickle. No doubt they'd rather not touch this, but they have to. Not the hear the case, and find for the plaintiff, will codify any and all election fraud any States wants to partake in without restraint.
Same thing happened in Michigan with our Supreme Court and Whitmer. If they didn't take the case and rule for the plaintiff, Whitmer would be able to declare an emergency every 28 days and rule by edict for her entire term without restraint.
David Begley. There are still real estate deeds with restrictive covenants that block sales to Negroes, Jews, Chinese, etc. They are unenforceable. Any contract of slavery would be unenforceable and subject the parties to the transaction to prosecution. So much for your careful reading of the Texas motion and reply.
The Supreme Court is often in a pickle but not over the Texas motions.
The problem here is that the other states do not have standing.
You sound like Law Professor Freder. What do you say if the Court disagrees with you ?
I still think at least 5 justices will vote against taking the case but we'll see.
If so, one will be Roberts.
“Flock of geese. Herd of bison. What's a collection of loonies like the folks posting the comments here?”
“Loons...An asylum, cry, water dance”
https://lenichoir.org/collective-nouns/
"But, the supposed illusory red wave that would be over come by the late blue tide never materialized down ballot...."
Who says there was or had to be a "red wave?"All there had to be, and apparently was, was a sufficient number of people who rarely or have never voted who were spurred by their hatred of Trump to vote against him in this one election.
This ignores the fact that Trump got more votes than any other candidate in history, except (we are supposed to believe) Biden. And that the voting patterns in the four cities that ultimately may decide this race, differ from those of every other city in the US.
So we are supposed to believe that both more people voted in favor of Trump than any other candidate in History, while at the same time more people voted against Trump than any other candidate in History. We are supposed to believe that Trump increased his share of the minority vote everywhere except the four cities in question.
You sound like Law Professor Freder. What do you say if the Court disagrees with you ?
What will happen is that suddenly, like magic, the perceived partisanship of judges will magically become the most important and relevant issue possible, and their complete blowing off our own similar concerns and their irreducible appeals to authority for the last month will have never happened.
It's true that it had been announced that Biden was expected to get more of the mail-in vote, but 98+%? That's a higher percentage than he got in San Francisco. You might expect it to be high, but that's Fidel Castro high.
Blogger Kevin said...
No State has any right to an honest election in any other State.
States have a right to expect other states follow the Constitution.
If not, why continue the union?
Those were the terms they accepted for the sovereignty they gave up.
That is the next step if Roberts wimps out, as I expect.
If Justice Thomas disagrees he will have to renounce all his previous views as stated in concurrences and dissents about standing. In other words, he’s just another partisan whose jurisprudence goes out the window when it conflicts with his personal beliefs.
Thomas has stated that, under the statute passed by Congress saying the Supreme Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all controversies between two or more states, the Supreme Court has no discretion to shunt the case to a lower court.
He disagrees with the majority’s view that Court can send State v State cases to other courts or refuse to hear them.
He’s right. The statute is unambiguous.
But if Texas does not have standing, as Thomas’ expressed views over the years show, then there is no “case or controversy.” So he should deny Texas motion to file its complaint.
Mich Secretary of State:
"On Sunday, individuals with no apparent technical expertise in election technology were permitted to gather images of Dominion voting equipment in Antrim County. While the information they gathered is subject to a court-issued protective order, the Michigan Department of State warns voters to be wary of the claims that the group may make in coming days. Members of the group have previously made false statements, shared fake documents and made baseless claims about the election that have been widely debunked and rejected in multiple courts.
“It is disappointing, though not surprising, that the primary goal of this group is to continue spreading false information designed to erode the public’s confidence in the election. By doing so, they injure our democracy and dishonor the 5.5. million Michigan citizens who cast ballots,” said Michigan Department of State spokesperson Jake Rollow. “As Attorney General William Barr, the FBI and CISA have found, this was the most secure election in our nation’s history and, despite unprecedented scrutiny, there has been no evidence of widespread fraud identified whatsoever.”
If any candidate truly thought that the Dominion machines failed to correctly count ballots, they could and should have requested a hand-recount of ballots. No recounts of state elections were requested in Antrim County."
Quinn- Why didn't Trump request a hand recount? Because everyone knows this is just another bs story. You people are truly evil. You want to bring down the republic because your guy lost. I get it that it is tough when your cult leader goes down. Hang in there bro.
The way I understand it is that
First the laws passed by the legislatures in question (WI, MI, PA, GA) were not adhered to and were changed by county officials and others who did not have that authority. So that the elections should be held again following the laws passed by the legislatures. This relates to how mail-in ballots were treated.
There should be new elections run as laws require.
Second, on the night of the election three states (WI, MI, PA) "stopped counting" and Georgia claimed a broken pipe had led to a flood and so "stopped counting." The Republican pollwatchers went home and counting was resumed by the Democrats. This was an extraordinary event. Why did it happen? Then this one party count gave Joe Biden a big wad of votes from absentee voters in Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Atlanta and Detroit. This extraordinary pause in the counting and the ensuing absence of Republican poll watchers can never be justified.
There should be new elections in the states that carried out this extraordinary manoeuver.
Was it legal to ignore the election laws and was it legal to count without Republican poll watchers?
No.
Did it alter the election?
You tell me why Democratic party city/county officials in three states would stop counting and send pollwatchers home if they did not have to do so to achieve the desired result? This had never been done before and there's only one possible reason why it happened now. Trump was winning again.
In other words, he’s just another partisan whose jurisprudence goes out the window when it conflicts with his personal beliefs.
We don't even have to wait, it's already started.
Recall that the fact that the PA Supreme Court is 5-2 Democrat, and all of them have massive conflicts of interest in the case, has been found for the last month to have no bearing whatsoever.
Readering:
You grossly miss my point. I'm suggesting that AL and MS are just going to ignore the terms of the US Constitution and especially the 13th Amendment. Who the hell is going to stop them?
Same deal with WI, MI, GA and PA. By statute and executive action, they are ignoring the provisions of the Constitution. Who the hell is going to stop them? Texas?
This is the type of hypo we'd get in law school by teachers like Ann Althouse. The Socratic method at its best. I hope there is oral argument on this.
We are told by our "betters" that TX doesn't have standing. The hell they don't!
Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 111 (2000) (opinion of Chief Justice Rehnquist, joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas). Relying in part on dictum in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27 (1892), the three Justices reasoned that, because Article II confers the authority on a particular branch of state government (the legislature) rather than on a state generally, the customary rule requiring deference to state court interpretations of state law is not fully operative, and the Supreme Court “must ensure that postelection state-court actions do not frustrate” the legislature’s policy as expressed in the applicable statute. 531 U.S. at 113.
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
May 23, 2014
Sometimes by losing a battle you find a new way to win the war. Don't ever get down on yourself, just keep fighting - in the end, you WIN!
R
The thing is either the whole constitution has meaning or it doesn't. We don't selective enforce some provisions and ignore others. This means the 13th Amendment, the 14th, the Electors and Elections clauses.
"My point is that 'people just hate Trump' is/was not obvious from the stats...."
Except that the polls leading up to the election showed Biden had the lead.
That Trump increased his votes is not surprising, given such a polarizing figure he is and the overheated political atmosphere he has fostered. And, just as people who seldom or never vote were impelled by their revulsion of Trump to vote for Biden, people who didn't vote in the last election, or who didn't vote for Trump but who came to like him went to he polls to help cement his re-election. There just weren't enough of them to beat Biden, as indicated by the available evidence.
I certainly don't think many people voted for Biden because they truly like him and needed to see him as President. Most of Biden's votes were almost certainly "anyone-but-Trump" votes. Biden is likely to be as Republican-policy-friendly a president as most sane (i.e., "not-Trumper") Republicans could want.
“Today, the Court holds that Carolyn Wright was denied equal protection by being excluded from jury service. But she is not the person challenging Flowers’ convictions (she would lack standing to do so), and I do not understand how Flowers can have standing to assert her claim.”
"And banning people for pointing this out just puts you in Youtube land."
Althouse claims there is "no viewpoint moderation", and I see no reason to doubt her. God knows, she tolerates me. She has apparently even learned to tolerate Chuck, and that big dick he has in his mouth. He's Vice-President material, Chuck is.
And, BTW, the fact that four states stopped counting suggests inter-state collusion which is Federal.
And in the Voting Rights Act it was made plain that states could not misuse their power to decide on election procedures so as to allow procedures that disenfranchised voters and if they did this, then the Federal government could rule against them. And this is what is going on.
And if these elections procedures are allowed to stand, then mass illegal immigration will begin again and this will take jobs from members of the black community in the cities. These people are the specific people disenfranchised by 2020 weirdness in the election and now they are to be ground down to the dust as the jobs go to Biden's beloved illegals. Kamala is cheering is the pall of poverty descends. How is this right? How is this Constitutional?
"I don't believe this for one single minute. 18 million people voted for Biden more than voted for Obama; almost all in large cities. Do you really believe that to be true?"
Yes, I believe it. I voted in Manhattan and I have never seen lines to get into the polling place to vote anywhere near as long as were common here.
Texas did not raise a claim under the voting rights act.
Hatred of Trump, like Love of Trump, is real.
"People who hate Trump really, really hate him. My spouse goes off on Trump almost daily. No, I don't have any convenient statistics. But I think he was the high school rich kid jock who kicked sand in their face, or something."
They hate the utterly false image of Trump that has been put in their heads by the media.
David Begley, I got your point. You missed mine. No state needs to enforce the 13th Amendment against AL and MS in your scenario. DOJ and people injured by the slavery statute will do fine without states bringing actions in the USSC.
I'll give you the last word.
You might expect it to be high, but that's Fidel Castro high.
That's Kin Jung high.
Trump put the false image of himself before the public.
He was a total asshole in the first debate and acts like an asshole frequently.
If Trump is not an asshole, he should not have put that false image of himself out there.
Well, we can discuss this until we bleed out the ass, but it’s unlikely that SCOTUS will be swayed by our arguments. We shall see.
"Isn't this grand new world of leftist arrogance wonderful? "All we have to do is just cheat in 4 cities as much as we want and we win the election! And no one can complain about it because they don't have standing! We can just run roughshod over the rest of the states!"
"--Readering, Robert Cook, Ann Althouse (apparently, as she is actively opposing this suit)."
You presume too much, bub. I have never stated I oppose Trump's lawsuits. I just point out that their flimsiness and lack of substance may be inferred by how many courts are swatting them down.
It's entirely expected and typical of Trump (as with other big-money corporate and individual human entities) to try to use the courts (and his money) as bludgeons to get what he cannot get by other means. This is his standard MO. If a court somewhere is willing to hear one of Trump's suits, we will see what we will see.
Readering:
But what if the DOJ and FBI don't want to enforce federal law? We have seen a number of instances where they haven't. So, then it is up to the states.
It is certainly clear that the FBI has done ZERO to investigate election fraud. As far as I know, they haven't interviewed the trucker who drove the ballots from NY to PA. That's been one of my battle cries: Where has the FBI been? It was a federal election!
So, in this instance I certainly think Texas has standing to enforce the constitution.
I will add that I'm confident Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh will vote to hear the case and fairly certain that ACB and Gorsuch will join. These people have seen the political evil and lawlessness of the Dems. I won't soon forget what they did to Thomas and Kavanaugh.
I particularly like Wisconsin's "Here's 150,000 votes for Biden. Zero votes for Trump!"
When challenged, they say, "Well, we just input batches of counted votes for the candidates, so jumps in votes are to be expected!" Ok, so they put in all the Biden votes at once. Where's the batch of votes Trump got? Crickets. Apparently only Biden got votes.....
Every Democrat: "Nothing to see here! It's treasonous to even ask about it! Silence anyone who says anything is fishy!"
I would have come here to mention all the Silicon Valley twats are moving to Austin (Oracle announced today) but since stealing elections goes to the party in power the news is moot.
"If Trump is not an asshole, he should not have put that false image of himself out there."
Oh, he's an asshole. No doubt about that.
"If a court somewhere is willing to hear one of Trump's suits, we will see what we will see."
Two courts in PA not only tried to stop the certification but the second ruled that Trump was likely to win on the merits of his case.
Then the PA Supreme Court (which is partisan and conflicted as hell in this) said "Didn't file in a timely manner!". And those judges were overruled.
So let's stop the bullshit that no courts have agreed with Trump. The Dems haven't needed to control anything but the Supreme Courts of those states, which they do, and those have slapped every court that ruled in Trump's favor down.
Yes, I believe it. I voted in Manhattan and I have never seen lines to get into the polling place to vote anywhere near as long as were common here.
I’ll bet money that actual voter counts in Manhattan were not much higher than they were in 2008 or 2016.
Dave Begley said...
I will add that I'm confident Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh will vote to hear the case and fairly certain that ACB and Gorsuch will join. These people have seen the political evil and lawlessness of the Dems. I won't soon forget what they did to Thomas and Kavanaugh.
12/11/20, 4:29 PM
Whatever tortured bullshit Roberts rationalizes will not be sufficient in any way to quiet the right wing, which is really the only thing the left should be doing before bodies start hanging from lampposts. As long as Clarence Thomas is alive, he's not going to bend for anyone, and his simple discussion of fraud is going to motivate Trump's base. In all honesty a 5-4 RBG decision, with 1% of the population making up 60% of the vote to betray America, would have been terrible just because it would be expected. Mission failed, we'll get 'em next time boys. But a 5-4 or 6-3 decision where multiple Trump judges cross the floor would be seen as an unforgivable betrayal by the base, especially after the effort expended to confirm Brett Kavanagh. If they can't make a simple non-procedural explanation to explain the fraud and freeze the Electoral College until it is adequately explained, PDT will cross the Rubicon and put a permanent end to the Supreme Court's power before Biden can pack it.
I'm quite looking forward to it.
According to Gallup, Trump's approval rating at the time of the 2016 election was 36%, and it was was 43% at the time of the 2020 election. Despite this substantial RISE in his approval rating, we are supposed to believe that all these extra millions of people came out to vote against Trump because they hated him so much? Why would so many more people hate him this time around? Because he created a booming economy that was interrupted by the Wuhan virus and state-ordered shutdowns? Because he was falsely accused of colluding with Russia to steal the 2016 election but was exonerated by Mueller? Because he kept us out of new wars? Because he successfully renegotiated NAFTA? Because he kept his promise to appoint conservative justices? Because he took on China on trade, as promised? Because he built large segments of the border wall he promised? Because he opposed the rioting, arson, and looting by the Left? Because he brokered peace deals in the Middle East? The narrative that so many more people hated him this time around and were moved to vote against him and for a dessicated corpse just makes no sense.
Oh, he's an asshole. No doubt about that
Takes one to know one...
"The narrative that so many more people hated him this time around and were moved to vote against him and for a dessicated corpse just makes no sense."
The people pushing this narrative don't, for a second, believe it. They just want you to. And then, sit down, shut up and do as you're told.
The Pennsylvania Legislature, which is GOP majority, changed its election laws in 2019 to permit no-excuse absentee voting.
Place the blame where it belongs.
Browndog said...
Alaska just joined this "frivolous" lawsuit, leaving 4 States unaffiliated.
12/11/20, 2:47 PM
If the US Supreme Court wants to stamp "We're Irrelevant!"* on itself, then ignoring this matter or deciding on procedural grounds would be the way to do so.
*It would be written in the high Latin form of Chickenese.
Whatever tortured bullshit Roberts rationalizes will not be sufficient in any way to quiet the right wing, which is really the only thing the left should be doing before bodies start hanging from lampposts.
The left has been trying to goad and gaslight the right into violence forever. They will use it as justification to go full Nazi themselves. It is to our credit that we did not fall for the constant bait before now. But they've gone so far over the line now that forbearance is no longer possible. This is far beyond mere trolling. These are now consummate acts of war.
Perhaps the Gallup poll is as bullshit as most polls?
How do people decide which polls are trustworthy?
Is it based on whether the poll supports their beliefs?
Quinn,
How old are you? You sound pretty old to be waging war.
The Pennsylvania Legislature, which is GOP majority, changed its election laws in 2019 to permit no-excuse absentee voting.
Place the blame where it belongs.
But they did not permit receiving votes after election day.
They did not dismantle signature verification on mail in ballots.
They did not permit sending ballots to people who did not request them.
They did not permit curing ballots only in Democrat counties.
Democrat courts and secretaries of state modified those rules for no plausible reason, and Democrats then engaged in an avalanche of all four things.
Place THAT blame where it belongs.
McCullough, are there some other polls that you think are more accurate? I just Googled and found Gallup. I think other polls may give different numbers, but I think the trend will be the same. I'll see if I can find some.
How old are you? You sound pretty old to be waging war.
I'm 50. But the guy running my local pistol range said two weeks ago (when reviewing my practice target) that I would've gotten 100% on the police qualification test.
I'll find something useful to do.
"I’ll bet money that actual voter counts in Manhattan were not much higher than they were in 2008 or 2016."
Pay up!
As the article points out, the increase is due to a greater number of registered voters in New York City (all boroughs) in 2020 than in 2016...likely due to previous non-voters wanting to vote against Trump. Trump also gained more votes in the city in 2020 than he received in 2016. The public was exercised by Trump-hate and Trump-love.
As always, hate won!
Oh, he's an asshole. No doubt about that
Not a disqualification for the Presidency. Possibly a requirement.
There's this
https://noqreport.com/2020/12/11/lin-woods-lawsuit-over-georgia-voter-fraud-docketed-with-supreme-court/
In Pennsylvania, Republicans registered 258,705 new voters since 2016.
In Pennsylvania, Democrats registered 85,779 new voters.
And in my little district where I was a poll watcher, at least 23% of registered Democrats voted for Trump in the in-person voting.
they have laid out their goals, they want to make the current majority irrelevant, replace the police with their cadres, crush the energy industry,
Mr Majestyk,
I’d say polls dealing with Trump job approval (as opposed to personality approval or overall approval) taken overtime might be a useful metric.
I voted for Trump but do not approve of his comportment. I understand he is viciously attacked, often falsely, by others, was subjected to a bullshit investigation, etc.
But even with all that, his behavior is consistently odd and at times even ridiculous. He often attacks his allies like Sessions in personal terms even though Sessions did not personally attack Trump. His personal attacks on people like the Georgia Secretary of State are ridiculous.
He has no problem with all the collateral damage he causes when he talks like a lunatic.
Given this, a 51-47% loss in the popular vote, combined with 1% or under losses in 4 states is not a surprise. It’s not anomalous.
It’s about what I expected.
The frivilousness is spreading:
New: Wisconsin Supreme Court to hear Trump lawsuit tomorrow at noon
this is the wonderful senate they want to retain,
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/12/11/senate-passes-defense-bill-84-13-removes-confederate-symbols-does-not-end-sec-230/
"In Pennsylvania, Republicans registered 258,705 new voters since 2016.
In Pennsylvania, Democrats registered 85,779 new voters.
And in my little district where I was a poll watcher, at least 23% of registered Democrats voted for Trump in the in-person voting."
It's surreal, isn't it?
Trump had to have won by a landside. This was in Pennsylvania, but it wasn't just in Pennsylvania.
How is it possible for any rational human being to believe otherwise? They do it by very careful attention. They do it by carefully not paying attention to a great many things.
that was an example of this,
https://amgreatness.com/2020/12/10/senate-republicans-cant-be-bothered-with-election-cheating/
steve uhr said...
Mich Secretary of State:
"On Sunday, individuals with no apparent technical expertise in election technology were permitted to gather images of Dominion voting equipment in Antrim County. While the information they gathered is subject to a court-issued protective order, the Michigan Department of State warns voters to be wary of the claims that the group may make in coming days. Members of the group have previously made false statements, shared fake documents and made baseless claims about the election that have been widely debunked and rejected in multiple courts.
“It is disappointing, though not surprising, that the primary goal of this group is to continue spreading false information designed to erode the public’s confidence in the election. By doing so, they injure our democracy and dishonor the 5.5. million Michigan citizens who cast ballots,” said Michigan Department of State spokesperson Jake Rollow. “As Attorney General William Barr, the FBI and CISA have found, this was the most secure election in our nation’s history and, despite unprecedented scrutiny, there has been no evidence of widespread fraud identified whatsoever.”
This is just the best.
I think we are soon going to hear why Dominion keeps their code hidden and proprietary.
tcrosse said...
Oh, he's an asshole. No doubt about that
Not a disqualification for the Presidency. Possibly a requirement.
12/11/20, 4:57 PM
I would say a high AQ (Asshole Quotient) is a requirement for high executive position.* In those positions you must be unsparing just to get things done because the inertia below you cannot be overridden any other way.
*Hire someone diplomatic to break the bad news for you is a good practice.
Some lawyers suffer from the delusion that this is about the law.
Trump and Texas lose in SC. Dismissed. Rejected. Alito and Thomas dissented in part.
lawsuits I hope will fail
You win, Althouse.
It is truly delicious that Trump’s three SC nominees didn’t dissent at all.
If the lawsuit is successful what remedy should the court give? Order a redo of the election in those 4 states? Is it all of the elections or just the presidential? Simply order the states to appoint electors in favor of Trump? What would happen in the aftermath? Would the left simply say, "aww shucks, looks like there really were shenanigans, well the court has spoken..." I don't see how there can be a good outcome from this lawsuit. I wish the democrats had come forward and talked seriously about election security, because this is something everyone does or should care about. And I think there is lots of common ground. I don't think either side wants anything other than paper ballots. I think both sides want to make sure the privacy of the vote is protected. I think both sides believe in the principle of one person one vote. The Left tends to err on the side of access more, while the right tends to err on the side of voting security more. I think both sides could be convinced of a way that individuals could audit their own vote and make sure their vote counted for whom they voted for, or in the case they didn't vote, that no vote was counted. But I honestly don't know what result the court could deliver that would be a good outcome for the country. If the lawsuit is successful this ensures more lawsuits like this in the future will appear. I certainly feel, and I think most people on this board 3 months ago would have felt that they are uncomfortable with the general proposition of one state suing to overturn the election results of another state. Imagine California let loose, suing to 'protect the vote' of people in Missouri, Nebraska, Georgia, or North Carolina. I do not see any possible good outcome from this suit.
mandrewa, and this is surreal too. The nerve it took for these traitors to pull this off is astounding:
"... The Board allowed election officials in heavily Democratic Fulton County to equip buses with voting machines and drive to locations around the area as a “mobile voting” location.9 The Georgia Election Code makes no provision for “mobile voting locations.” Georgia law makes clear that precinct voting locations are to be fixed, and not to be changed without notice. See O.C.G.A. § 21-2-265. “Mobile voting locations,” particularly where they are available in only one certain county dominated by a single political party, deny the residents of other counties equal protection of the law, as well as perhaps the voting safety protection of poll watchers required by O.C.G.A. §§ 21-2-408 and 21-2-483."
Source:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163469/20201210202722129_22O155%20Amici%20Brief%20GA%20State%20Sem%20%20Willian%20Ligon%20et%20al.pdf
"Lack of standing" and "moot"
The fail safe of every corrupt and cowardly court.
Robert Cook said...Except that the polls leading up to the election showed Biden had the lead.
The polls are usually heavily biased against Republicans, perhaps due to structural issues in how polls are done. However, this election was different. The polls were clearly fraudulent as Indicated in congressional races.
When has a siting POTUS lost when his party gained 10+ seats in the House?
Shortly after he certified Georgia's election results on November 20, Governor Kemp stated:
“It seems simple enough to conduct a sample audit of signatures on the absentee ballot envelopes and compare those to the signatures on applications and on file at the Secretary of State’s office.”
Officials in Georgia's Secretary of State’s office rejected this and other calls for an audit of absentee ballot signatures. Why? Local law enforcement and the FBI has dozens of handwriting experts that can analyze a 1,000 or so ballots in a few days or even a few hours. What is the problem? I understand that invalid signatures can't be tied to any single ballot. But this type of audit will let us know if election fraud was exceedingly rare in Georgia or if it so common that Biden's victory is totally illegitimate. Let's do this!!!
Margot Cleveland wrote, "First, Texas claims the right to present the constitutional claims of its citizens, who 'have the right to demand that all other States abide by the constitutionally set rules in appointing presidential electors to the electoral college.' "
It's the citizens of Texas and the citizens of the other states who have been harmed by the unconstitutional practices in states such as PA, etc.
An election is a contest like any other contest, whether it is an athletic league or a national spelling bee, etc. If some of the contestants ignore or deliberately skirt the rules then those contestants or their achievements should not be permitted to be considered valid in a competition with contestants who follow the rules. Remember what has happened in the Olympics with high tech bathing suits where some teams gained an advantage and broke records and won medals?
In an election contest if districts are controlled by either party and are lax or willing to violate the laws insuring honest voting, those districts should not count to determine a national election. Otherwise elections become contests of technically superior methods of cheating, not the will of the people.
As far as previous lawsuits are concerned, I dismiss them because those judges did not want to take on the tumult and awesome responsibility of the 2020 presidential election and found procedural excuses to sidestep the case. From my understanding of Mark Levin, these cases were brought as civil suits not criminal cases and did not require overwhelming evidence, which would be gained in the discovery phase. Rejection in those cases was not a statement of election integrity.
I hope the SCOTUS seizes the opportunity to serve the nation and has a full hearing of this case. This issue is too big to ignore or sweep under the rug. We either fight it out in court or in the streets. If Trump loses in a fair hearing then the conflict ends, if Biden loses then the left will go ballistic. As Joan Rivers used to say, "Grow up!" But if this is not settled legally and fairly it will be settled in the streets.
I'm seeing the court rejected the case. Too bad.
Don't get down, fellows. You can take it up with the House of Representatives. It ain't over yet. Keep Hope Alive and send more money to help Trump fight the Man.
“ My prediction is that Thomas and Alito will vote in favor of Texas, and (of course) the three liberals will vote for the mini banana republics. The others are much harder to call. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barret go with Texas, while Robert's goes with the mini banana republics, to make it look like the Court did not split on purely partisan lines. But all I am confident about is that it will not be unanimous.”
Maybe, but if Roberts goes with the Democrats, Thomas, being senior, gets to control writing the decision, and while Roberts likes to write very narrow decisions, Thomas likes to use a broad brush. To do his patented straddling the middle of the road, Roberts needs to be in the majority.
“ I will add that I'm confident Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh will vote to hear the case and fairly certain that ACB and Gorsuch will join. These people have seen the political evil and lawlessness of the Dems. I won't soon forget what they did to Thomas and Kavanaugh.”
Keep in mind that Gorsuch’s mother was one of the most prominent leaders of the Sagebrush Rebellion. That sort of conservative populism is what he grew up with at the dinner table. (My GF when I was living in Austin left the EPA when his mother took over the agency, and went to work for the state as an environmental atty instead. She never tired of complaining about Anne Gorsuch, and her conservatism. Gorsuch in Reagan’s cabinet reminds me a lot of Betsy DeVos in Trump’s. I remember well when Gorsuch was the leader of the Republican “House Crazies” in CO. So did my mother, who was legislative chair, and chief lobbyist of the CO state LWV, at the time, and despised Gorsuch, despite both being Republicans, because Gorsuch, despite being a woman, believed that the LWV was the enemy). And I expect that ACB was well vetted for loyalty. My worry is more with Kavenaugh.
Motion denied.
Texas has no standing.
Alito and Thomas said the motion should be granted but did not weigh in on the standing issue.
Trump needs to shit can those ungrateful justices he put on the court to do his bidding.
I can picture him bounding up the steps of the supreme Court, break down the doors, jump up on the table and calmly say in sotta voce "your fired", then flip his hair back and strut away nodding his head.
Howard, we are not "down." A lot of us expected this.
Here is an example of how this news is received.
The next step is just to negotiate the separation. The left thinks the blue states subsidize the red states. It should be easy for you lefties to let us go.
After all, electricity for your Tesla is made in the wall plug and supermarkets (especially Gettleson's) is full of food. What do you need us for ?
“ When challenged, they say, "Well, we just input batches of counted votes for the candidates, so jumps in votes are to be expected!" Ok, so they put in all the Biden votes at once. Where's the batch of votes Trump got? Crickets. Apparently only Biden got votes.....”
Why would they rationally have separated the Biden ballots from the Trump ballots? To me it stinks of fraud.
Howard, you still don't understand us or Trump. The legal remedy was attempted and the Court closed the door. We could argue about the reasons but nobody wastes their time arguing with lefties.
Next step is separation.
I'm glad to hear it DOC.
Oh, you're going have a little wash and brush up, are you? What a good idea. Always did wonders for a man, that, Doc. A little wash and brush up. Water on the back of the neck, and... makes you feel marvelous. That's what we need, Doc!
As I said before Trump designed his election appeal legal strategy to always fail. Mission accomplished.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा