- 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: Breaking: Kari Lake loses trial to overturn Arizona Governor election - Vows to appeal
Posted on 12/26/22 at 10:36 am to LSU2ALA
Posted on 12/26/22 at 10:36 am to LSU2ALA
quote:
I’m curious, Wednesday. It seems you agree with how the judge found though I may be misreading your comment. If you do agree, what makes this a coup?
I do not agree with the judge’s ruling.
However it was made on an evidentiary basis (he made findings of fact). He didn’t make any conclusions about, or interpretations about the laws at issue or what they mean.
On appeal, the courts can only reverse if the trial judge made a mistake. I think the judge made a mistake in determining the facts bc after that Maricopa guy perjured himself, everything else seemed to be bullshite. Unfortunately for Lake, the appeals courts can only reverse a factual finding if there was no evidence in the trial to support the factual conclusion. Maricopa put evidence in the record it just was not credible. The appeal court won’t revisit the credibility determinations of the trial court.
His legal conclusions I can’t quibble with - but I dont know enough about Arizona law in this area. Lake’s long shot Hope is that the judge interpreted the law incorrectly.
One possible area of challenge to the trial judge’s findings Was that one of her other claims were improperly dismissed. Those dismissals were legal determinations.
The dismissals of the 14th Amendment claims (that Maricopa improperly diluted the Election Day voters with their shenanigans depressing Lake’s support) would not only be a legal question, but a federal one.
Frankly, I wish the SCOTUS would review it bc a lot of my problems with Ballot Harvesting have to do with this 14A issue. The voters don’t matter - the party doing the harvesting controls the outcome. How can there be consent of the governed in such a situation?
I have some significant problems with ballot harvesting and MIV shenanigans from an Equal protection standpoint. I also have significant problems with certifying an election result when Maricopa didn’t follow its own rules. Those rules exist to protect voters, not Katie Hobbs and not elections. They exist to make sure the election is decided by 1 man / 1 vote.
I think the harvesting combined with Maricopa’s corruption took over AZ’s government and the actual voters in the state can’t vote their way out of it now. That’s what I mean by bloodless coup.
Since it’s one state - potentially scotus would be somewhat more inclined to get involved than with the presidential election. But I doubt it. Courts tend to favor the status quo. Case in point, Judge Thompson finding a way to save Maricopa from the consequences of its own actions.
TLDR: I disagree with the judge’s factual findings. There is, unfortunately, no remedy for Lake on appeal for factual findings. There’s just no practical possibility for it to be overturned.
3
Posted on 12/26/22 at 10:38 am to Fat Bastard
quote:
liar. albeit most he had to do himself.
Yep, like forcing gun control through with workarounds. He was more successful there than on any of his campaign grifter bullshite.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:06 am to oklahogjr
quote:
You left out some additional context from his testimony...... Judge addresses this in his ruling based on the trial
So you get upvoted for posting stupid shite that basically the corrupt judge discounted the expert in a field that the judge is not an expert on. So why bring in experts if the judge is just going to dismiss their testimony?
The fact that your post got upvotes shows just how hopeless saving this country is.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:08 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The DEM party was absolutely fractured in 2016
I believe the Democrat Party was indeed very fractured but primarily during the active Clinton/Obama rivalry, and not as much 2016. I reiterate my opinion that come Election Day 2016 the Dems had reconstituted their trademark “wagon circling” and the party vote itself wasn’t an unfavorable issue for Clinton. As you said yourself, she didn’t exactly have problems with getting votes themselves, as evidenced by her accruing the most in popular vote. And just once again I reference you in your mention of Trump “only winning” because of the EC…..precisely, that’s the rules of the game and that’s what I meant by outmaneuvering the Clinton campaign in a much more strategic EC ground game. No doubt as tight as it was.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:11 am to omegaman66
quote:Lawyers have been debating that question for decades.
So why bring in experts if the judge (or jury) is just going to dismiss their testimony?
Expert witnesses are hired guns. Everyone (except some jurors) understands this. You take it into consideration when assigning value to their testimony.
This post was edited on 12/26/22 at 11:12 am
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:15 am to AggieHank86
And also Hankster is our “making a complete record,” and contemporaneous objection rule for *potential* appeals purposes. Proffers of evidence or testimony perhaps. All regardless of a perceived expected early outcome.
This post was edited on 12/26/22 at 11:17 am
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:19 am to Wednesday
quote:
I think the harvesting combined with Maricopa’s corruption took over AZ’s government and the actual voters in the state can’t vote their way out of it now. That’s what I mean by bloodless coup.
AZ registration: 35% R, 35% I, and 30% D. We're more red than blue as most Independents are right of center.
In November, we switched our US House delegation from 4R/5D to 6R/3D. We maintained Republican control of both of our legislative bodies - Republicans have controlled our house and senate for thirty years. Republicans have occupied the governor's office for all but 4 years of the last 30. There has been no bloodless coup here.
We've had a steady stream of shitty Republican candidates in high profile races. Marth McSally, who lost twice in Senate races in two successive elections: 2018 to Sinema and 2020 to Kelly. She was a breathtakingly shitty candidate. Yes, I know - Mark Kelly isn't a political dynamo, but McSally was truly awful.
Blake Masters was a shitty candidate. He creeps women out. The Dems made sure every woman in Arizona saw selfies he posted to a bodybuilding website that added to his creepiness.
Both our senate seats would be occupied by Republicans if we had run good - not great, but simply good - candidates. More or less conservative, more or less experience, male/female, none of it would have mattered. They just needed to have a little personality and not make women think "date rape" when seen on TV.
Lake would have won the governorship if she had cooled her jets on combativeness. Hobbs is stupid, as well as a liberal - she wouldn't have been that hard to beat. But the one thing she said that makes sense, this was after the election - "Kari wanted to make this election about her. We did too. We thank her for her help." ... I'm paraphrasing, but it was something like that. KL spent way too much time picking fights with the media, insulting Rinos (she needed their vote), and she was bloodied badly in a nasty cat fight primary.
This post was edited on 12/26/22 at 11:22 am
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:23 am to omegaman66
quote:
So you get upvoted for posting stupid shite that basically the corrupt judge discounted the expert in a field that the judge is not an expert on. So why bring in experts if the judge is just going to dismiss their testimony?
The fact that your post got upvotes shows just how hopeless saving this country is.
Lakes expert witness said her public records request hadn't been fulfilled yet. Testifies that she was aware the documents do exist and were generated. The complaint by witness was simply the county taking it's time on respond to public records request. Lake spin that to make it sound like there are no documents when in fact her own expert witness is aware they exist.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 11:23 am to Wednesday
quote:
when Maricopa didn’t follow its own rules.
In key locale after key locale, Election after election, the local and state rules and procedures aren’t followed.
When that is pointed out, we’re supposed to throw up our hands and mumble about “we can’t disenfranchise voters.” Voters are being disenfranchised when they’re not following the law.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 12:32 pm to the808bass
quote:Perhaps true.
In key locale after key locale, Election after election, the local and state rules and procedures aren’t followed.
When that is pointed out, we’re supposed to throw up our hands and mumble about “we can’t disenfranchise voters.” Voters are being disenfranchised when they’re not following the law.
In every statute of which I am aware, there are statutory penalties for violations of the rules. None seem to include "invalidate the entire election" as a statutory remedy.
Perhaps that SHOULD be the remedy. If so, amend the statutes.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 12:45 pm to SlowFlowPro
Go butt frick a democrat prick.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 1:00 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Frankly, I wish the SCOTUS would review it bc a lot of my problems with Ballot Harvesting have to do with this 14A issue. The voters don’t matter - the party doing the harvesting controls the outcome. How can there be consent of the governed in such a situation?
Can you expound on this a bit? Perhaps you could explain how you use the term ballot harvesting? If you mean it to be illegal votes being done, that’s obviously an issue. If you mean it to refer to the practice of using mail in voting to get those who are favorable to your position but wouldn’t normally go to vote actually vote, then how is that a 14th amendment violation? If they are registered voters, a candidate should hustle for those votes, whether that means getting physically getting them to the polls or getting the ballot to them. I just fail to see the equal protection claim.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 1:41 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
Can you expound on this a bit? Perhaps you could explain how you use the term ballot harvesting?
Ballot harvesting as I understand it is a legal process in Arizona. Some states have banned the practice. I don’t know enough about the law in this area to know whether Arizona has set forth a list a requirements that ballot harvesters must meet to be legit, or whether it is simply legal bc no law prohibits it.
From a macro standpoint, I think it is terrible public policy for ballot harvesting to be permitted under the law, whether it is or it isn’t legal. It’s just a terrible fricking idea. It is a process, like universal mail in voting that is rife for fraud, but it’s not the fraud potential that makes it so odious to me. What grossed me out is that it inserts a partisan actor btwn the voter and his vote. Even when it’s preformed within the confines of the law, the person making the decision / preference is the harvester, not the voter. We’re supposed to be governed by consent of the governed. If it’s the preference of the harvester - there’s no consent of the governed. Fundamentally, it’s just bad.
I also think there are constitutional problems with ballot harvesting - bc it diminishes the constitutional principle of one man/ one vote. I think the process itself may violate the constitution, regardless of whether the SCOTUS or other courts have said it doesn’t. For the entirety of my life, up until about six months ago -
The surpreme court said abortions were a constitutional right. I’ve always believed that was logically and legally incorrect. Even if ballot harvesting is “legal” or a court said it is “constitutional” that doesn’t mean I think thats correct. I do think with the correct case, and a court that locates its balls statutes permitting this abhorrent practice could be declared unconstitutional
.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 1:45 pm to Wednesday
If ballot harvesting is the future of our elections the America First patriots are screwed….there’s more of them than us…or so it seems.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:12 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Even when it’s preformed within the confines of the law, the person making the decision / preference is the harvester, not the voter. We’re supposed to be governed by consent of the governed. If it’s the preference of the harvester - there’s no consent of the governed. Fundamentally, it’s just bad.
See, we just see this differently. I don’t agree it’s the preference of the harvester. The voter makes the decision. If there is intimidation of any sort, there are laws to address this. If there is selling of votes going on, there are laws for that as well.
This is targeting voters who are going to be sympathetic to your cause. That’s all this is in my mind. It’s like doing get out the vote drives. Candidates target people who are likely to vote for them. They don’t target everyone.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:16 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
If ballot harvesting is the future of our elections the America First patriots are screwed….there’s more of them than us…or so it seems.
Doesn’t that mean there is a problem with your message then? If your best bet is to have fewer people voting, that’s a bad strategy to have.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:18 pm to Wednesday
quote:
I also think there are constitutional problems with ballot harvesting - bc it diminishes the constitutional principle of one man/ one vote.
I didn’t touch on this one previously, but I completely disagree here. It is still one person/one vote. The voter makes the final decision. That’s all there is to it in my mind.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:23 pm to Bass Tiger
quote:
If ballot harvesting is the future of our elections the America First patriots are screwed
Prefill ballots like Democrats do.
They are doing it, why not the right?
Just play their game.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:23 pm to LSU2ALA
quote:
The voter makes the final decision
Yes. A homeless person and an Alzheimer’s patient who had their ballot filled out by Stacy Abrams definitely made the decision.
Posted on 12/26/22 at 2:24 pm to Wednesday
quote:Not buying it.
I also think there are constitutional problems with ballot harvesting - bc it diminishes the constitutional principle of one man/ one vote.
To reach that conclusion, you must assume that the voter is not exercising/casting his vote, but rather that the "harvester" is somehow controlling those ballots and thus getting to "cast" as many votes as he is able to "harvest."
That is just not an assumption that will raise Constitutional implications, IMO.
POLICY-wise? It raises DAMNED GOOD questions, and it is those questions that lead me to the opinion that allowing voting in this matter is BAD, BAD, BAD public policy.
Page 24 of 45
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News