‘The Steal Is On’ in Pennsylvania: Poll Watchers Denied Access, Illegal Campaigning at Polling Locations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
I thought they were waiting for a response to the lawsuit from the four states that are the subjects of the lawsuit. My understanding is that SCOTUS has given those states until Thursday to file a response.
Click to expand...
The are and they have until Thursday to file.
 
Last edited:
billsherman said:
The first line of the article you posted says otherwise:

Missouri led a group of 17 states that Wednesday afternoon filed a brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Texas lawsuit aimed at delaying the appointment of presidential electors from Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...
I have read news article naming 4 states who will file separate lawsuits similar to Texas. I am waiting to see if this happens.
 
HarryStotle said:
I thought they were waiting for a response to the lawsuit from the four states that are the subjects of the lawsuit. My understanding is that SCOTUS has given those states until Thursday to file a response.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s normal. It’s also a bad sign for Trump though, because Texas specifically asked for the injunctive relief without the Court hearing from the defendants. SCOTUS ignored that.

SCOTUS has yet to issue an order that is supportive of Trump at all.

In 2000, they immediately issued an injunction against Gore. They act decisively when they want to. That they haven’t (especially with such a major issue) is a really bad sign for Trump.
 
HarryStotle . . .
Hundreds of thousands of votes showing up in the middle of the night without any validation is not how proper election procedures accurately determine the true will of the people - unless you live in some authoritarian state where the party in power dictates what is the will of the people.

It appears YouTube has gone full authoritarian banning every video and channel that disputes the election results. So much for freedom of speech.

Perhaps YouTube has determined that its future in a fully authoritarian society is brighter than in a free society.
Click to expand...
Insightful.
 
billsherman said:
48.png
HarryStotle:
I thought they were waiting for a response to the lawsuit from the four states that are the subjects of the lawsuit. My understanding is that SCOTUS has given those states until Thursday to file a response.
Click to expand...
Yes, but that’s normal. It’s also a bad sign for Trump though, because Texas specifically asked for the injunctive relief without the Court hearing from the defendants. SCOTUS ignored that.

SCOTUS has yet to issue an order that is supportive of Trump at all.

In 2000, they immediately issued an injunction against Gore. They act decisively when they want to. That they haven’t (especially with such a major issue) is a really bad sign for Trump.
Click to expand...
Not a bad sign at all. The justices are merely doing everything according to providing those states every opportunity to defend themselves.

I suspect that means SCOTUS is taking their role VERY seriously. That cannot mean they are likely to dismiss. Just the opposite.

If they were likely to dismiss they wouldn’t be wasting the time of those states to offer their best defense.
 
Last edited:
HarryStotle said:
What has to be proved is that the electors in those states accurately reflect the wishes of the voters in those states.
Click to expand...
This has been repeatedly proved in the month since the election.
HarryStotle said:
If hundreds of thousands of votes were not lawfully cast then those votes should not count because of the rules set by the Constitutions in each of those states.
Click to expand...
Correct. However, the number of unlawful votes in those states was not hundreds of thousands.
HarryStotle said:
With hundreds of thousands of unlawful votes cast in each of those states then the current number of votes could very well not represent the wishes of lawful voters in those states.
Click to expand...
If that was the case then voters in that state would have standing to challenge the election results. The governments of other states do not have standing to challenge the results. If voters in the four states being sued here feel they were harmed by illegal votes they are free to file suit.
HarryStotle said:
All that needs to be proved is hundreds of thousands of ballots were unlawfully cast. That is, the manner in which they were cast does not meet the Constitutional requirements for being lawful in those states.
Click to expand...
That would be determined by state courts, not SCOTUS. The state courts have thrown these nonsense lawsuits out because the elections followed the state constitutional guidelines.
HarryStotle said:
I thought they were waiting for a response to the lawsuit from the four states that are the subjects of the lawsuit. My understanding is that SCOTUS has given those states until Thursday to file a response.
Click to expand...
Adding the case to the docket and asking for a response is just regular procedure. SCOTUS rules require adding original jurisdiction cases to the docket if all the Is and Ts are dotted and crossed. If Oregon put up a sign on the border with California that said “Oregon rules, California drools”, California could file suit against Oregon directly with SCOTUS, and the Court would ask for a response from Oregon. The Court would of course then dismiss such a stupid case, as they will in this instance.
 
Last edited:
It is worth noting that one of the states whose own election remains in question, Arizona, is now backing the Texas lawsuit.

What happens when PA, MI, WI, and GA all join in backing the suit? 😉😖
 
HarryStotle said:
It is worth noting that one of the states whose own election remains in question, Arizona, is now backing the Texas lawsuit.
Click to expand...
It’s also worth noting that Arizona’s election is not in question. They certified their results on Nov. 30.
 
HarryStotle said:
What has to be proved is that the electors in those states accurately reflect the wishes of the voters in those states.
Click to expand...
No, that is not what the law says. The law says the electors must be the ones the certified vote total selected according to the law in each state. It says nothing about the wishes of the voters, except as how those wishes got expressed in the ballots. As for proving the vote was not fraudulent, you have the burden of proof backwards. The burden of proof is on those who believe the vote was fraudulent. The vote is considered correct unless proven incorrect, once the state election officials have certified the result.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
Trump’s campaign lawyer will say anything to stir up public opinion, so more true believers contribute to the fund that Trump can use pretty much any way he pleases.
Click to expand...
These lawyers aren’t stupid enough to think these cases have any merit, what they hope is that a segment of the general public is stupid enough to think these cases have merit.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
The burden of proof is on those who believe the vote was fraudulent.
Click to expand...
Such a burden of proof is impossible given that the electoral officers and SsofS control all of what constitutes definitive proof.

So “burden of proof” isn’t a possibility. However, probable cause is a proper standard and the courts should have recognized the impossibility of definitively proving something before getting involved when the other party controls all of the evidence required to prove to the beyond reasonable doubt threshold that you require to establish allegations of fraud.

Fortunately, fraud is not a necessary aspect of the Texas v other states currently being considered.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
48.png
Cathoholic:
Jenna Ellis: We have plenty of time…
Click to expand...
Trump’s campaign lawyer will say anything to stir up public opinion, so more true believers contribute to the fund that Trump can use pretty much any way he pleases.
Click to expand...
And my sense is that you will say anything to stir up public opinion in the direction you think it ought to be swayed. Let’s stop with the pretense of being objective in your analysis.

We are quite capable of reading what we think ought to be read into her words. You need not continue inserting yourself into the role of translator or interpreter. 😉
 
Balto1 said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
Trump’s campaign lawyer will say anything to stir up public opinion, so more true believers contribute to the fund that Trump can use pretty much any way he pleases.
Click to expand...
These lawyers aren’t stupid enough to think these cases have any merit, what they hope is that a segment of the general public is stupid enough to think these cases have merit.
Click to expand...
I’ll take on your mantle of “stupid,” then.

I have no ambition to be “smart” according to your standards.
 
HarryStotle said:
241361_2.png
LeafByNiggle:
The burden of proof is on those who believe the vote was fraudulent.
Click to expand...
Such a burden of proof is impossible given that the electoral officers and SsofS control all of what constitutes definitive proof.

So “burden of proof” isn’t a possibility. However, probable cause is a proper standard…
Click to expand...
It may be the proper standard from bringing a case and investigating, but to get to a ruling, the burden of proof is still on those who cry “fraud.”
 
HarryStotle said:
It is worth noting that one of the states whose own election remains in question, Arizona, is now backing the Texas lawsuit.
Click to expand...
That is inaccurate. AZ has not stated if it is for either party – the brief just asks for swift resolution. I read it, did you?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top