The 2020 General Election Thread II

[Kutnupe14]

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.

The basis of the Texas suit, from my understanding, is that the states in question used the pandemic to expand things like mail-in voting. My prediction: SCOTUS won’t have the “nads,” and never moves to hear the case.

 

[Ingomike]

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

The basis of the Texas suit, from my understanding, is that the states in question used the pandemic to expand things like mail-in voting. My prediction: SCOTUS won’t have the “nads,” and never moves to hear the case.

Did you read the above post? It is being heard...

I have heard but not confirmed that the vote was 6-3.

 

[Alpo]

Before everyone gets overly excited, and aside from the factual errors in the plea, there were a number of states that modified their voting procedures in 2020 to accomodate the pandemic.

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_..._to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020

In addition, SCOTUS has previously declined to rule (in 3 or 4 cases) wrt the state of No Carolina on similar voting modifications.

My sense is that, much like Pennsylvania, SCOTUS will deny the request for injunction on Thursday or Friday. That will put a stake into the heart of this attempt to subrogate the will of the voters to the ridiculous assertions of a disgruntled loser.

 

[Ingomike]

The basis of the Texas suit, from my understanding, is that the states in question used the pandemic to expand things like mail-in voting. My prediction: SCOTUS won’t have the “nads,” and never moves to hear the case.

Isn't that cute, what a sweet rendering of un-f*****g-constitutional. Nothing on Gods green earth stopped them from doing it right, oh yes, a republican legislature.

Your prediction reeks of desperation.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Isn't that cute, what a sweet rendering of un-f*****g-constitutional. Nothing on Gods green earth stopped them from doing it right, oh yes, a republican legislature.

Your prediction ion reeks of desperation.

Desperation? From me? Not sure if srs? And I’m honestly not sure what portion of the Constitution that the “un” part comes into play in this instance.

 

[Ingomike]

Before everyone gets overly excited, and aside from the factual errors in the plea, there were a number of states that modified their voting procedures in 2020 to accomodate the pandemic.

https://ballotpedia.org/Changes_to_..._to_the_coronavirus_(COVID-19)_pandemic,_2020

In addition, SCOTUS has previously declined to rule (in 3 or 4 cases) wrt the state of No Carolina on similar voting modifications.

My sense is that, much like Pennsylvania, SCOTUS will deny the request for injunction on Thursday or Friday. That will put a stake into the heart of this attempt to subrogate the will of the voters to the ridiculous assertions of a disgruntled loser.

Then the constitution is dead. It means nothing, if it doesn't mean what it says. Bleeding hearts be damned.

If other states did it, then declare the election void and send it to the house...

 

[Ingomike]

Desperation? From me? Not sure if srs? And I’m honestly not sure what portion of the Constitution that the “un” part comes into play in this instance.

Only legislatures can set state voting procedures constitutionally, not governors, election officials, etc. take signature matching in GA, SS changed it.

 

[Alpo]

Then the constitution is dead. It means nothing, if it doesn't mean what it says. Bleeding hearts be damned.

If other states did it, then declare the election void and send it to the house...

Puhleeeze. Your tiny violin is squeeking and it hurts my ears.

Texas likely doesn't have standing to raise these claims. Texas has no say in how another state chooses its electors. Texas waited too long to sue. If it had problems with the electors selection process, it should have filed suit earlier. To wait until after the results were in (and certified in all cases except for the state of WI), seeks to subrogate the will of the voters to some other party(ies).

Additionally, many other states modified their voting procedures as a result of the pandemic. Many of them are red states. In fact, most of them are red states. Texas is basically asking the court to invalidate the votes of the lion's share of the citizenry.

I don't expect more than a one sentence denial from SCOTUS.

 

[Alpo]

Only legislatures can set state voting procedures constitutionally, not governors, election officials, etc. take signature matching in GA, SS changed it.

You don't know that. You assume that. I'm sure you haven't read the provisions of all 50 states.

 

[Twangbanger]

Then the constitution is dead. It means nothing, if it doesn't mean what it says. Bleeding hearts be damned.

If other states did it, then declare the election void and send it to the house...

Mike, I love ya, but the Constitution was dead before you or I were born.

Only legislatures can set state voting procedures constitutionally, not governors, election officials, etc. take signature matching in GA, SS changed it.

Any government official, of any type, can do anything, and as long as the courts turn their head the other way, it not only becomes constitutional and legal...it becomes standard procedure.

 

[Tombs]

I don't expect more than a one sentence denial from SCOTUS.

"But this time, unlike all the others for the past 4 years, Trump is actually finished!" says the increasingly nervous man for the 21094730235325th time.

 

[Alpo]

I'm not one bit nervous. I'm frustrated by the hijinks and likely illegal activity of Trump interfering with elections and possible sedition. But no, I'm not nervous.

If SCOTUS rules in a manner that changes the election to Trump, Venezuela will look like a girl scout cookie sale in comparison to what happens here. And there needn't be violence. A general strike would be phase 1, methinks.

 

[Ingomike]

I'm not one bit nervous. I'm frustrated by the hijinks and likely illegal activity of Trump interfering with elections and possible sedition. But no, I'm not nervous.

If SCOTUS rules in a manner that changes the election to Trump, Venezuela will look like a girl scout cookie sale in comparison to what happens here. And there needn't be violence. A general strike would be phase 1, methinks.

LMAFO!!! The democrats that don't work are gonna strike!

 

[buckwacker]

I'm not one bit nervous. I'm frustrated by the hijinks and likely illegal activity of Trump interfering with elections and possible sedition. But no, I'm not nervous.

If SCOTUS rules in a manner that changes the election to Trump, Venezuela will look like a girl scout cookie sale in comparison to what happens here. And there needn't be violence. A general strike would be phase 1, methinks.

With all the election shenanigans, we apparently already are like Venezuela. Congrats to the dems for bringing us to this point.

 

[Chewie]

I'm not one bit nervous. I'm frustrated by the hijinks and likely illegal activity of Trump interfering with elections and possible sedition. But no, I'm not nervous.

Of course we all agree that Trump and the R's are the only ones who were interfering in the elections. Purple implied!

 

[Tombs]

Missouri just joined the Texas lawsuit.

 

[Alpo]

Perhaps when you've had a chance to clear your mind of the 40+ odd lawsuits that you touted over the last 5 weeks that have all failed and think about what it might mean to the economy if a general strike was called. It doesn't take much to block major roadways (if any of you remember the trucker slowdown during the Carter administration over the 55mph limit). Food supplies start running lean in less than a month. Momma is out of toilet paper again. No school for the kids, online or otherwise. Checks don't get cut by government agencies.

I wouldn't laugh. A general strike is serious business.

 

[buckwacker]

Perhaps when you've had a chance to clear your mind of the 40+ odd lawsuits that you touted over the last 5 weeks that have all failed and think about what it might mean to the economy if a general strike was called. It doesn't take much to block major roadways (if any of you remember the trucker slowdown during the Carter administration over the 55mph limit). Food supplies start running lean in less than a month. Momma is out of toilet paper again. No school for the kids, online or otherwise. Checks don't get cut by government agencies.

I wouldn't laugh. A general strike is serious business.

Aren't these commie tactics?

 

[Alpo]

Of course we all agree that Trump and the R's are the only ones who were interfering in the elections. Purple implied!

Trump is on record as having interfered with elections and urged governors and secretaries of state to violate the law.

 

[Alpo]

Aren't these commie tactics?

It would be an act of protest against tyranny.