The 2020 General Election Thread II

[T.Lex]

What is it that Texas is trying to do that you consider “shenanigans”? Seems like if they can make their case then it’s something closer to the right thing happening, if you consider the right thing happening justice. If they can’t make the case, then the outcome of that is also justice. I don’t begrudge their day in court.

Indeed - nothing inherently "bad" about filing a case like that. For good or bad, we'll get an answer to the question about standing and other issues... which leads to my point about unintended consequences.

TX may not intend to cause problems for themselves in the future, but they could be blazing a trail that brings all sorts of things back to their own doorstep.

At a policy level, I think a bunch of states - mostly blue - do need to clean up their election processes and infrastructure. But, I'm very concerned about what group gets to dictate that. Ideally, it would be the citizens of those states.

 

[Alpo]

Tennesee joined, are you eliminating them too. Not much country music left after that...

I don't care for the Nashville Sound. Never put those hillbillies in my playlist in the first place.

It does bother me that Randy Travis might have to go. I guess I could write to Randy and ask him how he voted.

 

[HoughMade]

I am all for trying to determine whether there were ballots counted that should not have been and for the counts relying upon valid ballots.

What I am NOT in favor of simply saying "they did some shady stuff, let the legislatures decide." Talk about shady.

 

[chipbennett]

You say "the left" but it's really all politicians wanting to stay in power. I don't see the right wanting less power or control either.

I'd even be fine with something like, you can only serve in the senate 12 out of 24 years or something. Kind of how the Indiana Governor is limited to 8 of 12 years.

I agree with this, completely - especially at the federal level/inside the beltway. It is why I call them the UniParty; "R" and "D" make little difference.

 

[Alpo]

Awww, come on. Who doesn't love them some Stevie Ray Vaughn (ok, not technically CW)?

SRV is CW?!!!! Smack your own fingers with a ruler! How dare you.

 

[Ingomike]

Anything post-election is suspect. Why aren't many of the red states who modified their procedures for the pandemic included as well? Do you think only those states with close election results represent a purely legal view, or an opportunistic unprincipled attack on blue voters?

Perhaps we should file against Texas for limiting dropoff locations for mail-in ballots. Texas did all it possibly could to suppress the vote. It shows in the results. (you want to argue that one?)

I completely agree, "anything post election is suspect", including finding ballots for weeks if not months after the fact.

If there were red states where procedures were modified by unconstitutional means, they should be invalidated too. The question is was the procedure prescribed by the legislature followed...

 

[Alpo]

No, that is your interpretation of the relevant law and the Constitution. That does not appear to be the argument before SCOTUS. At least not all of it or even the crux of it. Hard to say...I'm not willing to wade through the War and Peace of pleadings by Paxton et al.

 

[chipbennett]

You did quote him and start in on "the left". It wasn't real clear from your post if you were talking about the left from the link that was shared, or from the person making the post.

I think being just a tad slower to accuse or point fingers would go a long way.

I was referring to the top-line authors of the amicus brief he linked/quoted. Alpo is a Democrat, but not someone I would call "the left" per se.

And I'll point fingers at them as "the left", any day - because they are. At the federal/UniParty level, "D" is globalist/socialist/statist and "R" is globalist/socialist/statist-light. (The only real difference is how fast the end point is reached.) "D" is beholden to the likes of George Soros, and "R" is beholden to the likes of Tom Donohue (Chamber of Commerce).

The Wall Street vs Main Street dichotomy is why Trump won, and why NeverTrumpers exist. Trump exposed the globalist/crony capitalist interests that have internally rotted the GOP at the federal level.

In a way, Alpo and I share something in common: I'm probably no more at home in the modern GOP (at the federal level) than Alpo is at home in the modern Democrat party (at the federal level).

 

[chipbennett]

Just trying to keep everyone calm and civil

Alpo and I are always calm and civil with each other. He knows he's welcome to bust my chops, ideologically.

 

[Alpo]

I don't kiss on the first date, Chip.

I just wanted that out there up front.

 

[foszoe]

Because this case is ongoing. It's precisely why I asked you if any cases had set precedent on this before. Would be a lot easier to talk about this case if anything similar had been brought up before the court before.

Why are we discussing hypotheticals when we have a real case in front of us. I have been asking for opinions on the real case in this forum for weeks and no one wants to discuss it. I am puzzled as to why?

As I understand it four states are alleged to have not followed the constitutionally prescribed procedures for setting the way electors are selected in their states. The 18 states are saying they did it by the rules and are thereby damaged by those that didn't.

What about this?

 

[T.Lex]

I am all for trying to determine whether there were ballots counted that should not have been and for the counts relying upon valid ballots.

What I am NOT in favor of simply saying "they did some shady stuff, let the legislatures decide." Talk about shady.

But isn't that what the constitution provides (along with case law that interprets it)?

I mean, ultimately Congress has some ability to accept or reject the state's certifications, but in terms of the electors, that really is up to the state legislatures to figure out.

 

[foszoe]

you should expand that to any mention of Texas in a song.....and just start listening to Appalachian music....preferably the hammer dulcimer.

Oh. We are on the Georgia runoffs? OK. I stand corrected.

I'm still upset with the latest shenanigans out of Texas.

As a result, I've eliminated every CW song in my playlist that has any artist from Texas in it.

 

[OneBadV8]

I find this sort of worldview to be counterproductive, seemingly a form of triangulation. I identify the people mentioned by indyblue (in the post you responded to) as supportive of policies that are bad for me and bad for my country. That they do not support the exact same set of ill thought out policies does not make the policies they support any less of a proper subset of the set of policies that are bad for the country

The idea that no one is totally bad IMO is a dangerous conceit, the form of relativism that taken to the extremes could be used to excuse both the antifa terrorist and the aryan nations one, the BLM adherent and the christian identity one. It is a trivial truth that, if one can set absolute extremes on any sort of spectrum, that virtually everyone except perhaps Lucifer and Christ would fall somewhere in between. This is not the same as saying that someone is 'in the middle'. That would imply being more or less equidistant from those extremes, which is far less common. That AOC, Talib, Omar, Biden, Schumer and Sanders cluster quite close to the 'bad for me, bad for America' end of that spectrum should mean that they are actually classified as bfm/bfA rather than given some overly broad benefit of the doubt. I liken rejection of their agenda to self defense. I should not have to wait until they are actually executing an attempt to harm my family and I before I can judge them as a threat

If you set the criteria for truth broadly enough, you can certainly say the truth lies somewhere between one extreme and the other, but it is also quite possible to see whether any given person's truth lies uncomfortably close to one end or the other. Doubt about whether someone intends to be an enemy has very little influence on whether they are an enemy. Whether a millennial really intends to bring about the destruction of the country through socialist policies has little effect on the reach of their decision to vote for those policies, the same caveat holds true for INGO Biden fans relative to the 2A

Not sure how but I feel like you missed my point. The people named, I agree are bad. However, it seemed like he was painting ALL Democrats as having the exact same position as those named. I wasn’t saying those people aren’t all bad, I was saying not ALL Democrats are bad because those named were.

 

[chipbennett]

I'm more interested in the argument than the signatories. I would assume that any lawyer in opposition to the Texas complaint would find some merit here. But, if the signatories affect your opinion, then yes, I'd say that politics is coloring your view of things in this matter.

ps. I have no idea what the direct election of senators is doing in this thread, but it is INGO.

pps. I'm cool.

I didn't comment on the argument itself. The federalist angle provides fertile ground for interesting discussion/argument. Being someone who defaults to a federalist/states' rights perspective, I merely find it interesting/instructive when the left (in this case, the brief authors), who generally undermine the federalist/states' rights perspective, choose to make an argument on that basis.

As for applying the argument in this instance: it may hold merit for me; I don't know yet. I'm still reading/digesting, from multiple sources. One perspective is that the Constitution is basically a contract among sovereign states, and some of those states are alleging what basically amounts to a breach of that contract (my very poor paraphrase).

 

[HoughMade]

But isn't that what the constitution provides (along with case law that interprets it)?

I mean, ultimately Congress has some ability to accept or reject the state's certifications, but in terms of the electors, that really is up to the state legislatures to figure out.

Yes....and this is where legal and wise may not occupy the same space.

 

[T.Lex]

Because this case is ongoing. It's precisely why I asked you if any cases had set precedent on this before. Would be a lot easier to talk about this case if anything similar had been brought up before the court before.

Not by one state against another (or several), but this case will probably figure prominently in any citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McPherson_v._Blacker

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/146/1

In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.

 

[Ingomike]

I am all for trying to determine whether there were ballots counted that should not have been and for the counts relying upon valid ballots.

What I am NOT in favor of simply saying "they did some shady stuff, let the legislatures decide." Talk about shady.

Seemingly no one really cares about the cheating, there is a complete lack of curiosity to investigate on the part of the DOJ and FBI. Then the lack of interest is stated as they found no fraud. There are hundreds of analytics analysis that show dead voters that voted in the thousands, moved voters that voted in the thousands, the list goes on. Do the election people have interest in this? No, once pointed out in public Michigan began scrubbing the data used to make the point.

That Chicago voting has been so dirty so long, it has become a staple of jokes, is a crime against the civil rights of the residents of the state of Illinois, but does anyone from any party want to clean it up?

This is coming to a head now, it is about to get ugly no matter how the court decides...

 

[foszoe]

I wouldn't call it shenanigans but when case after case fails on merits at some point one becomes numb.

I was on board for tort reform in that it would eliminate frivolous lawsuits and so far that seems to be the case. It has the same feel as the Russian dossier and the impeachment trial. Just keep throwing up 3/4 court shots in the hopes that one goes through.

At this point, I am on board with investigations of alleged wrong doing because until the evidence persuades a judge that is all it is right? Alleged.

Perhaps the Red States prevail, but if they lose, how many more cases can be tossed up until anyone but the most hard core Trump supporter labels it shenanigans? At what point will you? Are you willing to just give everything its day in court? I will call shenanigans in the sense the result of the election will not change when SCOTUS takes action on this case, which is the 2nd case to come before SCOtUS on this issue. The first one was a loss for the plaintiff.

What is it that Texas is trying to do that you consider “shenanigans”? Seems like if they can make their case then it’s something closer to the right thing happening, if you consider the right thing happening justice. If they can’t make the case, then the outcome of that is also justice. I don’t begrudge their day in court.

 

[Ingomike]

Not by one state against another (or several), but this case will probably figure prominently in any citations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McPherson_v._Blacker

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/146/1

In short, the appointment and mode of appointment of electors belong exclusively to the states under the constitution of the United States.

Two things can be true simultaneously, the legislature is the prescribed way for states to appoint electors...