• 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.

Certifying the Vote.

With the six hour delay, this would have originally been at 6 PM EST. I'm wondering if that will take away some people choosing to speak as they don't get primetime.
 
I will change from CNN because I cannot stand wither Lemon or Cuomo. Both are too shrill for my taste.
 
acbytesla said:
They're going to be seriously pissed at him. I guarantee they wanted to go home. It's been a long day.
Click to expand...
Context and inconvenience do not matter to these swivel-eyed nitwits.

With luck, when the houses convene separately, Hawley will be taken out into a conveniently empty corridor and "convinced" to change his mind by a medium-large contingent of his peers.
 
acbytesla said:
They're going to be seriously pissed at him. I guarantee they wanted to go home. It's been a long day.
Click to expand...

It is frightening to me that these people are doing this because they think, and are probably correct, that these sorts of objections will score political points with their voters.
 
Norman Alexander said:
Context and inconvenience do not matter to these swivel-eyed nitwits.

With luck, when the houses convene separately, Hawley will be taken out into a conveniently empty corridor and "convinced" to change his mind by a medium-large contingent of his peers.
Click to expand...

It's done. We have two more hours of debate. A vote which will put Biden at 264 if my count is right. Virginia will put Biden over I think.
 
Senate is going straight to the vote without debate. I supsect they want a break during the House Debate. The Senate Cafeterria will be doing a big business in take out.
 
The Senate has rejected the objection.

Unfortunately there are dozens of objectors in the House; depending on how debate there is handled, it could go the full two hours.
 
acbytesla said:
They're going to be seriously pissed at him. I guarantee they wanted to go home. It's been a long day.
Click to expand...

And the issue about whether the mail-in ballot law is valid under the Pennsylvania Constitution is dumb. I wrote up a long post in one of these threads about it. The short version is: it is dumb.

Well, it has some basis. It relies on a sort of vague statement made in a court opinion over a hundred years ago that may or may not apply to this case.

This law was passed over a year ago by Republicans who have the majority in the Pennsylvania legislature.

The law allowed that the law would not go into effect for 180 days to allow anybody to object. There were no objections.

It was used (I think) in a small state election. Nobody objected.

It was used in the 2020 primaries. Nobody objected.

It was in place for the 2020 general election. Nobody objected.

Only after the general election and the determination that Trump lost did anyone object. The lawsuit filed did not ask for consideration of the constitutionality of the law for future elections. Or even a new election. It asked that whole the election be overturned in favor of Trump. Which is ridiculous and certainly not consistent with the intent of the state constitution or the legislature.

And Congress has no authority to interpret whether a state law complies with
the state's constitution. That is the right of the state. And questions of the constitutionality of those law, in accordance with law, must be timely made.

This is just dumb.
 
Last edited:
After the vote in the Senate, McConnell mentioned that no other objections are expected in the Senate for the rest of the joint session once it resumes.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
And the issue about whether the mail-in ballot law is valid under the Pennsylvania Constitution is dumb. I wrote up a long post in one of these threads about it. The short version is: it is dumb.

Well, it has some basis. It relies on a sort of vague statement made in a court opinion over a hundred years ago that may or may not apply to this case.

This law was passed over a year ago by Republicans who have the majority in the Pennsylvania legislature.

The law allowed that the law would not go into effect for 180 days to allow anybody to object. There were no objections.

It was used (I think) in a small state election. Nobody objected.

It was used in the 2020 primaries. Nobody objected.

It was in place for the 2020 general election. Nobody objected.

Only after the general election and the determination that Trump lost did anyone object. The lawsuit filed did not ask for consideration of the constitutionality of the law for future elections. Or even a new election. It asked that whole the election be overturned in favor of Trump. Which is ridiculous and certainly not consistent with the intent of the state constitution or the legislature.

And Congress has no authority to interpret whether a state law complies with
the state's constitution. That is the right of the state. And questions of the constitutionality of those law, in accordance with law, must be timely made.

This is just dumb.
Click to expand...

They have a few dumb objections. They are trying some misdirection by just saying that the PA supreme court made new law. I read one of those decisions, and of course they didn't say, "LOL, COViD." They say they reviewed the law and that it was in accordance with it.

They want people to think that the judges somehow said they ignored the law.
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
And the issue about whether the mail-in ballot law is valid under the Pennsylvania Constitution is dumb. I wrote up a long post in one of these threads about it. The short version is: it is dumb.

Well, it has some basis. It relies on a sort of vague statement made in a court opinion over a hundred years ago that may or may not apply to this case.

This law was passed over a year ago by Republicans who have the majority in the Pennsylvania legislature.

The law allowed that the law would not go into effect for 180 days to allow anybody to object. There were no objections.

It was used (I think) in a small state election. Nobody objected.

It was used in the 2020 primaries. Nobody objected.

It was in place for the 2020 general election. Nobody objected.

Only after the general election and the determination that Trump lost did anyone object. The lawsuit filed did not ask for consideration of the constitutionality of the law for future elections. Or even a new election. It asked that whole the election be overturned in favor of Trump. Which is ridiculous and certainly not consistent with the intent of the state constitution or the legislature.

And Congress has no authority to interpret whether a state law complies with
the state's constitution. That is the right of the state. And questions of the constitutionality of those law, in accordance with law, must be timely made.

This is just dumb.
Click to expand...

I just watched a Pennsylvania Congressman make exactly those arguments maybe a minute ago. Interesting how that works. He also pointed out that all these Pennsylvania Congressman don't mind their own election under the same conditions.
 
acbytesla said:
Damned Hawley to HELL.
Click to expand...

Scott Perry in the House is yelling his argument! :rolleyes:

They argue they are the ones upholding the Constitution. But this stuff was already hashed out in the courts, so this Congressman believes he knows better than the courts when the courts that heard the PA argument were all Republicans and some even appointed by Trump.

Now the Democrat Neguse is reminding Perry of what the actual Constitution says.

The Senate is already voting. Guess they'll get a nice 2 hour nap. Hawley really should have just shut up. What a jerk.

The House is listening to another Democrat. Maybe all the Republicans don't want to speak. ... or not.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom