• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Allegations of Fraud in 2020 US Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so.
Click to expand...

Consider this, however: Why would you need a case to be heard before the Supreme Court if it has merit and can be decided by a lower court? These cases are not being carefully considered and rejected on the balance of evidence, but thrown out because they are meritless and should never have been brought. There are only two possible scenarios in which this would make sense as a legal strategy: one if the entire legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy to steal the election, and the other if the SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket. Viewed, however, as a ploy to feed Trump's ego and extract money from his supporters, it makes a weird kind of sense.

Dave
 
Dave Rogers said:
Consider this, however: Why would you need a case to be heard before the Supreme Court if it has merit and can be decided by a lower court? These cases are not being carefully considered and rejected on the balance of evidence, but thrown out because they are meritless and should never have been brought. There are only two possible scenarios in which this would make sense as a legal strategy: one if the entire legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy to steal the election, and the other if the SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket. Viewed, however, as a ploy to feed Trump's ego and extract money from his supporters, it makes a weird kind of sense.

Dave
Click to expand...

Better argument: the cases hinge on a textualist read of the constitution that while correct, requires a precedence reversing decision by the toP court.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Related to PA shenanigans....


How the heck is act 77 Constitutional? Why is that republican incorrect that it is unconstitutional?

It seems like it clearly violates PA's constitution.
Click to expand...

The PA Supreme Court referenced the relevant section of the PA constitution during a case regarding act 77 earlier this year. They said nothing about the act being unconstitutional.

They obviously disagree with your assessment.
 
kookbreaker said:
The PA Supreme Court referenced the relevant section of the PA constitution during a case regarding act 77 earlier this year. They said nothing about the act being unconstitutional.

They obviously disagree with your assessment.
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority. You want to actually take a shot at justification?
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Though any case is up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available. It really doesn't matter if the judge made any mistakes or not.

Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so. While the media promotes the Trump election case losses of the lower courts as a victory for Biden every time, they fail to mention it would likely be the strategy of the Trump legal team to have those losses if SCOTUS was the end goal.
Click to expand...

This is absurd. On the off chance that one of these lawsuits is successful, the state would surely appeal the decision. Do you really think the attorneys for the State of Pennsylvania would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Better luck next time" if seven million voters were disenfranchised? What makes it unlikely that any of these cases will get to the SCOTUS is their complete failure in multiple circuits. In fact, Trump's morons would have to be successful in one to create a conflict between circuit decisions which would require the Supremes to step in.
 
Darat said:
Yep. It's like the bombshell evidence the prosecution or defence pull out with a minute to go that takes the other side by surprise. Makes good TV.
Click to expand...

I am quite sure Trump has one of those lined up. Pompeo bursting through the court doors breathless, I have some SENSATIONAL new evidence of fraud, Your Honor!'


<fx court murmurs>
 
Dave Rogers said:
Consider this, however: Why would you need a case to be heard before the Supreme Court if it has merit and can be decided by a lower court? These cases are not being carefully considered and rejected on the balance of evidence, but thrown out because they are meritless and should never have been brought. There are only two possible scenarios in which this would make sense as a legal strategy: one if the entire legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy to steal the election, and the other if the SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket. Viewed, however, as a ploy to feed Trump's ego and extract money from his supporters, it makes a weird kind of sense.

Dave
Click to expand...

Mascara-man’s didn’t even make to the evidential stage!

In others the judges has not allowed the fill-in-an-open-to-everyone-in-the-world-web-form sorry affidavit to be even used as evidence. For some reason the judges considered “ fill-in-an-open-to-everyone-in-the-world-web-form” wasn’t a robust way to gather evidence. (But 68.9% of judges did say on our online poll that they found Judge Judy sexy!)
 
BobTheCoward said:
Appeal to authority. You want to actually take a shot at justification?
Click to expand...

The Appeal to Authority fallacy is only relevant when the authority is not an authority in the subject they are opining upon. I.e. a formerly excellent football running back making political suggestions, or a famous author declaring simple camera tricks to be proof of ghosts or fairies.

Constitutional lawyers in the position of being PA Supreme Court justices are the proper authority in this matter. Certainly much more so than some rando on a backwater message board.
 
Craig4 said:
This is absurd. On the off chance that one of these lawsuits is successful, the state would surely appeal the decision. Do you really think the attorneys for the State of Pennsylvania would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Better luck next time" if seven million voters were disenfranchised? What makes it unlikely that any of these cases will get to the SCOTUS is their complete failure in multiple circuits. In fact, Trump's morons would have to be successful in one to create a conflict between circuit decisions which would require the Supremes to step in.
Click to expand...

There’s already precedent from the SC that as long as a voter has followed the instructions the state gave the vote counts, even if later on the instructions are found to be legally invalid.

And since all these cases boil down to either claims of process fails or incorrect/unlawful processes and instructions even if one was to make it to the next stage the relief they are seeking i.e. disenfranchise 7 million people ain’t going to happen.
 
kookbreaker said:
The Appeal to Authority fallacy is only relevant when the authority is not an authority in the subject they are opining upon. I.e. a formerly excellent football running back making political suggestions, or a famous author declaring simple camera tricks to be proof of ghosts or fairies.

Constitutional lawyers in the position of being PA Supreme Court justices are the proper authority in this matter. Certainly much more so than some rando on a backwater message board.
Click to expand...

They are not the proper authority anymore than saying justice thomas said something about the US constitution.

Zilch.

ETA: or that Trump is an expert on the executive adminstration.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Better argument: the cases hinge on a textualist read of the constitution that while correct, requires a precedence reversing decision by the toP court.
Click to expand...

In which case the lower courts should find that the case has merits and refer it upwards. Bringing a plethora of cases that fail the initial sniff test won't achieve that. I honestly can't see any scenario in which bringing a series of pathetically inadequate cases is a sensible strategy if the system deals with them honestly.

Dave
 
Arcade22 said:
Yet they are the ones that decide what the law is, not you.
Click to expand...

Because they get to decide, doesn't mean they are an expert.

For example, a theocracy's power to declare scientific facts in their country doesn't mean their conclusions are scientific facts.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Just because they have the power to make decisions does not imply they are good at it.
Click to expand...

They are the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania. You are some rando on a message board. What they decide is what matters, not what you claim on this board.
 
kookbreaker said:
They are the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania. You are some rando on a message board. What they decide is what matters, not what you claim on this board.
Click to expand...

I don't argue that my position should matter, or that if some conclusion is reached here that the court should change course. I don't care about the argument beyond the argument itself. Therefore, the fact their position matters doesnt matter for debate.
 
Last edited:
BobTheCoward said:
Just because they have the power to make decisions does not imply they are good at it.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court is a definitive authority, so if they make a ruling in law, that ruling defines the law. The appeal to the authority of a Supreme Court ruling on a point of law is therefore valid even in formal logic.

Dave
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom