Cont: 2020 Presidential Election part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
SC justice is a lifelong appointment. They don’t need to worry about being primaried, ergo no need to hang off Trumps donger
 
Dipping my toe into the conspiracy theory pool...

I have to wonder if, even a little bit, the networks are promoting conflict so they have lots of ridiculous things to report, and keep the stories going with legs. Why? It's November, also known in the US as one of the four very important Neilsen Ratings periods. It's why we get all the "very special" episodes, guest stars, and major events on TV.

This is probably the last time the news networks will be able to garner these kinds of ratings. Other sweeps months are February, May, and July, but with Biden firmly established (and pretty boring) in the position there won't be much of interest to report, or outrage to generate.
 
dirtywick said:
SC justice is a lifelong appointment. They don’t need to worry about being primaried, ergo no need to hang off Trumps donger
Click to expand...
Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.
Click to expand...

Kavanaugh already said, in an official opinion, that no votes should be counted after election night. That's the level of "thinking" in the current SCROTUS.
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president
- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.
Click to expand...

1. As much as they might believe that I don't think any SCOTUS Judge believes that Trump is right wing.

2. Their power diminishes even more if they give into Trump. Trump has been ignoring court orders. You think he's going to heel during a second term?
 
Segnosaur said:
Actually, even if a supreme court judge might not be primaried or removed, I would say there are 2 reasons a right-wing judge (like Drunky McRapeface or the Stepford Wife) might still rule in favor of Stubby McBonespurs....

- They truly believe the country is best served by a right-wing president

- They are concerned that if Biden wins, he may (for example) stack the court, which would diminish their personal power.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but how much power does a SC have after overturning a democracy?
 
Garrison said:
By the time Trump is removed from office it may be a Pyrrhic victory, the damage done to faith in the system will mean that there is no hope of healing the divide in the US and having convinced themselves that the Democratic party shamelessly cheated the Trumpistas will see no reason not to 'retaliate' next time.
Click to expand...

“Everything Trump touches.. “
 
acbytesla said:
What official opinion?
Click to expand...

It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump tweets

Many of the court cases being filed all over the Country are not ours, but rather those of people that have seen horrible abuses. Our big cases showing the unconstitutionality of the 2020 Election, & the outrage of things that were done to change the outcome, will soon be filed!
We won’t let a RIGGED ELECTION steal our Country!
Click to expand...
Who the hell is he kidding? Oh wait....

He seems to think his lawyers trying to present less than credible eye witness evidence means those weren't 'his' cases. As if voters are just coming forward to file multiple cases.

"Our big cases"

:popcorn1
 
alfaniner said:
Dipping my toe into the conspiracy theory pool...

I have to wonder if, even a little bit, the networks are promoting conflict so they have lots of ridiculous things to report, and keep the stories going with legs. Why? It's November, also known in the US as one of the four very important Neilsen Ratings periods. It's why we get all the "very special" episodes, guest stars, and major events on TV.

This is probably the last time the news networks will be able to garner these kinds of ratings. Other sweeps months are February, May, and July, but with Biden firmly established (and pretty boring) in the position there won't be much of interest to report, or outrage to generate.
Click to expand...
I think this is a big influence on the news we are getting. It wouldn't even have to be sweeps month.
 
Trebuchet said:
Kavanaugh already said, in an official opinion, that no votes should be counted after election night. That's the level of "thinking" in the current SCROTUS.
Click to expand...

The ignorant statement by Kavanaugh that mailed ballots arriving after Nov 3rd shouldn't be counted contradicts this
“nder the U.S. Constitution, the state courts do not have a blank check to rewrite state election laws for federal elections,” Kavanaugh wrote, adding that a state court “may not depart from the state election code enacted by the legislature.”

In a separate concurrence, Justice Neil Gorsuch, another Trump appointee, also affirmed his support for this doctrine: “The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”
Click to expand...
None of these cases involve ballots counted outside of the states' election laws.

I think Drunky McDrunkface was drunk when he wrote an opinion that contradicted itself.

Regardless, the ballots that put Biden over the top did not arrive after Nov 3rd. They just didn't get counted/reported by that night.

Trumpy saw his numbers leading and wanted to freeze that result before all the votes were counted. He conflates mailed ballots with late arriving ballots.


Bottom line, there is no SCOTUS case except in Trump's fantasy.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
What official opinion?
Click to expand...

There was a case before the SCOTUS where the petitioner wanted a couple extra days for mail in ballots and the state court agreed. Upon an appeal to the SCOTUS they struck the ruling down because it would have changed the state election law.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.
Click to expand...

Which would invalidate every presenditla election since the first, probably.
They were counting votes for days in 1916, the was not decided until California was decided for Wilson after three or four days. There have never been enogh t ime to count every vote by Midnight of election day.
 
Marcus said:
I would like to think that the more rational Republicans would gain a greater voice with Trump out of office but it doesn't look like he is going to drop out of politics.
Click to expand...


The last four years have made it abundantly clear that this is an oxymoron.

Those Repugnicans with any remaining vestiges of rationality have been (or are being) hounded out of their party or left behind by it.

The party is nothing but a shell, filled with greed, corruption, and unrestrained bigotry. No one who continues to align themselves with it can be trusted to do anything which benefits anyone but themselves. (Unless it happens to be an unintended consequence.)

Sorry. The facts are plain and unambiguous. The basket is full now. If not overflowing.
 
bonzombiekitty said:
It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night.

I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.
Click to expand...

Thanks,

Out of curiosity though, did he just say this or is it written in an actual court opinion? There is a difference.

Never mind, Ginger answered this.

He would be reversing 150 years of precedence as well as election laws in the various States.

There are more than a few states that allow ballots to be counted that are received after election day as long as they are postmarked on or before election. You know like military ballots?

Ninja'd by dudalb
 
Last edited:
bonzombiekitty said:
It wasn't even his opinion. I'm no fan of him but he wasn't saying votes shouldn't be counted after election night. He said states shouldn't count votes received after election night. I disagree with that opinion but a lot of people are twisting it saying he thinks all vote counting should stop at midnight on election day.
Click to expand...
Again, Drunky said two different things: one that counting votes coming in after the election day would result in people losing faith in the outcome; two then he said the courts shouldn't overrule any state voting laws.

Pretty much shot down his own stupid rationale.
 
acbytesla said:
Thanks,

Out of curiosity though, did he just say this or is it written in an actual court opinion? There is a difference.

He would be reversing 150 years of precedence as well as election laws in the various States.

There are more than a few states that allow ballots to be counted that are received after election day as long as they are postmarked on or before election. You know like military ballots?

Ninja'd by dudalb
Click to expand...

"It is written" in a court opinion on another state case.

I just had an epiphany. Trump's lawyers have quit the case and Trumpy moved Giuliani into the job. It is possible Giuliani is feeding Trump these ideas.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom