Progressives, part 3...

The news cycle is just going nuts.

Chinese spies, Biden tax investigation, Supreme Court will likely rule on election laws, Lots of progressive swamp rats going down.

posted by majorspark

The irony of Eric Swalwell and the bang bang with Fang Fang.  Classifed banging.

It doesn't sound like that big of a deal.   She had one fundraiser for him about 6 years ago.  That doesn't sound as bad as the limo driver Pelosi or someone had for 20 years.

Looks like the Repubs are starting to gear up for Operation Payback....it would truly be hilarious if Biden is the one who ends up having to pardon himself and his family.

posted by Fletch

The news cycle is just going nuts.

Chinese spies, Biden tax investigation, Supreme Court will likely rule on election laws, Lots of progressive swamp rats going down.

The SCOTUS is the one that really makes me nervous.  If there really are 17 AG's trying to join TX, then it might be hard for SCOTUS not to take it.  I don't know much about the case, but it does kind of sound like election changes may have been unconstitutional.

But if that's the case and they throw out otherwise legal ballots, and ballots that people expected were legal....well, that's going to be a big big problem.  Maybe they can strike down the changes but uphold the election results?

posted by gut

The SCOTUS is the one that really makes me nervous.  If there really are 17 AG's trying to join TX, then it might be hard for SCOTUS not to take it.  I don't know much about the case, but it does kind of sound like election changes may have been unconstitutional.

But if that's the case and they throw out otherwise legal ballots, and ballots that people expected were legal....well, that's going to be a big big problem.  Maybe they can strike down the changes but uphold the election results?

I don’t know how they would do that. That’s like saying “these votes were illegal but we will count them anyway”  

posted by gut

The SCOTUS is the one that really makes me nervous.  If there really are 17 AG's trying to join TX, then it might be hard for SCOTUS not to take it.  I don't know much about the case, but it does kind of sound like election changes may have been unconstitutional.

But if that's the case and they throw out otherwise legal ballots, and ballots that people expected were legal....well, that's going to be a big big problem.  Maybe they can strike down the changes but uphold the election results?

Sorry, not sorry.  The people in these states should be mad at their state government for not following the law.  They knew that they werent.  All mail in votes should be discarded.  

posted by gut

The SCOTUS is the one that really makes me nervous.  If there really are 17 AG's trying to join TX, then it might be hard for SCOTUS not to take it.  I don't know much about the case, but it does kind of sound like election changes may have been unconstitutional.

But if that's the case and they throw out otherwise legal ballots, and ballots that people expected were legal....well, that's going to be a big big problem.  Maybe they can strike down the changes but uphold the election results?

I'm not worried at all. I would be surprised if SCOTUS takes it. I've read some of the arguments in the brief and they are laughable, just like the last month or so worth of arguments, The 18 states were all deeply red ones from the middle of the country and WV. Utah was a part of it and the Utah Governor said he does not support them being part of it. Ohio is also not part of it, thankfully. 

I doubt SCOTUS wants any part of this shit show. 

I think it also will not matter as all 50 states have now certified the election results. 

posted by Spock

Sorry, not sorry.  The people in these states should be mad at their state government for not following the law.  They knew that they werent.  All mail in votes should be discarded.  

A fair number of those state's were Republican held and created those laws. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

I'm not worried at all. I would be surprised if SCOTUS takes it. I've read some of the arguments in the brief and they are laughable, just like the last month or so worth of arguments, The 18 states were all deeply red ones from the middle of the country and WV. Utah was a part of it and the Utah Governor said he does not support them being part of it. Ohio is also not part of it, thankfully. 

I doubt SCOTUS wants any part of this shit show. 

I think it also will not matter as all 50 states have now certified the election results. 

So 4 or 5 states just violated their state laws and the CONSTITUTION and you dont care?  Is that because it serves your political views?  

posted by Spock

So 4 or 5 states just violated their state laws and the CONSTITUTION and you dont care?  Is that because it serves your political views?  

Nope, the premise of your question is just wrong. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

Nope, the premise of your question is just wrong. 

How is that wrong?  It cant be wrong.  States violated both state law and the constitution.  Thats the only wrong here.

You know it is a bullshit lawsuit when even the other Texas Senator says, "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked. "I'm not convinced."

Also, the Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, the state’s top appellate attorney and a former clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, didn’t sign his name to the filing. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/09/texas-lawsuit-election-trump/

posted by Spock

How is that wrong?  It cant be wrong.  States violated both state law and the constitution.  Thats the only wrong here.

The entire premise of the lawsuit is just wrong. There is no evidence of violation. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

The entire premise of the lawsuit is just wrong. There is no evidence of violation. 

For someone who claims to be in the know and plays a smart person on a message board....you are either ill informed or stupid.

States violated the Electors clause in the constitution by allowing non legislative entities to change state election law without legislative vote.  Hence violating the Constitution.  

Not sure why people like you try to make concrete written law subjective to your opinion,  laws are objective black and white statements.  Especially when they detail actions that people can and cannot make.  

A persons action of changing the voting law in some way that is not part of the legal process is just the same as if you shot and killed someone for no reason.  Both human actions are clearly illegal and are not open to interpretation.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

The entire premise of the lawsuit is just wrong. There is no evidence of violation. 

There are CLEAR violations of law.  You had sec's of states running end runs on their state legislatures enacting election rules that only the legislatures can enact.  They were ILLEGAL acts.

posted by Spock

For someone who claims to be in the know and plays a smart person on a message board....you are either ill informed or stupid.

States violated the Electors clause in the constitution by allowing non legislative entities to change state election law without legislative vote.  Hence violating the Constitution.  

Not sure why people like you try to make concrete written law subjective to your opinion,  laws are objective black and white statements.  Especially when they detail actions that people can and cannot make.  

A persons action of changing the voting law in some way that is not part of the legal process is just the same as if you shot and killed someone for no reason.  Both human actions are clearly illegal and are not open to interpretation.

If this argument had any validation, it would have wider support...it thus does not. 

posted by QuakerOats

There are CLEAR violations of law.  You had sec's of states running end runs on their state legislatures enacting election rules that only the legislatures can enact.  They were ILLEGAL acts.

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You know it is a bullshit lawsuit when even the other Texas Senator says, "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say so on how other states administer their elections?" Cornyn asked. "I'm not convinced."

Also, the Texas Solicitor General Kyle Hawkins, the state’s top appellate attorney and a former clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court, didn’t sign his name to the filing. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/09/texas-lawsuit-election-trump/

The point is, if certain states permitted illegal votes it nullifies the legal votes of all other voters in all states, and all states would be affected if the election outcome would be different.

posted by QuakerOats

The point is, if certain states permitted illegal votes it nullifies the legal votes of all other voters in all states, and all states would be affected if the election outcome would be different.

Nope. Otherwise, other states would join the lawsuit if they bought that rational. They and a lot of other Governors, including Ohio, do not follow that line of thinking. 

The entire premise is bullshit too because there are no illegal votes. None. No evidence. Zero. 

posted by ptown_trojans_1

If this argument had any validation, it would have wider support...it thus does not. 

17 states is not “wide” support?  GTFOH.

posted by Fletch

17 states is not “wide” support?  GTFOH.

Less than 50% there bro. So, yeah...

The facebook lawsuit is an example of wide support...