He's right and wrong and the same time. We need 1 senator to object electors, but then 50+1 vote in Senate to sustain objection.
And even if that happens (it won't) it's still unclear whether House doesn't need to sustain objection as well (so again, majority of 217 members is needed).
They said they wouldn't grant "relief", not "remedy".
Their dissent is generally being read as "we don't have votes to do anything, sorry, go look somewhere else".
I know, I know, Roberts belongs to the three creatures on the left.
The way things are going now, Chucky Schumer will a new majory leader come January.
Why hasn't Cumala resigned her Senate seat?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5IPEvYchMo&t=1h47m24s
TLDW: she needs to get control over who is going to replace her
Guys, this isn't an election suit. This is "old" suit, challenging changes in election law. Look at the date of filing (September).
That case was decided before the elections. I guess they finally published their full opinion today, that's it.
And to the "votes to be thrown out" theme - it's impossible - even if you single out every person who illegally voted as confined, you don't know whom they voted for. All the ballots are now mixed together.
This decision can now be used in election suit in WI, but that's it. Maybe, and this is a big maybe, WI SC will do what's right and will rule election as contested.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y5IPEvYchMo&t=1h12m56s - how accepting electors in the Senate works
In theory, Pence could decide to chose Trump electors from contested states. In practice, it's unlikely anything meaningful will happen.
I don't get why you're still giving them benefit of the doubt.
"Uh, okay, they say no standing, so I just need to get standing now and all will be fine!"
Understand that standing is a lawyer talk for "fuck off, we don't want to get involved". You people continue to assume the system is fine and you just need to try harder to appease it to get your 5 minutes in court. Won't happen.
It's crystal clear now, that SCOTUS told Trump to fuck off. "No remedy for you here, move on"
But yeah, I guess that's all part of THE PLAN that three of his nominees decided to betray him now, only to come to his rescue at the 11th hour. Makes perfect sense.
The problem with all this is people don't understand how the system works.
No standing means "fuck off, we're not doing shit for you". SCOTUS made clear that they aren't gonna help Trump, period.
They said no relief.
The beauty of this suit is that the law is disputed (ha!), not the facts. Facts are easily verifiable. I believe there will be very little time spend on evidence and much on the law issues. Namely, if unlawful behavior of the individual states in terms of their election laws injures Elector Clause of the federal constitution.
That's the polar opposite, BTW, to the Wood/Powell cases, where the whole burden is on proving the fact of fraud. We can all see how that went.
These people never heard of original jurisdiction, they're just virtue signalling by mocking the issue instead of analyzing it.
That would be legislating from the bench - it's a Congress job to implement Voter ID. And yeah, I know it's not gonna happen.
There's a theory that SCOTUS will rule in such manner to fix the future elections (for example by imposing strict mail-in-ballot rules), but won't change the outcome of current one. Solomonic Judgment, so to speak.
Roberts doesn't decide shit now, it's up to the whole court. And SCOTUS has to hear it, because it has an original jurisdiction - it's the only court in which states can sue one another.
They would have to come up with an excuse to dismiss it, but they have to hear it.
Barnes replied, that yes, they can and this would mean they are effectively conceading.
You're right. Problem is, judges are part of the system which rigged the elections. There was huge non-partisan effort to remove Trump and courts are in on it.
It's going to be very difficult to successfully appeal NV. They covered their tracks in terms of the federal constitution - election changes were accepted by the state legislature. We can argue equal protection clause, but the way that NV courts proceeded will make it pretty "uncomfortable" for SCOTUS to step in.
All we have right now is Texas case and maybe (and this is a big "maybe") Arizona Supreme Court case. And it's more than enough if these courts have courage to do what is right. The problem is, so far every step of the way, judges were bending backwards not to get involved.
I'm not saying to hold our breaths waiting for SCOTUS to weigh in and save a day. I'm merely saying that they are able to it.
That's not true. Rehnquist in concurrence to Bush v. Gore stated, that federal Supreme Court ALWAYS have jurisdiction when federal elections is concerned.
Bush v. Gore was state issue elevated to SCOTUS, because of egregious way in which Florida Supreme Court managed it.
Safe Harbor Date explained: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMgnPLYJsNQ&t=4910s
Robert Barnes believes this whole act is unconstitutional.
Both senators are down in polls AND there's going to be fraud again. It's not enough that most of the people is going to vote. We need crazy turnout AND relentless, fair poll watchers.
Because it's not accident and not his own idea - this is a setup orchestrated by DNC and core RNC players together. This was a long time in the planning and was executed very well.
That's why no one's coming to Trump's help - some low- and mid-level Republicans do, but they were outside of this plot. Key players are doing their part and we quickly approaching Hiden inauguration.
The plan was this all along:
Say what you want, but the plan was hugely successful, you got to hand it to them.