Trump's Coup d'état.

[acbytesla]

I expect Roberts is going to exhaust himself trying to keep any of these cases out of the SCOTUS. He knows what a trip across the Rubicon it would be to rule either way on this election. I expect that he wants to make crystal clear that the courts are not the place to come if you don't like how an election turned out.

I don't think it's going to get to Roberts. I despise Alito but I'm betting he dismisses Mike Kelly's appeal on Tuesday.

 

[Meadmaker]

You are probably right. Still, I would imagine he's going to be aware of this even if he isn't at the moment. Right now, these states where there are lawsuits, they seem to be deliberately scheduling hearings for December 8. Sort of an emphatic way of slamming the door.

Any election lawsuit filed after the 8th is going to be dismissed outright. The only one I think he has any hope in helping to derail things is the appeal to overrule the PA Supreme Court that Alito has scheduled a hearing for on December 8. And the only reason I can see Alito not tossing it out is partisanship.

Good point. If one of his lawsuits is dismissed by merely citing the Safe Harbor provision, that would probably catch his attention.

 

[acbytesla]

Good point. If one of his lawsuits is dismissed by merely citing the Safe Harbor provision, that would probably catch his attention.

This is Trump we're talking about.

I believe he's fully aware of the significance of the Safe Harbor day law. He practically begged Georgia Governor Kemp to call a special session which Kemp refused. He really ramped things up the last few days. Rudy catching COVID might affect him for thirty minutes or so.

Still, I believe to a degree we have Rudy to blame for the craziness of the last ten days He wound up Trump. Rudy now in the hospital and safe harbor has to have some effect, doesn't it?

I think he's going to continue this nonsense right up until the 14th and then again going into January 6th. But i think there are going to be lulls.

 

[Trebuchet]

This is Trump we're talking about.



I believe he's fully aware of the significance of the Safe Harbor day law. He practically begged Georgia Governor Kemp to call a special session which Kemp refused. He really ramped things up the last few days. Rudy catching COVID might affect him for thirty minutes or so.



Still, I believe to a degree we have Rudy to blame for the craziness of the last ten days He wound up Trump. Rudy now in the hospital and safe harbor has to have some effect, doesn't it?



I think he's going to continue this nonsense right up until the 14th and then again going into January 6th. But i think there are going to be lulls.

He'll continue it until the 20th of January. Of 2025. At least.
This is the guy who called the governor of AZ literally as he was signing off the election cert.

 

[acbytesla]

He'll continue it until the 20th of January. Of 2025. At least.
This is the guy who called the governor of AZ literally as he was signing off the election cert.

You think so? Word has it the West Wing Staff are heading for the doors as we speak. Apparently people were threatened that if they heard you were looking for a new job, you would be fired. But this week it seems as if a lot of the staff has come to the realization they have nothing to lose. The 14th is a week away and then Christmas follows. They are actually constructing stands outside the White House for the inaugural.

I think there is going to come a point that even his resistance will crumble. At least I hope so.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

I don't think it's going to get to Roberts. I despise Alito but I'm betting he dismisses Mike Kelly's appeal on Tuesday.

Possibly. I've looked more into this case and it is a very tricky case.

There is an issue with with the validity of the mail-in vote law under the Pennsylvania constitution. My reading of the constitution would make the law permissible. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. In cases in 1924 and 1862 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that to "offer to vote" meant to appear at the polling place in person and that the laws allowing soldiers and others (beyond specific provisions of the constitution) to vote absentee was unconstitutional. The court, many months after the elections, threw out he absentee ballots, which overturned the local elections.

The question of laches gets a bit more complicated.

The question for the court is going to be what, exactly, the petitioners actually want to accomplish and how it would be possible to accomplish that. It may be possible to adequately answer that. But it is going to be challenging.

 

[acbytesla]

Possibly. I've looked more into this case and it is a very tricky case.

There is an issue with with the validity of the mail-in vote law under the Pennsylvania constitution. My reading of the constitution would make the law permissible. But the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ruled otherwise. In cases in 1924 and 1862 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that to "offer to vote" meant to appear at the polling place in person and that the laws allowing soldiers and others (beyond specific provisions of the constitution) to vote absentee was unconstitutional. The court, many months after the elections, threw out he absentee ballots, which overturned the local elections.

The question of laches gets a bit more complicated.

The question for the court is going to be what, exactly, the petitioners actually want to accomplish and how it would be possible to accomplish that. It may be possible to adequately answer that. But it is going to be challenging.

Nothing about it is tricky. SCOTUS has deferred to the state every time.

The doctrine of laches demonstrates that this is an unreasonable request. Mike Kelly waited more than an entire year and then only objects when the GOP candidate lost?

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Still, I believe to a degree we have Rudy to blame for the craziness of the last ten days He wound up Trump. Rudy now in the hospital and safe harbor has to have some effect, doesn't it?

I agree. I think Trump has taken the position of asking his people for any possible way he can still win and failure is not an option and any ideas, no matter how crazy, will be entertained. Without any way to win, Rudy and Powell have stepped in to provide the crazy. Powell is off the team. Rudy is in the hospital. Unless someone steps in, Trump won't be getting his daily dose of crazy.

Court cases and other actions are moving swiftly to resolve by the December 8 safe harbor date. Once those are done, there isn't much where else to go. And nobody crazy enough around to suggest alternatives. Courts will be very reluctant to consider any new cases after the safe harbor date citing back to Bush v Gore.

The Kelly v Pennsylvania case in the Supreme Court has a possibility of moving forward. Maybe even succeeding. But were does that go? Even if the Supreme Court hears the case, and rules that the state legislature cannot override a state constitution, and that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court erred in vacating the restraining order based on laches...then the injunction goes back into effect and the case goes back to the Commonwealth Court.

That would most likely be taken immediately to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on extraordinary jurisdiction. But the judges in that case have already written that even if the was a valid case, they would not grant the relief requested. They would not throw out the votes, only invalidate the law for future elections. Even if they win, it doesn't change anything.

And even if they won and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the extraordinary action of throwing out the mail-in votes and requiring the appointment of the Trump electors...it could be challenged in the joint session of Congress.

And even if the Senate Republicans hold and do not allow that challenge...Biden still has enough electoral votes to win.

Without a constant infusion of madness, Trump is going to start looking at this a bit differently. I'm not sure what way he will look. But unless somebody else steps up to give him some new message of madness, he will have to turn another direction.

 

[acbytesla]

I agree. I think Trump has taken the position of asking his people for any possible way he can still win and failure is not an option and any ideas, no matter how crazy, will be entertained. Without any way to win, Rudy and Powell have stepped in to provide the crazy. Powell is off the team. Rudy is in the hospital. Unless someone steps in, Trump won't be getting his daily dose of crazy.

Court cases and other actions are moving swiftly to resolve by the December 8 safe harbor date. Once those are done, there isn't much where else to go. And nobody crazy enough around to suggest alternatives. Courts will be very reluctant to consider any new cases after the safe harbor date citing back to Bush v Gore.

The Kelly v Pennsylvania case in the Supreme Court has a possibility of moving forward. Maybe even succeeding. But were does that go? Even if the Supreme Court hears the case, and rules that the state legislature cannot override a state constitution, and that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court erred in vacating the restraining order based on laches...then the injunction goes back into effect and the case goes back to the Commonwealth Court.

That would most likely be taken immediately to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on extraordinary jurisdiction. But the judges in that case have already written that even if the was a valid case, they would not grant the relief requested. They would not throw out the votes, only invalidate the law for future elections. Even if they win, it doesn't change anything.

And even if they won and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the extraordinary action of throwing out the mail-in votes and requiring the appointment of the Trump electors...it could be challenged in the joint session of Congress.

And even if the Senate Republicans hold and do not allow that challenge...Biden still has enough electoral votes to win.

Without a constant infusion of madness, Trump is going to start looking at this a bit differently. I'm not sure what way he will look. But unless somebody else steps up to give him some new message of madness, he will have to turn another direction.

Trump has to flip the results in three states. Two won't do it. And they would have to be flipped not merely invalidated. You could take away the results from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and Trump still loses the Electoral College 233 to 232.

Trump is trying to win the lottery. It ain't going to happen.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Nothing about it is tricky. SCOTUS has deferred to the state every time.

The doctrine of laches demonstrates that this is an unreasonable request. Mike Kelly waited more than an entire year and then only objects when the GOP candidate lost?

That is what happened in the 1924 and 1862 cases that are the precedent for this case. The 1862 case was actually a challenge of a 1838 law and was filed only because the absentee ballots changes the election. But those cases had different circumstances that maybe don't apply to this case. Or maybe they do.

There is also the issue raised in the petition that in a case from 1970 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on similar issues ruled that two voters did not have standing because it would be a general grievance and and only opportunity to establish standing would be vote dilution which could not be established because it would be merely speculative. That presents the apparent conundrum that filing before the election means no standing and filing after violates laches.

The really big problem is that they didn't file a case before the election. In this case the plaintiff is a candidate, not a voter. So it isn't a general grievance. A candidate has more options to establish standing than a voter.

Their assertion that the courts would have dismissed the case due to lack of standing based on mere speculation is...mere speculation. That means laches applies...at least to a degree.

One of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges dissented in part saying that laches should not completely apply because this was the first election where the law in question was applied. However, that judge said that would mean that this election could not be overturned but the case could continue to challenge the law as unconstitutional for future elections.

That's why I said the questions for the U.S. Supreme Court are going to be asking what the petitioners what they are actually trying to accomplish.

Also, the lawsuit is brought by Kelly, not Trump. I'm not sure if any of the plaintiffs would have standing. And if so, that may limit any relief granted, which almost certainly would not affect the Presidential election.

 

[acbytesla]

That is what happened in the 1924 and 1862 cases that are the precedent for this case. The 1862 case was actually a challenge of a 1838 law and was filed only because the absentee ballots changes the election. But those cases had different circumstances that maybe don't apply to this case. Or maybe they do.

There is also the issue raised in the petition that in a case from 1970 the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling on similar issues ruled that two voters did not have standing because it would be a general grievance and and only opportunity to establish standing would be vote dilution which could not be established because it would be merely speculative. That presents the apparent conundrum that filing before the election means no standing and filing after violates laches.

The really big problem is that they didn't file a case before the election. In this case the plaintiff is a candidate, not a voter. So it isn't a general grievance. A candidate has more options to establish standing than a voter.

Their assertion that the courts would have dismissed the case due to lack of standing based on mere speculation is...mere speculation. That means laches applies...at least to a degree.

One of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court judges dissented in part saying that laches should not completely apply because this was the first election where the law in question was applied. However, that judge said that would mean that this election could not be overturned but the case could continue to challenge the law as unconstitutional for future elections.

That's why I said the questions for the U.S. Supreme Court are going to be asking what the petitioners what they are actually trying to accomplish.

Also, the lawsuit is brought by Kelly, not Trump. I'm not sure if any of the plaintiffs would have standing. And if so, that may limit any relief granted, which almost certainly would not affect the Presidential election.

Kelly has trouble with standing because he can't demonstrate anything but a generalized harm if that. That's not enough to be granted standing for the action Kelly is seeking.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

...
And even if they won and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court took the extraordinary action of throwing out the mail-in votes and requiring the appointment of the Trump electors...it could be challenged in the joint session of Congress.

And even if the Senate Republicans hold and do not allow that challenge...Biden still has enough electoral votes to win.

Without a constant infusion of madness, Trump is going to start looking at this a bit differently. I'm not sure what way he will look. But unless somebody else steps up to give him some new message of madness, he will have to turn another direction.

The bad outcome here would be giving Trump the dishonest claim there were any fraudulent votes. SCOTUS needs to nip that crap in the bud.

Let's see if they do.

I wonder if Trump has his little Federalists' personal phone numbers?

 

[TellyKNeasuss]

Trump has to flip the results in three states. Two won't do it. And they would have to be flipped not merely invalidated. You could take away the results from Pennsylvania, Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Arizona and Trump still loses the Electoral College 233 to 232.

Trump is trying to win the lottery. It ain't going to happen.

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 appears to give state legislatures the power to appoint electors in the event of a "failed" election, so it may be that just invalidating the results would be sufficient. It would be interesting to see what the reaction of the populace would be if Republican legislatures voted against the majority of the voters.

 

[angrysoba]

Ford did it under totally different circumstances. I tend to think he was correct; Nixon was out, Watergate needed to be over. Trump, not quite the same.

Yeah, Ford pardoned Nixon, but they were in the same party and it has at least been suggested (I don't know if this confirmed or general knowledge) that the pardon was essentially the concession for Nixon agreeing to step down.

I see no reason why that would set a precedent for an elected president from another party to pardon the outgoing president.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Ford pardoning Nixon cost him the next election.
I don't think Biden would amke the smae mistake.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Ford pardoning Nixon cost him the next election.
I don't think Biden would amke the smae mistake.

He said he would leave that up to the AG and the DoJ. Unlike Trump, Biden, rightfully so, is not going to use the DoJ to go after his political enemies.

BTW, GW also misused the DoJ for political reasons.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Kelly has trouble with standing because he can't demonstrate anything but a generalized harm if that. That's not enough to be granted standing for the action Kelly is seeking.

Yep. Kelly was a candidate for U.S. House of Representatives. But...he won. He obviously had no harm as a candidate. That means he has no more standing than Joe Schmoe down the street.

A citizen needs more standing than a general grievance. Establishing standing on vote dilution is difficult. And, in this case, tossing out thousands of vote would cause harm to more voters than any possible vote dilution.

That is why the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled, even in the partially dissenting opinion, that the requested relief is not possible.

There are other plaintiffs in the case who were candidates. I have not checked if they won, or if they lost that the ballots in question would matter. If they lost and the questioned ballots would change the results for their race, they may have standing. But even if they win a whole bunch of times on everything, the only result would be overturning the results of the race for the injured plaintiffs.

That can't change the appointment presidential electors who are not a party to the case.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

It's annoying news anchors keep saying Biden won by a "narrow margin". I did not think it was narrow in any state let alone the whole country.

BTW, does Trump have any other lawyers now that Rudy is sidelined?

 

[Firestone]

It's annoying news anchors keep saying Biden won by a "narrow margin". I did not think it was narrow in any state let alone the whole country.

Depends on your definition of "narrow".

Georgia and Arizona were narrow, 0.3%.
Wisconsin was 0.6%. Is that still "narrow"? I'd guess not, but it still is dangerously close.

If Trump wins all three, it's 269-269, and Trump easily wins the Contingent election in the House.

The US (and the world) were lucky this November.

This election illustrates the inanity of the EC. Biden won by 4.4% nationally (that's clearly not narrow by any definition), yet won the tipping point state, Wisconsin, by only 0.6%.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

The Electoral Count Act of 1887 appears to give state legislatures the power to appoint electors in the event of a "failed" election, so it may be that just invalidating the results would be sufficient. It would be interesting to see what the reaction of the populace would be if Republican legislatures voted against the majority of the voters.

I might be getting things wrong, but I seem to recall that is only applied if for some reason the state cannot hold an election, not for a controversy of an election that has been held.