• 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.

A coda:

Loeffler: 'I cannot, now, in good conscience object to this certification'

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Kelly Loeffler, speaking on the floor of the Senate chamber after a mob protesting the certification of the Electoral College votes, said she is withdrawing her object to the count.

Loeffler, who lost a close runoff election on Tuesday against Democratic challenger Rev. Raphael Warnock, spoke just after 8:30 p.m. Wednesday.

"When I arrived in Washington this morning I fully intended to object to the certification of Electoral votes," Loeffler said addressing the chamber. "However, the events of the events that have transpired today forced me to reconsider and I cannot, now, in good conscience object to this certification of these electors."

"The violence, the lawlessness, and siege of the halls of Congress are abhorrent and stand as a direct attack on the very institution my objection was intended to protect, the sanctity of the American democratic process," Loeffler continued.

The senator, who was appointed a year ago by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp to fill the seat of the retired Sen. Johnny Isakson, thanked law enforcement for keeping her and her fellow senators safe.
. . .

"Too many Americans are frustrated with what they see as an unfair system, nevertheless, there is no excuse for the events that took place in these chambers today and I pray that America never suffers such a dark day again," Loeffler continued.
Click to expand...
 
The Don said:
Much too little, much too late.

IMO she'll reverse her position in a heartbeat if it increases her chances of winning an election in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, even as she spoke in chambers, I couldn't help but notice she hadn't conceded.
 
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 don't understand what precedent the supreme court justices are using, when they release (not a decision, just stuff we hear from Alito et al.) opinions that imply states cannot change election law in an election year, or change any voting procedure.

The constitution says
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Click to expand...

There must be some legal definition of "direct" by now. But what it says to me that the legislature has control of elections. But, using the word "legislature" they must have pretty much had state government in mind, as they did not want to say "governor" which would be a trap, a one person decision. The state can hire officials, or have the secretary of state function in elections. I read a bunch of instructions on elections in the Wisconsin constitution. There are people appointed to certify the votes. Both the legislature and governor are involved in everyday decisions during an election. The governor has a cabinet, who also act. What an official does abut a particular vote as far as signatures and dates on the two envelopes is pretty much minute details that would be difficult to address by law. The last day to accept ballots by mail can be in the law, one of the few things that is easy to keep track of. But even there, it is in the hands of the post office and then the place where the bags of votes are taken, there are two times that can be recorded.
 
Last edited:
Don't know if this has already been posted here or in any of the other threads covering this, but the woman who was shot and killed has been identified as one of the rioters.

Woman shot dead in US Capitol was Air Force veteran, Trump supporter

The woman who was fatally shot as Mr Donald Trump's backers stormed the US Capitol on Wednesday (Jan 6) was Ms Ashli Babbitt, a "strong supporter" of the president who had served in the United States Air Force, according to press reports.

"The woman is Ashli Babbitt, a 14-year veteran, who served four tours with the US Air Force," San Diego TV station KUSI reported, citing the woman's husband.
Click to expand...

Other sources indicate that, like other rioters, she was a full-blown nutjob. I have no sympathy for her. As they say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
 
Last edited:
//Slight Hijack//

The number of people on Twitter and Facebook that think one of the insurrectionist was named "Via Getty" is just... hilarious.
 
shemp said:
Don't know if this has already been posted here or in any of the other threads covering this, but the woman who was shot and killed has been identified as one of the rioters.

Woman shot dead in US Capitol was Air Force veteran, Trump supporter



Other sources indicate that, like other rioters, she was a full-blown nutjob. I have no sympathy for her. As they say, play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Click to expand...
I cannot think of any country in the world where, if you broke into the parliament building while it was in session, you wouldn't expect to be met by a level of violence going as far as deadly force.
 
Tero said:
There must be some legal definition of "direct" by now. But what it says to me that the legislature has control of elections. But, using the word "legislature" they must have pretty much had state government in mind, as they did not want to say "governor" which would be a trap, a one person decision. The state can hire officials, or have the secretary of state function in elections. I read a bunch of instructions on elections in the Wisconsin constitution. There are people appointed to certify the votes. Both the legislature and governor are involved in everyday decisions during an election. The governor has a cabinet, who also act. What an official does abut a particular vote as far as signatures and dates on the two envelopes is pretty much minute details that would be difficult to address by law. The last day to accept ballots by mail can be in the law, one of the few things that is easy to keep track of. But even there, it is in the hands of the post office and then the place where the bags of votes are taken, there are two times that can be recorded.
Click to expand...

You are close to being on the right track. When the Constitution was drafted and the county was formed there was no specific idea of what a State government must be. The Federal government was established with a judicial branch, and a legislative branch that establishes laws and and an executive branch that executes those laws. The legislative branch is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

A State is not required to follow that model. A state could form any sort of government of legislative process it wants. The only requirement in the Constitution is that it must be a republic.

When the Constitution says the the manner of choosing electors is up to the "Legislature" of the state, the Founding Fathers and drafters of the Constitution meant that the manner and laws for a State to choose electors would be in whatever manner the state had for legislation under the constitution of that State.

A state legislature could take any form, as long as it is a republic. All states have adopted the model of the Federal government. That means legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

In common parlance, we call the legislative branch, consisting of the Representatives and the Senators the legislative branch and sometimes simply as the "legislature".

But they are not, in the term of the Constitution the "legislature" because they didn't know and did not even want to specify what forms of legislatures might be created within the sovereign states.

The "legislature" in the context of this of the Constitutional article means whatever means may exists by a state to establish law--to establish legislation. That could be what ever the State decides.

That can be a combination of an executive of the state, such as a governor, and a branch consisting of representatives and senators, and a court system, or something completely different. That is the "legislature" indicated in the Constitution in this context,
 
Yeah are we seriously debating about whether or not trying to storm your way into Congress should be met with deadly force?

None of them should have made it past that first door alive and the fact that any of them did is a disgrace to the most basic idea of "security."
 
DevilsAdvocate said:
You are close to being on the right track. When the Constitution was drafted and the county was formed there was no specific idea of what a State government must be. The Federal government was established with a judicial branch, and a legislative branch that establishes laws and and an executive branch that executes those laws. The legislative branch is made up of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

A State is not required to follow that model. A state could form any sort of government of legislative process it wants. The only requirement in the Constitution is that it must be a republic.

When the Constitution says the the manner of choosing electors is up to the "Legislature" of the state, the Founding Fathers and drafters of the Constitution meant that the manner and laws for a State to choose electors would be in whatever manner the state had for legislation under the constitution of that State.

A state legislature could take any form, as long as it is a republic. All states have adopted the model of the Federal government. That means legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

In common parlance, we call the legislative branch, consisting of the Representatives and the Senators the legislative branch and sometimes simply as the "legislature".

But they are not, in the term of the Constitution the "legislature" because they didn't know and did not even want to specify what forms of legislatures might be created within the sovereign states.

The "legislature" in the context of this of the Constitutional article means whatever means may exists by a state to establish law--to establish legislation. That could be what ever the State decides.

That can be a combination of an executive of the state, such as a governor, and a branch consisting of representatives and senators, and a court system, or something completely different. That is the "legislature" indicated in the Constitution in this context,
Click to expand...

But they could have wrote what you just wrote. They didn't. They used a single noun. It doesn't matter what someone intended, we are left with the word legislature.
 
Puppycow said:
A coda:

Loeffler: 'I cannot, now, in good conscience object to this certification'
Click to expand...

Given the number of Republicans voting to certify the election, I think they may finally be realizing what a dangerously unstable, out-of-control liability Trump really is. For years many of them have seen him as a useful fool, stupidly crashing about and distracting attention from their own schemes. And he certainly is a fool. But last night, for the first time, they were afraid of him and the cult who worships him. I can certainly sympathize with their terror as they were evacuated as a violent mob stormed the building, but what sucks is their lack of concern for the actions of Trump's supporters when they were threatening others, only apprehending that "this **** is real" when the idiotic minions of an idiotic demigod directly threatened them. Not that I expect any of them to admit that they helped to empower this sociopathic would-be dictator, or even learn a lesson that will keep them from doing something similar in the future if they think it can serve their ambitions, but I feel a bit of schadenfreude when I imagine some of these sycophants panicking as the MAGA CHUDS stormed the Capitol and wondering if they might not be killed or injured by the mob they thought they controlled.
 
angrysoba said:
Let's see, a true believer Trumper and Qanon nutjob decides to storm the building in which the Secret Service are protecting Vice-President Pence....

Gets shot dead.
Click to expand...

What are the odds that her family will try to sue over it? Will they sue the security for doing their job, or Trump for causing the situation? Perhaps they'll sue Pence for not surrendering himself to the mob.
 
TragicMonkey said:
What are the odds that her family will try to sue over it? Will they sue the security for doing their job, or Trump for causing the situation? Perhaps they'll sue Pence for not surrendering himself to the mob.
Click to expand...

I guess the first question is did the shooter follow proper use of force guidelines.
 
PhantomWolf said:
have you missed the riot gear, flash bangs, tear gas, and the removal of the people from the capital grounds?
Click to expand...

My comment yesterday was prompted by the fact that the loons walked around inside the building taking selfies for ages, zero sense of urgency. Try to imagine what would have happened if BLM people did that. Or a women's march. Or anybody else, really.

It's also bizarre to me that the cops weren't better prepared. It's like the Austin Powers joke, where they put one inept guard at the door. They should have had small armies there. I knew there was going to be trouble, how the hell did the police not know? Answer - they did. They (or someone above them) were on the goon's side.

Look, this isn't my conspiracy that I pulled out of my ass. Some of the higher-ups are literally saying the same thing and threatening to fire people. I didn't miss anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom