You just disenfranchised thousands.
‘The Steal Is On’ in Pennsylvania: Poll Watchers Denied Access, Illegal Campaigning at Polling Locations
- Status
N
Nepperhan
Guest
There are several problems with your stance:
A. Electors requirements are not a ‘right without a remedy’.; the qualifier is that the correct entity must assert the right.
B. In stating that SCOTUS is the proper forum to decide disputes between states, the leap is that there is some kind of compact between the states. This is not an interstate disagreement.
C. Saying “Yes, Texas has standing” is conclusory and is a mis-statement of contract law.
" For decades, Republicans have railed against frivolous lawsuits that clog the courts with specious claims, sometimes simply to grab attention or make a political point.
Now, in the increasingly ridiculous tenure of Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, such suits are apparently part of the toolkit.
Paxton asked the U.S. Supreme Court in a petition filed Monday to effectively overturn the results of four other states’ presidential elections. He argues that officials in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin unlawfully changed voting laws because of the pandemic. He contends that Texas voters were harmed by the states’ alleged violations of equal-protection laws.
By Paxton’s strange accounting, states should be able to intervene in their counterparts’ election procedures. It’s a silly argument that the court should reject completely.
And it abruptly cuts against the very states’ rights arguments Texas has made for decades about election laws. If Paxton were to prevail, imagine the attorney general of California licking his chops at the chance to go after Texas’ voter ID requirements.
https://www.star-telegram.com/opinion/editorials/article247697720.html#storylink=cpy"
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
I suppose some concepts are so esoteric as to evade virtually everyone who doesn’t want to exert a smidgeon of energy trying to comprehend.Victoria33:
Victoria, can you explain why Republicans only have issues with the voting in states that Trump lost? If other states were also fraudulently conducting elections, doesn’t it affect us all?
At its very basic:
- Voter integrity is essential to maintaining a responsible government.
- Voter integrity requires chain of custody of ballots and verification that the voter is who they claim to be by ID, signature verification and/or witness validation.
- The five states in question essentially threw out all of those verification requirements such that pretty much anybody could vote for virtually anybody else and more often than once.
- Given that large numbers of ballots in those states bypassed all verification and chain of custody requirements that are obligated by their own constitutions, those votes were not legally cast. That does not mean they are fraudulent (a misunderstanding of the law,) it just means they were not legally cast, and that makes them ineligible to be counted as legal votes because they do not meet the legal requirements of the constitutions in those states.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Nope. Texas isn’t going after other state’s voting requirements. It is going after states who did not follow their own requirements spelled out in their own constitutions. I.e., those states broke their own laws.
N
Nepperhan
Guest
Lawyers are saying that enough is enough.
" More than 1,500 lawyers condemned efforts by the Trump campaign’s legal team to reverse the election results in an open letter that urged the American Bar Association (ABA) to investigate the conduct of the team, including its leader, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
“President Trump’s barrage of litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election, which inevitably will subvert constitutional democracy,” the letter says. “Sadly, the President’s primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers, obligated by their oath and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law.”
The letter escalates the concerns of Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) who on Nov. 20 filed complaints with ethics boards in five states calling for Giuliani and other members of the team to be investigated and disbarred. The criticism has been echoed in op-eds and letters by attorneys who have rebuked the team for filing frivolous lawsuits and tarnishing the legal profession."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/08/trump-lawyer-letter/
The attorney discipline folks do not have to wait for judges to remark, however. I think Jenna Ellis crossed the line in her criticism of Pennsylvania judges.
" More than 1,500 lawyers condemned efforts by the Trump campaign’s legal team to reverse the election results in an open letter that urged the American Bar Association (ABA) to investigate the conduct of the team, including its leader, Rudolph W. Giuliani.
“President Trump’s barrage of litigation is a pretext for a campaign to undermine public confidence in the outcome of the 2020 election, which inevitably will subvert constitutional democracy,” the letter says. “Sadly, the President’s primary agents and enablers in this effort are lawyers, obligated by their oath and ethical rules to uphold the rule of law.”
The letter escalates the concerns of Rep. Bill Pascrell Jr. (D-N.J.) who on Nov. 20 filed complaints with ethics boards in five states calling for Giuliani and other members of the team to be investigated and disbarred. The criticism has been echoed in op-eds and letters by attorneys who have rebuked the team for filing frivolous lawsuits and tarnishing the legal profession."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/08/trump-lawyer-letter/
The attorney discipline folks do not have to wait for judges to remark, however. I think Jenna Ellis crossed the line in her criticism of Pennsylvania judges.
Tough noogies. Its not for Texas to say.
Last edited:
P
PaulinVA
Guest
And yet you didn’t answer the question.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Nice choice of words. Breakdown. Because that’s what all the lawsuits are doing. Breaking down.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Really? I allowed the possibility of 0.00001% of the 161 million votes being illegal. That’s 16.1 illegal votes. So, who got disenfranchised by 16 incorrect votes? That’s less than a typical recount error - which has nothing to do with fraud. It’s just honest errors.LeafByNiggle:
You just disenfranchised thousands.
But if you want to talk about disenfranchisement, that would be when inadequate number of polling places are provided in poor neighbors. The does disenfranchise thousands, and I don’t see you raising a cry of foul over that.
Last edited:
B
billsherman
Guest
And TX has no standing to bring such a suit.
In an initial blow to Texas, SCOTUS ignored its request to issue an order without first hearing from the defendants:
"[Paxton] also urges the justices to resolve the dispute without additional briefing, telling them that the issues presented in the case – involving the outcome of the 2020 presidential election – “are neither fact-bound nor complex.”
SCOTUS ignored this and requested briefs from the defendants anyway.
Not a good start. There is a 0% chance that SCOTUS grants cert in this case (just like the others).
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Well, consider how this sets precedent. Suppose no finding occurs here, so Republican states begin flooding mail-in ballots out to all and sundry in their counties, relaxing all the legal requirements for ballot verification and hold off counting until the early morning or the next day, week, month or year. Where does it end? A complete breakdown of disciplined self-rule?
Here begins an outrageous competition among the states to harvest as many ballots as possible from wherever to run up the vote count. Where does it end? In the end of the country, that is where.
If the shoe really were on the other foot and Republican states were the ones to have stopped counting to get a sense of how many ballots were needed to be infused to guarantee Trump a win, I am certain you people would have been grousing about how unfair such ballot harvesting practices were. But your side won, so never mind. Is that a sound precedent?
What happened to Do unto others as you would have them do to you? Do you really think it is acceptable for Republican states to completely throw out all ballot verification requirements just to have their side win the presidency?
If this is not settled in a fair way, you can bet other states will not sit back and let federal control fall according to the illicit practices of undisciplined states infusing hundreds of thousands of ballots that have no chain of custody or verification requirements into their counts.
This will set the rules or a lack thereof for the future. Is that how you seriously want your country to end up? I suppose you do.
As I said, I am not an American, but I do think your country that has led the world as an example of justice and fairness should not succumb to such unscrupulous election practices.
If this is permitted it will continue to worsen and become more of a competition to see who can cheat the worst to run up totals - and that practice has started here with bending the rules to the point of breaking.
This is serious and it ought to be treated as such.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
A second thought…
In most of the contested states it was the executive branch - governors and secretaries of state/ election officials - that undermined those states’ Constitutional ground rules on elections.
Imagine if Trump (who heads the federal executive branch) unilaterally changed election rules and undermined the federal Constitution to benefit his party? You people would have no problem with that?
Clearly consistency isn’t your strong suit.
In most of the contested states it was the executive branch - governors and secretaries of state/ election officials - that undermined those states’ Constitutional ground rules on elections.
Imagine if Trump (who heads the federal executive branch) unilaterally changed election rules and undermined the federal Constitution to benefit his party? You people would have no problem with that?
Clearly consistency isn’t your strong suit.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Oh I think I did. Maybe not to your liking.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
This is part of the whole banana republic issue so many leftists desire (because it is authoritarianistic).
This obvious and overt election cheating won’t end well for our country.
C
Cathoholic
Guest
This of course is a political action.
Lawyers should be among the first to say . . .
“Let the process play out!”
(The fact that they are not, tells me much by their actions.)
Last edited:
C
Cathoholic
Guest
We have some friends in a leftist state where
the father got seven absentee ballots sent to him in the mail
and the mother received four!
They threw them all away except the one they voted with.
Your arguments are right-on HarryStotle.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
There are 1.33 million lawyers in the US. Likely about a third or more are Democrats.
That 1500 could be dug up to express outrage is not surprising. I believe more dead people voted in Michigan than that.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Because this election was fraught with flagrant abuses of ballot verification.
Where have you been?
In which past election were observers shut out from doing what the Constitution requires to be done - verify signatures to authenticate ballots?
H
HarryStotle
Guest
This point is exactly why the voters in states such as Texas and Louisiana have standing. Their votes for president were diffused to less than one person one vote, if hundreds of thousands of votes in other states were unlawfully cast.
Ergo, the Texas lawsuit is not settled by issues of standing but on whether those hundreds of thousands of votes were, in fact, unlawfully cast.
If justice is still alive in the US that is the basis upon which this issue should be determined. Standing is a deflection.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That is childish.
B
Balto1
Guest
Voters don’t elect the president, the electoral college does. If we amended the constitution to make the popular vote elect the president (something I support) then Texas might have an argument against other states. We haven’t done that so Texas has no standing here because Texas voters weren’t harmed in any way.
Last edited:
- Status