- Joined
- Mar 27, 2019
We've already had actual terrorism.
2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.
- Thread starter Pickle Dick
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Status
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
There is also the issue of SCOTUS's authority/legitimacy.
If (non-legislature) election officials in Pennsylvania who openly defied SCOTUS's orders to keep the ballots separate go without some sort of legal smackdown, its basically SCOTUS admitting they have no (re:substantially less) power in these situations.
One would assume (re:hope) that SCOTUS would want to smack down a certain state specifically because that state pulled an Andrew Jackson. But it is Clown World...
CrystalHead
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
You know what honestly scares me the most at this current situation.
What the fuck is China up to at the moment?
They are without a doubt making plans and if things get ugly and the US is paralyzed even for a short while. there's no way they don't make a move.
What the fuck is China up to at the moment?
They are without a doubt making plans and if things get ugly and the US is paralyzed even for a short while. there's no way they don't make a move.
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
I'm telling you they're going to go down the path they think will make everyone calm down the most; Probably use an autistic legal argument that allows them to do nothing this election but "patches" things up in the next elections with the argument conservatives should try and constitutionally win then. That way they don't flip the election but get a chunk of moderate conservatives to lol calm down.
*More* terrorism then.
China is openly shitposting about how they control the Unite State's elite to make people even more mad; They're having a lot of fun with this election.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
continuing with the retard atheist logic
"officials say this was a secure, legit election"
is the same as
"pastors say God exists"
e:going to google "logical fallacies"
"officials say this was a secure, legit election"
is the same as
"pastors say God exists"
e:going to google "logical fallacies"
- Joined
- May 25, 2020
the court is theoretically above considerations like that - IE, they are concerned wholly and only with the law, and not what the popular consequences of such a law turn out to be. If adhering to the law causes turmoil, that is an acceptable cost of adhering to the law.
However, it is in practicality not wholly divorced from considering the broader "public good." It may decide on such grounds to accept or reject the case, based on which action it believes will cause less overall turmoil; the current court has generally not wanted to rock the boat much.
It is also completely possible that the court sinks the entire thing on a technicality and not an outright dismissal, by setting dates for approval which fail to achieve anything by the point at which the electors actually vote. The process for overturning the votes of the electors after the fact is much, much more difficult than trying to invalidate the vote which decides the electors. (And it may all still already be moot because of the hitherto untested safe harbor notion.)
careful with double-edged simile: people on the internet saying this election was not secure are like atheists saying that god doesn't exist
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2020
Thats how its going be in the upcoming decades. A lot of damned if you do and damned if you dont situations.
Not just Scotus but for many people
No matter what choice you make you going lose.
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
said the dude who's a-logging ethan ralph.
Dr J
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2020
You can't agree that the election in those states was unconstitutional and then say 'oh well, better luck next time'. You're basically asking the American people to accept an unconstitutional election while admitting that the election was unconstitutional.
There is no remedy that won't make people angry. SCOTUS will have to get its hands dirty
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2018
It is really not that hard; Conservatives have a much higher tolerance for anger so you side with the left and then split off enough of a chunk of the right with token concessions after the fact. That's what US politics basically has boiled down to for the entire last century.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
I find your prediction to be pretty baseless, given that in order to do that they'd have to compromise on some point that would just create more chaos. They can't bend it in circles and not have it backfire, and while I am sure Roberts would love to do what you just said there... about a third of the court aren't idiots.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
we have more facts than internet atheists, we have third hand contemporary accounts that Jesus existed at the time we say he did.
that is, we have a video of ga polleworkers pulling out suitcases of ballots under tables.
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
Pompano Mike
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2020
It's stronger from a jurisdictional sense, as it sidesteps the glaring issues with standing that many of the previous challenges had. I said a couple days ago that Texas' lawsuit is much better pleaded because it cites very real legal problems with what happened in the defendant states' elections. Various orders were issued by officials in those states' executive branches that contradicted the laws they had on the books, most notably having to do with skirting signature verification and in Pennsylvania's case, the deadline to have ballots accepted. Texas does a pretty decent job of outlining these legal points and citing which laws were broken in the various states and anyone who has even a passing interest in this election really should read it in its entirety here: https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/sites/default/files/images/admin/2020/Press/SCOTUSFiling.pdf.
The question is, of course, what the hell does SCOTUS do even if all of Texas' legal challenges are correct? The ultimate ask is still the same as the lower court cases alleging fraud: Texas wants the Court to throw out certified election results in 4 states, representing votes cast by millions of people (the majority of which are legitimate). Do violations of each state's election laws by executive officials create harm to the state of Texas which would warrant such a remedy? I can honestly say I don't know the answer to that from a legal perspective. That kind of ruling is unprecedented and issuing it would open up an enormous can of worms. It is entirely possible that if SCOTUS did that, it would create a precedent that would lead to an uncertain litigation battle every four years, and I don't think the supremes are inclined to do that. In my view, this is likely to end with Biden's "win" being upheld, because that is the least disruptive course of action and sustains the system that SCOTUS is a part of, at least from their perspective.
However, the damage is already done and will persist for years to come. One problem that I can see is that this will fundamentally weaken election laws from here on out. What good is it to have them at all if they can be broken and there is absolutely no legal recourse or remedy for any party once that occurs? The actions taken by the defendant states in contravention of their own laws are verifiable and can't just be dismissed as nothing, even though many Democrat partisans are trying to do so in this thread and elsewhere. And of course they would: their guy "won" and because the country is insanely polarized, they truly don't give a fuck if he won illegally or not. We're at a point as a nation where power is all that matters to each tribe and laws are just rhetorical points to be cited for the exercise of that power to dominate the enemy. The Dems would do well to remember though, that there are no permanent victories in politics. There will be downstream consequences from this ugly clusterfuck and they will likely not come in forms that progressives are going to enjoy. Trump was a side effect, not a cause, and support for what he represents is increasing, not waning.
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
Nothing. Literally nothing. Its a No-Win situation for SCOTUS.
- Joined
- May 25, 2020
Conjecture: "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information."
Georgia's rebuttal was: during the day, ballots were cut from envelopes, verified, and put into those buckets beneath the tables. This is viewable on other clips of the exact same video stream which the GA election officials themselves provided. The scanning of these ballots occurred after the ballots ceased to be opened earlier in the day, and was a process that was bottlenecked by the number of scanners - and thus required less people to do. The observers were not told to leave, and just left with the ballot-openers because they are apparently ducklings.
What has been the response thusfar to this rebuttal? "I know what I saw," which can be demonstrably proven false.
CrystalHead
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2020
In that case that might as well just make the decision that won't immediately lead to the court getting packed
- Joined
- May 6, 2019
These two statements cannot co-exist unless you assume that SCOTUS are entirely staffed by idiots who can't make the same prediction you did.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2019
one day each year the laws of the land will be nullified and people can do what they desire for 24 hours.
Esophagus
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2020
Biden wins: Right riots because they think the election was stolen. Left riots when they discover Biden is Bush 2.0. Antifa/BLM does their thing.
Trump wins: Left riots, for obvious reasons.
- Status