The 2020 General Election Thread II

[BugI02]

Let's think this through a bit.

The constitution and related laws give states the authority to regulate certain activities. Some states, let's call them Blue States, feel that they are negatively impacted by other states, let's call them Red States. The Blue States have all sorts of evidence that their citizens were deprived of important things because of the Red State laws and enforcement of those laws. So the Blue States go to SCOTUS and get permission to change how the Red States do things.

That seems like a good idea?

This is a tangent that doesn't touch the curve. Texas is objecting to the states in question deviating from constitutional methods in order to institute changes to their electoral process, bypassing the associated legislatures with their standing being derived from the broad harm done to the Constitution and the Electroral College process

States suffer an Article III injury when another State violates federal law to affect the outcome of a presidential election. This injury is particularly acute in 2020, where a Senate majority often will hang on the Vice President’s tie-breaking vote because of the nearly equal—and, depending on the outcome of Georgia run-off elections in January, possibly equal— balance between political parties. Quite simply, it is vitally important to the States who becomes Vice President.

Our Country stands at an important crossroads. Either the Constitution matters and must be followed, even when some officials consider it inconvenient or out of date, or it is simply a piece of parchment on display at the National Archives. We ask the Court to choose the former.

 

[T.Lex]

Are you willing to just give everything its day in court?

I was just going to post something about this related to jamil's earlier post, so thank you for tee'ing it up.

In terms of what kinds of cases a court can hear, including SCOTUS, there's this idea of a "cognizable" claim. (Same root as "recognizable".) That is, a claim in court has to be something that the court has the authority to rule on and provide relief for.

I bring it up because SCOTUS in this lawsuit may find that the defendant states have issues with their elections, but the claims by other states are not cognizable. That is, and this is related to standing, there's nothing the plaintiff states can do about it. This isn't an action to interpret where the boundaries of states are or how federal tax dollars might be allocated to the states. This is, really, a brand new kind of lawsuit.

One thing that isn't clear to me is how TX can make a cognizable claim out of this. Yeah, those states might have sucky electoral laws, but they also have sucky gun laws and probably other sucky laws. Historically, that's not something one state could sue another state over (otherwise that whole slavery thing could've been sorted out without as much bloodshed).

Just bringing this up so INGO can watch for that cognizability issue.

ETA:
Good, but somewhat legalistic, breakdown of the TX lawsuit.
Dorf on Law: Texas SCOTUS Original Jurisdiction Lawsuit Would Undercut Marbury v. Madison

 

[Ingomike]

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.

This is case has little to do with the fraud that has been exposed and continues to be exposed daily. That most folks get their news from propaganda sources and have no idea what is going on is not surprising. If this case goes down why do the fraud cases have to stop? This is a constitutional case, not a fraud case.

I have heard that the reason Georgia legislature has not been called up is because they have been threatened to destroy the city of Atlanta, and the governor is comprised by China. There is so much happening beyond what we know...

 

[Kutnupe14]

T.Lex is dropping some serious science. I hope ya'll are paying attention.

 

[Alpo]

This is case has little to do with the fraud that has been exposed and continues to be exposed daily. That most folks get their news from propaganda sources and have no idea what is going on is not surprising. If this case goes down why do the fraud cases have to stop? This is a constitutional case, not a fraud case.

I have heard that the reason Georgia legislature has not been called up is because they have been threatened to destroy the city of Atlanta, and the governor is comprised by China. There is so much happening beyond what we know...

I think you have just fallen into the deep end of the pool. I certainly hope you know how to swim. I doubt you'll be rescued.

 

[BugI02]

I've never really understood the push for statutorily mandated term limits. Voluntary term limits are already built into the Constitution. Elected officials have to decide to run every 2, 4, or 6 years. Constituents have the ability, through the ballot box, to term-limit officials that are currently elected.

The bigger problem is that being a politician has become a full-time career, rather than the originally intended concept of the citizen-legislator (and, related, the power and control of the federal government have metastasized far beyond what was ever intended by our founders).

What are your thoughts on preventing career politicians?

Legislature only in session for 90 days out of the year, if it can't be done during the session it doesn't get done. Legislator pay reduced commensurately, so that they must have a real job and maintain such throughout the year in order to live

So much wrong seems to arise from full time legislators not focusing on solving pressing and serious problems facing the country but looking for things with which to fill their time. We can argue whether climate change and systemic racism are pressing and serious problems facing the country, especially in light of more immediate concerns - and we should have that argument

 

[T.Lex]

I just thought of an analogy for cognizability in this context.

Let's say I have a new security camera. There's an HOA involved that has parameters about where I can put a security camera. Based on those rules, I can place the security camera in 2 places: 1 would provide security for just me, but the other would provide security for both me and my neighbor.

If I choose to put it where it only protects me, my neighbor can't say anything about it.

The people in my household can vote on where it should go, or complain about how we decide. They get input. They can ask me to change things it if they want, if it doesn't comply with what they want.

The HOA can come in and decide if I put it in a place that is consistent with the rules. If it isn't, they have some things they can do about it.

But the neighbor doesn't really get a vote.

If anyone can't figure out how that applies to the states and federal government: me and my neighbor are the states, my household are the residents of my state, and the HOA is the federal gov't.

 

[HoughMade]

Isn't that more "standing" than whether there is a "cognizable claim"? If I was a citizen of an affected state, the dilution of my vote may given me standing IF there is a cognizable claim, that is, a claim of a wrongdoing for which the law can give redress. However, if I am another state, probably no standing even if there is a theoretical cognizable claim.

 

[BugI02]

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?)

So 'What about [insert subject here]' is now an acceptable strategy? This would seem at odds with previous posts

 

[T.Lex]

Isn't that more "standing" than whether there is a "cognizable claim"? If I was a citizen of an affected state, the dilution of my vote may given me standing IF there is a cognizable claim, that is, a claim of a wrongdoing for which the law can give redress. However, if I am another state, probably no standing even if there is a theoretical cognizable claim.

Dammit, Janet. You come up with a better way to describe cognizability.

The standing would be because the neighbor gets burglarized (suffers injury) and my camera didn't show what happened.

Maybe. Sorta?

Either way, I still think your questions also apply to the TX lawsuit.

 

[buckwacker]

The left is anything left of you Trumpers? That used to be called the middle.

Maybe you need to reboot your GPS.

You're smiling, aren't you. You can't say that with a straight face.

 

[Alpo]

TLex referenced an aritcle worth reading.

Dorf on Law: Texas SCOTUS Original Jurisdiction Lawsuit Would Undercut Marbury v. Madison

I encompasses what I was attempting to say and much more.

But it is also true that if a few states affected Texas, it is likely that many more did. The result is either to throw out the election entirely and default to Constitutional remedies in Article II, or

send Texas and it's sour-grapes associate states packing.

 

[buckwacker]

I can understand your suspicion, but suspicion isn't evidence or proof. It can be a reason to investigate.

Let's call it probable cause then. A REAL, THOROUGH investigation is all I ask. I don't want "my guy" to win so badly as to subvert the entire process over trumped up charges of fraud. But there is a lot of smoke here, and there seems to be a concerted effort by many to avoid looking for a fire.

 

[Slapstick]

Let's call it probable cause then. A REAL, THOROUGH investigation is all I ask. I don't want "my guy" to win so badly as to subvert the entire process over trumped up charges of fraud. But there is a lot of smoke here, and there seems to be a concerted effort by many to avoid looking for a fire.

I think that pretty much sums it up for most of us.

 

[BugI02]

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.

I thought I had dealt with that point in specifying that results count for more than intentions when classifying those someones. The prototypical Democrat may not actively desire to bring harm to the country (though one's judgement of one's own intent is notoriously subject to inaccuracies), if, in my judgement, their actions do indeed bring harm to the country then to me they are bad. The more I judge that they will overlook harm to the country and its people because they see themselves as insulated from the consequences of their actions, the worse I judge them to be. Think individuals willing to support China's desire to be the dominant player in the world pretty much solely because they stand to make a lot of money and believe riches will insulate them sufficiently from the consequences of that support. Think Silver or Goodell. If they're wrong, we're all screwed - and even if they're right most of us are still screwed

I think a country cannot remain a world power without a robust economy and manufacturing sector as well as great investment in R&D and basic science, or at least have access to the aid of such a country as say NATO does

 

[OneBadV8]

I thought I had dealt with that point in specifying that results count for more than intentions when classifying those someones. The prototypical Democrat may not actively desire to bring harm to the country (though one's judgement of one's own intent is notoriously subject to inaccuracies), if, in my judgement, their actions do indeed bring harm to the country then to me they are bad. The more I judge that they will overlook harm to the country and its people because they see themselves as insulated from the consequences of their actions, the worse I judge them to be. Think individuals willing to support China's desire to be the dominant player in the world pretty much solely because they stand to make a lot of money and believe riches will insulate them sufficiently from the consequences of that support. Think Silver or Goodell. If they're wrong, we're all screwed - and even if they're right most of us are still screwed

I think a country cannot remain a world power without a robust economy and manufacturing sector as well as great investment in R&D and basic science, or at least have access to the aid of such a country as say NATO does

I just think when you start painting EVERY person that is a "Democrat" then you start to discount their opinion before you even know what is, and therefore just become more polarized. Now if they side that way 90% of the time, that's fine. But I only try not to generalize things because it becomes easier to discount their views without even listening. Even if I disagree 90% of the time. That was my only point about that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I thought I had dealt with that point in specifying that results count for more than intentions when classifying those someones. The prototypical Democrat may not actively desire to bring harm to the country (though one's judgement of one's own intent is notoriously subject to inaccuracies), if, in my judgement, their actions do indeed bring harm to the country then to me they are bad. The more I judge that they will overlook harm to the country and its people because they see themselves as insulated from the consequences of their actions, the worse I judge them to be. Think individuals willing to support China's desire to be the dominant player in the world pretty much solely because they stand to make a lot of money and believe riches will insulate them sufficiently from the consequences of that support. Think Silver or Goodell. If they're wrong, we're all screwed - and even if they're right most of us are still screwed

I think a country cannot remain a world power without a robust economy and manufacturing sector as well as great investment in R&D and basic science, or at least have access to the aid of such a country as say NATO does

I can't wait to see the, I'm sure, hilarious answers, but describe who you think the typical Democrat voter is.

 

[BugI02]

I was just going to post something about this related to jamil's earlier post, so thank you for tee'ing it up.

In terms of what kinds of cases a court can hear, including SCOTUS, there's this idea of a "cognizable" claim. (Same root as "recognizable".) That is, a claim in court has to be something that the court has the authority to rule on and provide relief for.

I bring it up because SCOTUS in this lawsuit may find that the defendant states have issues with their elections, but the claims by other states are not cognizable. That is, and this is related to standing, there's nothing the plaintiff states can do about it. This isn't an action to interpret where the boundaries of states are or how federal tax dollars might be allocated to the states. This is, really, a brand new kind of lawsuit.

One thing that isn't clear to me is how TX can make a cognizable claim out of this. Yeah, those states might have sucky electoral laws, but they also have sucky gun laws and probably other sucky laws. Historically, that's not something one state could sue another state over (otherwise that whole slavery thing could've been sorted out without as much bloodshed).

Just bringing this up so INGO can watch for that cognizability issue.

ETA:
Good, but somewhat legalistic, breakdown of the TX lawsuit.
Dorf on Law: Texas SCOTUS Original Jurisdiction Lawsuit Would Undercut Marbury v. Madison

Couldn't the SCOTUS imposed remedy be to simply not count votes that did not meet the legislatively determined standards prior to illegal changes being made? And if officials of whatever level are found to have deliberately performed actions to make the seperation of illegitimate votes from legitimate ones more difficult, then throw them all out? It would seem penalties for this behavior should be painful in order to discourage similar behavior in the future. The people in those states who felt disenfranchised could (and should) then hold the officials who acted to worsen the problem responsible
then hold

 

[BugI02]

You're smiling, aren't you. You can't say that with a straight face.

Well, since Fusion GPS was responsible for the Steele Dossier, I can see where Alpo might want his GPS to be rebooted

You know, if it worked once maybe it would work again

 

[BugI02]

I can't wait to see the, I'm sure, hilarious answers, but describe who you think the typical Democrat voter is.

A person who believes they clearly see what needs to be changed about America and finds the system of checks and balances on those desires imposed by the constitution an impediment - an impediment that needs to be overcome by any means necessary because;right side of history or because;arc of justice or any other pretty fiction they ascribe to