The 2020 General Election Thread II

[KG1]

And SCOTUS put the Texas and Louisiana case on the docket. This is far from over.

This is all pretty simple to me, did they change election procedures without legislative approval?

Yes or no?

Does the Constitution say the legislature makes changes in election procedures?

Hint, it does.

So then all the whining will begin, you can't throw out votes...

.

[video=youtube;RRWyx6kAZ6g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWyx6kAZ6g[/video]

 

[Ziggidy]

the media pronounced him their president elect.

There is no media.....only a demoncratic, progressive, socialist propaganda machine.

 

[indyartisan]

The Plan is Working Flawlessly with Juan O Savin
1hr 13min interview

https://ugetube.com/watch/juan-o-039-savin-the-plan-is-working-flawlessly_ZKTN6PjKP81AeTz.html

 

[smittygj]

Act 77 in Pennsylvania was illegal from what I read online. Deep research, not done by me, stated that changing of the voter law there required it to be posted in newspapers, and then added to a voter ballot in a future election as to if it would be adopted. None of which happened. It was passed by their house, and made law, without abiding by Pennsylvania constitutional law. I'll dig deeper and see if I can quote chapter and verse....

 

[KG1]

.

[video=youtube;RRWyx6kAZ6g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWyx6kAZ6g[/video]

In summary the Texas case is outcome determinative which means if SCOTUS rules in favor of Texas then the legislators of the other States named in the suit will determine the outcome by picking the electors which is the Constitutional remedy.

It will be up to SCOTUS to determine if election procedures in the States named in the Texas suit (Pa, Ga, Mi, and Wi) were unconstitutional.

 

[nightgaunt]

Act 77 in Pennsylvania was illegal from what I read online. Deep research, not done by me, stated that changing of the voter law there required it to be posted in newspapers, and then added to a voter ballot in a future election as to if it would be adopted. None of which happened. It was passed by their house, and made law, without abiding by Pennsylvania constitutional law. I'll dig deeper and see if I can quote chapter and verse....

Anyone who wanted to challenge Act 77 had over a year (passed into law 10/31/2019). Bipartisan agreement.

 

[BugI02]

No time limit, can still be challenged by a wider array of plaintiffs now due to demonstrable harm. Seems like just about any voter would have standing now, whereas before wouldn't the legislature have had to challenge it?

Edit: And act 77 set a deadline for vote acceptance of 8pm on election day. That was illegally modified to extend without the approval of the legislature and that is what is being challenged, but you knew that

 

[BigRed]

Biden holds the office of president elect, he earned the office by showing up and the media pronounced him their president elect. Next time he should campaign for the office of President, but it takes a real campaign to win that.

Biden will be dead or deemed incompetent before he ever sees another election.

In inaugurated, you can count on Commie Harris in the executive position within 2 years.

 

[Kutnupe14]

.

[video=youtube;RRWyx6kAZ6g]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRWyx6kAZ6g[/video]

How confident are you that this gains enough traction to do anything significant? I think the outlook is dim, for one main reason. The very thing Texas is doing can be done by the Democrats. If Texas is able to get those elections voided, then I’d expect the Democrats to employ the exact same tactics to try and throw out Trump states, and create an endless series of contested elections. I’m sure that isn’t lost on the Supreme Court, nor that ALL the states being contested by Texas having Republican governors, and Republican controlled legislatures.

 

[JettaKnight]

How confident are you that this gains enough traction to do anything significant? I think the outlook is dim, for one main reason. The very thing Texas is doing can be done by the Democrats. If Texas is able to get those elections voided, then I’d expect the Democrats to employ the exact same tactics to try and throw out Trump states, and create an endless series of contested elections. I’m sure that isn’t lost on the Supreme Court, nor that ALL the states being contested by Texas having Republican governors, and Republican controlled legislatures.

So you're saying Indiana could come into play.

 

[Ingomike]

How confident are you that this gains enough traction to do anything significant? I think the outlook is dim, for one main reason. The very thing Texas is doing can be done by the Democrats. If Texas is able to get those elections voided, then I’d expect the Democrats to employ the exact same tactics to try and throw out Trump states, and create an endless series of contested elections. I’m sure that isn’t lost on the Supreme Court, nor that ALL the states being contested by Texas having Republican governors, and Republican controlled legislatures.

Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have dem governors. The Costitution has options and sending it to the house is the likely one since there is no way to get to 270 without the states under litigation. I hope, but also think it a strong possibility that that SCOTUS will make a needed precedent that if you cannot run your election constitutionally your votes are at risk. Otherwise what is the remedy for all those injured by the inept and corrupt?


ADD: GA governor and SS are likely dirty and going down, too much smoke not to be fire...

 

[KG1]

How confident are you that this gains enough traction to do anything significant? I think the outlook is dim, for one main reason. The very thing Texas is doing can be done by the Democrats. If Texas is able to get those elections voided, then I’d expect the Democrats to employ the exact same tactics to try and throw out Trump states, and create an endless series of contested elections. I’m sure that isn’t lost on the Supreme Court, nor that ALL the states being contested by Texas having Republican governors, and Republican controlled legislatures.

It will gain traction if SCOTUS has the collective nads to carry out their Constitutional duties. Is SCOTUS not duty bound to ensure that Constitutional election procedures were followed and provide Constitutional remedy if they were not? Taking into account that Republican controlled legislatures favor Trump should not factor into the decision making process This is a Constitutional issue before the court.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And SCOTUS put the Texas and Louisiana case on the docket. This is far from over.

What do you mean they put it on the docket? Are you saying they granted cert? Or just accepted the filing to later decide on if they should grant or deny cert? And do you have a cite?

 

[Ingomike]

It will gain traction if SCOTUS has the collective nads to carry out their Constitutional duties. Is SCOTUS not duty bound to ensure that Constitutional election procedures were followed and provide Constitutional remedy if they were not? Taking into account that Republican controlled legislatures favor Trump should not factor into the decision making process This is a Constitutional issue before the court.

I believe this will be Justice Thomas revenge on the left for a lifetime of mistreatment and racism...

 

[Ingomike]

What do you mean they put it on the docket? Are you saying they granted cert? Or just accepted the filing to later decide on if they should grant or deny cert? And do you have a cite?

This is not a cert, this requires 5 to put it on the docket for a hearing. We have state vs. state and those go directly to SCOTUS and a 5 justice majority puts it on the docket.

 

[jamil]

With the SCOTUS ruling today, PA can go ahead and certify. The only remaining case for PA is the appeal about the PA SC ruling mthat moved the mail-in deadline. But SCOTUS isn’t likely to rule on that case until sometime next year.

 

[jamil]

It will gain traction if SCOTUS has the collective nads to carry out their Constitutional duties. Is SCOTUS not duty bound to ensure that Constitutional election procedures were followed and provide Constitutional remedy if they were not? Taking into account that Republican controlled legislatures favor Trump should not factor into the decision making process This is a Constitutional issue before the court.

PA is probably going to certify. So for Trumps trick to work he must stop WI, MI, and GA from certifying. Probably at least one of those will. And then Biden has the 270.

 

[Tombs]

How confident are you that this gains enough traction to do anything significant? I think the outlook is dim, for one main reason. The very thing Texas is doing can be done by the Democrats. If Texas is able to get those elections voided, then I’d expect the Democrats to employ the exact same tactics to try and throw out Trump states, and create an endless series of contested elections. I’m sure that isn’t lost on the Supreme Court, nor that ALL the states being contested by Texas having Republican governors, and Republican controlled legislatures.

 

[Ingomike]

What do you mean they put it on the docket? Are you saying they granted cert? Or just accepted the filing to later decide on if they should grant or deny cert? And do you have a cite?

SCOTUS has given the defendant states until 3:00pm Thursday to respond to the Texas Et al...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have dem governors. The Costitution has options and sending it to the house is the likely one since there is no way to get to 270 without the states under litigation. I hope, but also think it a strong possibility that that SCOTUS will make a needed precedent that if you cannot run your election constitutionally your votes are at risk. Otherwise what is the remedy for all those injured by the inept and corrupt?


ADD: GA governor and SS are likely dirty and going down, too much smoke not to be fire...

Sorry, I was thinking AZ, OH, and GA (gov & leg).