2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Gehenna]

In that case that might as well just make the decision that won't immediately lead to the court getting packed

Well, let me black pill you there a little. SCOTUS is not above making deals. Potentially quiet, legally binding ones. If Biden offers to make a legally binding contract saying he won't pack the courts.... It never has to be announced, you never have to know about it, but if SCOTUS knows about it then you lose on of the big motivators towards Trump.


The backroom backstabbing and deals that will be going on should SCOTUS officially take this case would make Game of Thrones look like a game of Tic Tac Toe.

 

[quickthrowaway]

But on the other hand, the opposite option, giving Texas something that gives Trump a solid chance at this point, will result in actual terrorism.

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

 

[CrystalHead]

Well, let me black pill you there a little. SCOTUS is not above making deals. Potentially quiet, legally binding ones. If Biden offers to make a legally binding contract saying he won't pack the courts.... It never has to be announced, you never have to know about it, but if SCOTUS knows about it then you lose on of the big motivators towards Trump.


The backroom backstabbing and deals that will be going on should SCOTUS officially take this case would make Game of Thrones look like a game of Tic Tac Toe.

Ahh yeah that's a pretty good point.

Thanks for bringing me back down to reality.

 

[Mr Cuddles]

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.

The thing is conservatives may typically be slower to anger, but people who are slower to anger usually are more intense when it does surface. What you say makes sense in the short run but builds a massive powder keg in the long run. So if you were SCOTUS would you rather roll the dice on the dissenting states or antifa?

 

[Polyboros2]

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.

Probably partly due to how awfully civics are taught in public schools, I'm often impressed with how well thought out some of the Constitution was was I grow older. They have a solution for this.

If there it's trouble with the election, or if one person only gets a plurality of electors, it goes to the next most representative body. That is the part of the Legislature that was just elected that represents the population proportionally.

Literally if the States fail to elect a President, by fraud or by circumstances (no one gets a majority), then the recently elected proportional representative body votes for the States. Literally a fail safe mechanism built in to try and solve these kinds of problems, and in the most representatively way possible, with out incapacitating the executive. The fact that the House is more likely to pick Trump after Jan 1st than before shows how off this election is.

 

[Mr Cuddles]

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.

Original news announcements and statements from the observers themselves. You raise some interesting points on other issues but please don't try this tired line about the GA video.

 

[Nathan Higgers]

Okay in a hypothetical situation, what could SCOTUS rule that would appease both sides?

You don't need to appease blumfogfdcv's tiny, tiny (in both dick size and density) supporters who are mouth-breathing basement dwellers. All SCOTUS has to do is say President Biden's election was legitimate and let the country finally heal from 4 years of mean tweets (eww, literally shaking when i think about it).

And no need to worry about a "civil war", the Qtards (a.k.a. bumfogdt fans) will keep shitting in their hugboxes about "here's how daddy can still win" . They won't do shit but clean their guns (very small guns, like their dicks, but I said that already) and talk about "optics" and write Day of the Rope-style fanfic (yikes!).

 

[murdered meat bag]

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.

do you mean this? this is the "God is real pastor says so" argument exemplified. this is conjecture.

i cant even say "i know what i saw" because i didnt see anything. they didnt show people counting and then putting the ballots in the boxes and then putting those boxes under the table and then later pulling those same boxes out. they showed a guy infront of a monitor while a voice over said "official says this is what's happening" and cut to different snippets of things happening. you have to take it on good faith that whats being described is what really happened because they arent showing what happened.

the state could release the whole days video.

 

[All becomes gunt]

said the dude who's a-logging ethan ralph.

Its not just a-logging its art, plebeians like you wouldnt understand.

 

[ChefKiss]

Some people would genuinely prefer to be ruled by china as long as they think it'll keep the peace.

So I do have to ask one thing: If everyone agrees, on both sides, that the supreme court giving anything to Texas here is going to lead to unprecedented chaos, then why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just tell people to fix their shit for 2024 and then for everyone to lol calm down?

This is the mindset of a crying little bullied child
"Don't fight back, don't stand up for yourself, it'll only make them mad"

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

We don't negotiate with terrorists.

That's a nice line but completely untrue; Just look at our negotiations with the Taliban or with the "moderate" Syrian rebels.

 

[Meat Target]

The observers were not told to leave

Well, ACKTCHUALLY....

 

[mandatorylurk]

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.

A precedent would only be set if states cannot follow the constitution in how laws are established. That is the catch here people aren't seeing when it comes to the four states and the potential for any future state v. state lawsuits. In Crowder's interview, Paxton himself says the Nevada stuff is bullshit but they actually went through the legislative process for mail-in voting so that's why they aren't in the suit.

 

[Superman93's Bitch]

Funny thing is that as you get older, your ears and nose can continue to develop. Ronald Reagan's ears (and nose) changed in a similar way:
View attachment 1778756

Wrong, the elected Reagan was obviously an android and we've been being played this whole time by an organization fighting for a NWO!

Spoiler: PIC RELATED

 

[Dr J]

It is really not that hard; Conservatives have a much higher tolerance for anger

They have a higher tolerance because they believe in the system. They think that 'vote them out' is a viable solution. They think that the Supreme Court will allow them fair recourse against unconstitutional acts and laws. Tons of people, even here, when BLM and Antifa burned the cities to the ground said 'I'm never voting Democrat again' suggesting innate belief in democracy to solve their problems.

Take that away and these people will become violent. Might not happen overnight but it will happen. The CIA overthrowing Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister is what eventually led to the Iranian Revolution twenty years later.

 

[NevskyProspekt]

Damn, the Texas lawsuit has really got Redditors and leftists worried.

View attachment 1778382

This one is just sad. At first glance I would think he's being sarcastic or facetious, but considering it is Reddit...

 

[ConfederateIrishman]

This one is just sad. At first glance I would think he's being sarcastic or facetious, but considering it is Reddit...
View attachment 1778864

That guy is just baiting redditors

 

[Rich Evans Apologist]

do you mean this? this is the "God is real pastor says so" argument exemplified.

i cant even say "i know what i saw" because i didnt see anything. they didnt show people counting and then putting the ballots in the boxes and then later pulling those same boxes out. they said "official says this is what's happening" and cut different snippets of things happening.

the state could release the whole days video.

You can FOIA the video footage. Really, you could have submitted a FOIA request the instant it came out, or hounded a politician to do so.

the rebuttal of the state election investigators is the claim I made. What is your response to their response? "they're lying?" Based on... what?
You literally just admitted that you haven't seen the full video of the event. So you don't even know if they were putting ballots in the bins; you are just assuming they didn't.
If you ever find yourself in a legal situation, love of god, please represent yourself and let us all watch the court footage.

Original news announcements and statements from the observers themselves. You raise some interesting points on other issues but please don't try this tired line about the GA video.

Statements of the observers who weren't told to leave, and who have yet to provide video evidence of their being told to leave? Statements which have thusfar been trotted out in front of committees and not bundled into any actual lawsuits? And are you telling me that a news outlet would rush out a story without having the full idea of what's going on?

Nothing regarding this video is going to get you anywhere in a court of law, because there has yet to be a rebuttal to any of the state election officials' explanations. If you had grounds for a counterargument, some means by which you could cast doubt on those officials' claims, you'd have yourself a case. See: all of the attempts in GA thusfar.

Well, ACKTCHUALLY....
View attachment 1778855

hey buddy. what's a ballot counter, and what's a poll observer?

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

I haven't bothered to read the Texas lolsuit in full because it's a request for the SCOTUS to write law from the bench in an extremely stupid way based on outright lies, but here's some extremely funny analysis that shows just how bogus the claims made in the nonsense affidavits included are.

Charles J. Cicchetti 'demonstrates' that the chances of Biden winning when Clinton lost are one in a quadrillion.. with a couple of minor caveats:

1. Biden is as unpopular as Hillary Clinton (manifestly untrue)
2. Mail-in voters had exactly the same preferences as those voting in person (manifestly untrue)

More on Statistical Stupidity at SCOTUS

Yes, the nonsense in Texas AG Paxton's lawsuit is as bad as it first appeared

reason.com

Pretty sure even lawyers can understand deliberate statistical incompetence that bad.

It also assumes that there was no difference in voter preference between small counties that got done counting fast and large urban ones. Amazing.

 

[Gehenna]

Ahh yeah that's a pretty good point.

Thanks for bringing me back down to reality.

My goal is not to cheerleader for either side, but to give an analysis of it based on reality. As much as 2020 and Clown World will allow.

Should SCOTUS officially take this up, one simple thing is true of both sides. Whoever wins will -need- to purge the other side. So if SCOTUS does take it up proper, its going to be a no-holds barred.

And I wouldn't bet on either side.


Up till now, the right has been mobilizing on a federal level, and the left has mostly ignored it and left it to the states to work it out with some mild to moderate assistance here and there from the federal level. This means a few things, good and bad, for both sides.


The GOP is already motivated, mobilized, and has had its arguments vetted, honed, and they have had time to make a lot of backroom deals for the counterattack by the left. But, that means they have also been spending their political capital. Their 'reserves' have taken a hit, and may be drained at this point. Additionally, as the attacking party, they are in a position of disadvantage having to argue every point and make ground.

The DEMs are the opposite, very demotivated due to a lackluster candidate and they have had very little in the way of vetting. Their aligned judges simply throwing everything out hurts them in this regard. Additionally, Trump was never meant to fight this and they have very little in the way of mobilization. But, they also have spent almost none of their political capital. They have more room to menuever. Additionally, they are the defending party. They already have the point, and need only withstand the attack.

Who wins largely will be based on who gains and keeps control off all (not just some, all) three levers of power here.

1: SCOTUS, can they be convinced to back off, how much do they have a personal or ideological stake in the game, is there any way to make a deal or move political capital in a way to either incentise an action or punish an action?

2: The State Legislatures. its a SCOTUS case, why does this matter? Simple, if the SLs are leaning towards a direction it directly leads SCOTUS to accepting it as it would reduce chaos to have a unified option. Reduce, not eliminate. The key goal in mind here is "The Road of Less Chaos". Immense pressure will be places on these legislature, the right to firm them up the left to sow discontent.

3: The Federal Legislature. The Georgia Runoff could prove... interesting if the case lasts long enough, so to could indicators of who is likely to win the senate. Ironically, this one is inversed from what you'd expect. If it looks likely for the Republicans to win the Runoff, SCOTUS is LESS incentive to assist Trump since the chance of court packing is reduced. Conversely, if it looks likely to go DEM or to TIE, SCOTUS feels pressure to side with Trump to avoid court packing. Additionally, SCOTUS will consider it from an accountability angle. A Senate controlled by the winner's other party is more likely to prevent any serious overreaches and reduce the chance of the chaos escalating in the short term.