• 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.
BobTheCoward said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have fun with that.
 
Dave Rogers said:
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
Click to expand...

This isn't a question about a point of law. I'm not asking about anything that would occur in a courtroom.
 
BobTheCoward said:
This isn't a question about a point of law. I'm not asking about anything that would occur in a courtroom.
Click to expand...

Yes you are. You're arguing that the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the definitive authority on the interpretation of the constitution. If they have issued a ruling based on the law, then a sound inference may be drawn that they did not find it to clash with their definitive interpretation of the constitution, therefore the law is constitutional.

Dave
 
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...

Since you mentioned Pennsylvania, I expect that case to be one of the easiest to win for the Trump legal team. The mail in votes that were received after the old deadline will likely be thrown out. Whether it will be enough to overturn the election I don't know.

I do know when Democrat leaders try to throw in last minute changes to PA election law without running it thru the PA legislature they set themselves up for a losing battle in court. "If" that case makes its way to the SCOTUS, the Trump legal team will win it. Mark it down that I said so and feel free to gloat later if I'm wrong.
 
Dave Rogers said:
Yes you are. You're arguing that the law is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court is the definitive authority on the interpretation of the constitution. If they have issued a ruling based on the law, then a sound inference may be drawn that they did not find it to clash with their definitive interpretation of the constitution, therefore the law is constitutional.

Dave
Click to expand...

There are countries able to make all sorts of definitive rulings inside their countries. That does not make it true. As legal matters, it would certainly inform what decision a court should make in that country.


But Im not asking about what occurs inside a court room. My question is purposely separated from that context.

If you would like to cite an expert on PA constitutional law, I would listen to that. but being on the PA supreme court does not make one an expert in the question I'm asking.


We clearly disagree, and I will simply not reply to any more posts you have on the subject.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Since you mentioned Pennsylvania, I expect that case to be one of the easiest to win for the Trump legal team. The mail in votes that were received after the old deadline will likely be thrown out. Whether it will be enough to overturn the election I don't know.

I do know when Democrat leaders try to throw in last minute changes to PA election law without running it thru the PA legislature they set themselves up for a losing battle in court. "If" that case makes its way to the SCOTUS, the Trump legal team will win it. Mark it down that I said so and feel free to gloat later if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Can you link to which case you are talking about.
 
Darat said:
Can you link to which case you are talking about.
Click to expand...

I think that one already resulted in discarding a few votes received in PA after the 9th. The deadline had been extended to the 12th IIRC. This made no difference to the result, and may have since been reversed.
 
Elagabalus said:
[qimg]https://media.giphy.com/media/2kXLW8Wuhy1zWOkoJr/giphy.gif[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Hilarious, though no MAGA hats or Trump supporters.
If you're hoping for a like reaction from Trump supporters in the event he loses, don't hold your breath. I challenge you to post any youtube videos of distraught Trumpers if you can.
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Since you mentioned Pennsylvania, I expect that case to be one of the easiest to win for the Trump legal team. The mail in votes that were received after the old deadline will likely be thrown out. Whether it will be enough to overturn the election I don't know.

I do know when Democrat leaders try to throw in last minute changes to PA election law without running it thru the PA legislature they set themselves up for a losing battle in court. "If" that case makes its way to the SCOTUS, the Trump legal team will win it. Mark it down that I said so and feel free to gloat later if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Did you read the judge's decision in that case, the one where he dismissed it with prejudice? Do you really think that one is going to get argued in front of the Supreme Court of the United States? Keep in mind that Judge Brann is a member of the Federalist Society. It's not like he's some left leaning 9th Circuit California judge.
 
Arcade22 said:
No but since they decide what the law is they are definitely experts at what the law is.
Click to expand...

They are experts in what will be the outcome of a legal decision. They are not experts to what the law outside of legal questions. That is what I'm asking about. My question in no way informs what should or will be a legal outcome.
 
Darat said:
Can you link to which case you are talking about.
Click to expand...

Sure, it's the one that's still before the SCOTUS about the mail in ballot deadline in PA.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/su...l-in-ballot-deadline-extension-after-election

"The court's refusal to issue a fast-track decision does not mean it won't rule in the case. The petition asking for the court's review remains before the justices.
Therefore, the move sets up a scenario where the U.S. Supreme Court could step in to overturn the ballot extension, which was issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in a ruling that essentially changed state election law, and void votes after they have been cast in a state that has the potential to decide the presidential election. "
 
ChrisBFRPKY said:
Mark my words, there is no way this is not going to the Supreme Court if the election can be overturned. If the election cannot be overturned then the cases will die in the lower courts.
Click to expand...

Yes, everyone make ChrisBFRPKY’s words: The thing that has already been happening will happen!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom