- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: If the Pennsylvania SOS said they weren't counting any white votes from the election?
Posted on 1/10/21 at 3:15 pm to Obtuse1
Posted on 1/10/21 at 3:15 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
The courts are always likely to see this as a laches issue if the legislature had time to act and did not.
Or if a campaign had time to act before the election, and did not.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 3:40 pm to LightHeat
quote:
Or if a campaign had time to act before the election, and did not.
One of the Trump lawsuits on this exact matter was filed in October to the USSC.
They placed the hearing after the EC vote.
They weren’t interested in changing the election. They will at most codify the law for the next time something happens.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:21 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
First, quote the passage and second what action was taken outside if the legislature in PA.
Have you been under a rock?
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:29 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
Have you been under a rock?
Not when it comes to the law. Did you read my next post.
Feel free to walk me through your thought process. This was what I was asking for.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:37 pm to Volvagia
quote:
So GTFU with not only your refusal to educate yourself on even the basics about a document you claim to hold dear, but your degenerative attacks on anyone who doesn’t automatically accept your daydreaming “alternative facts” as truth.
You're wrong.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:43 pm to Obtuse1
quote:
Did you read my next post.
You next post was well written and has some very good points. I guess making "changes" is in the eye of the beholder and since no court would look at it because the law suit was brought "too late" or didn't have "standing", there are millions of voters that feel disenfranchised.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:44 pm to Volvagia
quote:
One of the Trump lawsuits on this exact matter was filed in October to the USSC.
They placed the hearing after the EC vote.
They weren’t interested in changing the election. They will at most codify the law for the next time something happens.
That lawsuit was moot because PA didn't include those votes in its final tally.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:51 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
Literally citied and quoted the constitution,
All you got was “NUH UH!”
Imagine you are the smart one of the small town bar drinking group.
All you got was “NUH UH!”
Imagine you are the smart one of the small town bar drinking group.
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 5:52 pm
Posted on 1/10/21 at 5:53 pm to Volvagia
quote:
Imagine you are the smart one of the small town bar drinking group.
quote:
Volvagia
STFU...clown
Posted on 1/10/21 at 6:41 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
I guess making "changes" is in the eye of the beholder and since no court would look at it because the law suit was brought "too late" or didn't have "standing"
Well, you are wrong. There is still a case pending with SCOTUS about a change that was made in the 11th hour in PA and those votes were never added to the tabulation. Now the court will likely choose not to hear the case since it is moot because the ballots would not change the outcome. This case was filed at the proper time, before the election and had moved through the courts. I am also concerned about the standing issues but cases like Texas v PA were doomed from their drafting and those drafting them should have known that, and likely did. The legal fight was helmed by and large by a group of ill prepared attorneys that failed in numerous ways.
quote:
there are millions of voters that feel disenfranchised.
Do they feel equally disenfranchised by the numerous red states like TX that also had governors, election boards and courts make changes to the election law? Again, if the legislatures had time to visit the changes by other entities (which occur routinely and not just in this election) the courts aren't going to give them a redo because they don't like the outcome.
The bottom line is filing suit over changes to the election law are almost always going to have to be filed BEFORE the election. You want to talk about disenfranchisement throwing out votes cast in accordance with the election procedures presented to voters at the time they vote is true disenfranchisement. You simply aren't going to be able to wait until after the election then file suit if you don't like the outcome. This was the vast majority of the suits.
The suits alleging fraud were horrible attempts, filed with poorly or non-vetted affidavits and claims from dubious experts. Don't think for a minute the courts didn't look through those proffers. People here also waved away the horrible syntax and spelling errors as if they didn't matter, on one hand they didn't but do you really think someone that files such an important case and misspells district in two different ways in two lines just naming the court also made sound legal arguments? Powell had to pray to the court to amend her pleadings because she said Dominion took votes from Biden and gave them to Trump. Shitty lawyering almost always produces shitty results.
Posted on 1/10/21 at 9:39 pm to Volvagia
In 1800, there was a dispute over the EC votes and Vice President Jefferson made a decision, on his own, to count the votes for himself as president and he won. Had he not done so, he would have lost. So there is precedent for the VP to make a decision and that wasn't the only time.
This post was edited on 1/10/21 at 9:40 pm
Posted on 1/10/21 at 9:51 pm to 1BIGTigerFan
quote:
In 1800, there was a dispute over the EC votes and Vice President Jefferson made a decision, on his own, to count the votes for himself as president and he won
There was no actual dispute of EVs it was a matter of a defective certificate and no objections were raised. He simply read the only slate from Georgia which was missing some pro-forma language. That is quite a distinction and also done before the Electoral Count Act was codified.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News