R
Roselle
Guest
It is a shame that the courts have by and large decided to use procedure to not hear cases on voter fraud in this Presidential election. It would have been better in my opinion if the courts had heard the cases and decided upon the merits.
I saw some Supreme court justices from Wisconsin touched on this issue the other day with their dissenting opinions. That can be read here ~
In the Wisconsin ruling, a dissenting judge, Patience Roggensack, blasted the majority for cutting the case short when “a significant portion of the public does not believe” the election was conducted fairly. Roggensack pointed to evidence that a decision by Milwaukee’s canvassing board to fix defective witness addresses on some ballots was based on “erroneous advice” that could lead to similar problems being “repeated again and again.”
“Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast,” Roggensack said. “The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it.”
Justice Annette Ziegler, in a separate dissent, said the majority was playing a game of “gotcha” by claiming Trump and Pence had waited too long.
“The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier,” Ziegler wrote. “That has never been the law, and it should not be today.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic…validate-votes
I saw some Supreme court justices from Wisconsin touched on this issue the other day with their dissenting opinions. That can be read here ~
In the Wisconsin ruling, a dissenting judge, Patience Roggensack, blasted the majority for cutting the case short when “a significant portion of the public does not believe” the election was conducted fairly. Roggensack pointed to evidence that a decision by Milwaukee’s canvassing board to fix defective witness addresses on some ballots was based on “erroneous advice” that could lead to similar problems being “repeated again and again.”
“Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast,” Roggensack said. “The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it.”
Justice Annette Ziegler, in a separate dissent, said the majority was playing a game of “gotcha” by claiming Trump and Pence had waited too long.
“The majority seems to create a new bright-line rule that the candidates and voters are without recourse and without any notice should the court decide to later conjure up an artificial deadline concluding that it prefers that something would have been done earlier,” Ziegler wrote. “That has never been the law, and it should not be today.”
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic…validate-votes
Last edited:
