posted ago by IthoughtIwalked
+1022 / -0
Unlike Biden and Harris, Thomas and Kavanaugh are upstanding people and won't resort to personal bias to make any decisions, even though I'm sure they would love to. It feels so great to have people like that on our side - those that are truly decent.
Unlike Biden and Harris, Thomas and Kavanaugh are upstanding people and won't resort to personal bias to make any decisions, even though I'm sure they would love to. It feels so great to have people like that on our side - those that are truly decent.
Oh, please. The Trump Team needs to present a convincing, airtight case. If they do that (they will), the SCOTUS will handle the rest. Democrats are doing a bang up job of pissing off the most highest court in the land.
The PA Supreme Court violated PA state law. The SCOTUS must rectify that. And Dems are pissing off the SCOTUS right now.
And also the Federal Constitution law too.
They're going to use the Constitution to destroy Biden and Harris, and it's going to be magnificent.
Don't put your trust in the Supreme Court -- that are not reliable....legislatures electing the electors are the last safeguard.
Trump has gotten very little justice from the Courts or the DOJ.
This is a great unraveling...but I trust Trump. He seems calm and relaxed to me....
Legislators are not the last safeguard.
There is another.
Yep.
You seem to understand this
I myself am trying to figure this out. I have a few questions if you don’t mind. One. What exactly can the SCOTUS do here? Can they change votes by taking some away for being illegal? Can the SCOTUS’s actions result in a blue state flip red? If not, what is the legislature process? It sound like the senate and the house would vote on the president and Vice President? Is this true? If so, do they have to vote with what color the state went?
In PA, my state, the legislature sets the rules for the election. At the very last minute the Dims took it to the State Supreme Court and they changed the rules to allow no signature verification, blurry timestamp and allowing extra days after the election for the ballots to arrive and be counted.
SC ruled that PA had to set aside all ballots recvd after 8pm election night and keep a separate tally, so that IF they revisit the case there would be a remedy...the remedy being those votes rcvd after 8pm struck from the tally.
PA Constitution and Federal Constitution is clear...legislature sets the rules of the election, not the PA Supreme Court or PA Sec of State (who was changing rules up to the late hours the day before the election).
But the Supreme Court might not revisit the case...
If the the election cannot be certified then yes Congress votes basically on an electoral college style model and the Republicans have the advantage there.
The other option is if a State Legislature were to find fraud, they can appoint electors different from the vote and send them to the electoral college.
In other cases involving fraudulent elections remedy can be a removal of votes, an audit, or even a new election but the courts are loath to order a new election. In fact the courts are generally loathe to get involved period. But you don't have to show the fraud as being significant enough to alter the results (last case NC) but that it was significant.
Here is how a divided House and Senate settled the 1876 election -- contested 20 electoral votes:
The Electoral Commission was a temporary body created on January 29, 1877, by the United States Congress to resolve the disputed United States presidential election of 1876. Democrat Samuel J. Tilden and Republican Rutherford B. Hayes were the main contenders in the election. Tilden won 184 electoral votes, one vote shy of the 185 needed to win, to Hayes' 165, with 20 electoral votes from four states unresolved. Both Tilden and Hayes electors submitted votes from these states, and each claimed victory.
Facing an unparalleled constitutional crisis and intense public pressure, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate agreed to formation of the bipartisan Electoral Commission to settle the election. It consisted of fifteen members: five each from the House and the Senate, plus five Supreme Court justices. Eight members were Republicans; seven were Democrats. The Commission ultimately voted along party lines to award all twenty disputed votes to Hayes, thus assuring his electoral victory by a margin of 185–184. Congress, meeting in a joint session on March 2, 1877, affirmed that decision, officially declaring
Thank you. If I’m reading this correctly. Despite the evidence of fraud, the courts may not revisit this issue. If so, why wouldn’t the election be certified? If no court ruling is made, the EV stays as is and goes to Biden. Am in understanding this correctly?
1876 is a lot like today, split congress, cheating, and the outcome was of course rather terrible.
The election dispute gave rise to a constitutional crisis. Democrats, who fervently believed that they had been cheated, threatened: "Tilden or blood!" Congressman Henry Watterson of Kentucky declared that an army of 100,000 men was prepared to march on Washington if Tilden was denied the presidency. Since the Constitution did not explicitly indicate how Electoral College disputes were to be resolved, Congress was forced to consider other methods to settle the crisis. Many Democrats argued that Congress as a whole should determine which certificates to count. However, the chances that this method would result in a harmonious settlement were slim, as the Democrats controlled the House, while the Republicans controlled the Senate. Several Hayes supporters, on the other hand, argued that the President pro tempore of the Senate had the authority to determine which certificates to count, because he was responsible for chairing the congressional session at which the electoral votes were to be tallied. Since the office of president pro tempore was occupied by a Republican, Senator Thomas W. Ferry of Michigan, this method would have favored Hayes. Still others proposed that the matter should be settled by the Supreme Court.[2]
A State could refuse to certify their election. There are deadlines and after that the state would lose their electoral votes.
Is there any reason the state of PA would refuse to certify their election?
The Legislature is controlled by Republicans, if they were convinced of widespread fraud the could well refuse to appoint electors.
However most are pretty damn spineless, and our past state level Rinos and current Republican Senator are sure to endorse a President Elect Biden. Speaking of Ridge, Santorum and Toomey.
Have you ever thought about what limitations exist on the powers of SCOTUS?
Look at the past 80+ years as proof that no limitations exist.
This seems to good to be true. If want you’re saying is true, the SCOTUS could be presented with all the evidence and simply rule DJT is the President.
Is that correct?
They made abortion legal, gay marriage legal, and DACA permanent.
Do you see any evidence that there are checks or boundaries on the powers of SCOTUS?
The only way to overturn SCOTUS is with a constitutional amendment.
Uhhhh...there is a complete cuck Chief Justice you can blame for most all of that. We haven’t seen what the SCOTUS is capable with RBG being replaced. Stop being a doomer faggot.
Not being a doomer...just understand the Court and its history better than you. Read up on it...good place to start is Levin's book on them.
You seem very confident that you know more about the court’s history. Maybe you do. Weird flex.
The SCOTUS serves the constitution, not any particular president. There is this weird idea here that ACB “owes” Trump. No, she owes it to this country to rule within the bounds of the Constitution. Trump and his team will put together a great case.
Please I can only get so hard!
He was basically the ringleader
Yes, yes he did. Thomas was nominated by George H.W. Bush in 1990. Joe Biden was the Senate Judiciary Chairman during the time. Thomas' nomination to the SCOTUS was marred by the Anita Hill allegations of sexual assault, and Joe Biden somewhat led the charge to ruin Thomas because of it.
Yes. Viciously.
This picture from another post will give you the idea... literally "his view" of the BS during his confirmation hearing: https://thedonald.win/p/11PpU0d7WH/justice-clarence-thomas-has-been/c/
And here are the moving pictures :-)
First one gets the point across if you get the basic idea that they tore his life apart, Kavanaugh-style, over false rape allegations by a woman named Anita Hill.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZURHD5BU1o8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPNkkUJtjo8
Can we trust ACB? Rommney endorsed her.
we’ll find out soon
Unknown.
What’re the chances that scotus backstabs us
Not sure, but if they do America's election processes are over forever and we'll have to do something about it!
Lower now that ACB is seated.
Expect Roberts to screw us.
Depends on each case brought before them and the relevant common law.
Ironic