Another sad day for the rule of law but it is what it is. After listening to the fake news scream that these challenges have never been seen before am I glad Trump did it. Absolutely. It has not helped him personally but it has brought to light just what a train wreck our federal election system has become. It needs attention and a major overall with rules that have some bite to them when they are broken. And by the way penalties for the libs as well not just the lowly dutiful repubs who plod long and follow the rules generally and get rail roaded for doing so.
What a joke!!!
a Joke you say. Maybe a quick review on how a constitutional republic is supposed to work would do you good.
As a side just imagine if the numbers on the court were reversed. We had several justices decide against their conservative beliefs tonite. There will never be day when several lib jurors ever step up and do such a thing....ever.
I have been mystified by that presser by Lin Wood and Colin Powell
It seems to that both were saying you can't trust the Dominion machines to fix an election
No matter what the people vote, the system of bought and paid for machines will see the Dems win the run off
In other words it doesn't matter until you fix it, if I remember Lin Wood and his words
The results will be interesting
If the Dominion machine is designed to rig elections, you don't want to "fix it". The software engineers and the company's leaders are obviously not to be trusted.
You don't fix it... you discard it and replace it with a new one.
And even then, you have people sitting on those machines who cheat.
as mcfarm said earlier, the whole election system needs to be re-invented.
2020 was an eye-opener
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/
Briskly rejecting a long-shot but high-stakes case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday tossed out the Texas lawsuit that had become a vehicle for Republicans across the country to contest President-elect Joe Biden’s victory.
In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.
"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.
With Electoral College deadlines rapidly approaching, the ruling likely ends President Donald Trump's bid to overturn the election results through the courts.
Texas sued this week to challenge the election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin on the basis that those states implemented pandemic-related changes to election procedures that, Texas claimed, were illegal and cast into question the election results. Those battleground states shot back, in harsh reply briefs, that Texas had no business challenging the election protocols of other states.
Legal experts warned that if Texas succeeded, the case would set a dangerous precedent of allowing states to intervene in one another’s affairs — and allowing courts to overturn settled, certified election results.
“Let us be clear,” attorneys for Pennsylvania wrote in the state’s reply brief. “Texas invites this Court to overthrow the votes of the American people and choose the next President of the United States. That Faustian invitation must be firmly rejected.”
Texas’ lawsuit leaned heavily on discredited claims of election fraud in swing states. Election officials and U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr have said there is no evidence of election fraud on a scale that could have swayed the results.
The lawsuit quickly grew into a dividing line for blue and red states across the country — and, for Republicans, a test of loyalty to Trump. Some Republican-led states refused to side with Trump in the case; Idaho Attorney General Lawrence Wasden said “the legally correct decision may not be the politically convenient decision.” But more Republican states chose to join it.
Trump — and Republicans across the country — had pinned their hopes on the Texas suit, with Trump himself intervening. In a series of tweets, the president called it “the big one” and later added, “it is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET.”
By Thursday, it had drawn the involvement of nearly every state, with more than a dozen weighing in on each side, as well as the endorsement of more than 100 members of the U.S. House, including more than a dozen Texas Republicans: U.S. Reps. Jodey Arrington, Brian Babin, Kevin Brady, Michael Burgess, Michael Cloud, Mike Conaway, Dan Crenshaw, Bill Flores, Louie Gohmert, Lance Gooden, Kenny Marchant, Randy Weber, Roger Williams and Ron Wright.
If the court had heard the case, U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz said he would have argued it, at the request of Trump.
But U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, a former Texas attorney general and Texas Supreme Court justice, had said he was “not convinced” by the logic of the case.
Court watchers said from the start that the case was a long shot. Trump has indicated that he hoped the high court, which now includes three justices he appointed, would turn the election his way, but the justices have shown no interest in doing so. Earlier this week, the court tossed a similar case from Pennsylvania Republicans attempting to challenge Biden’s win in that battleground state.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case but said they would "not grant other relief." None of Trump's appointees indicated they saw any merit in the lawsuit.
In a series of tweets after the ruling, Trump raged against the decision, which he called "a disgraceful miscarriage of justice."
Legal experts called the lawsuit dangerous and unprecedented in its aims. “Garbage, but dangerous garbage,” was how elections law expert Rick Hasen put it. U.S. Rep. Chip Roy, a Texas Republican who once served as Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton’s top deputy, called the case “a dangerous violation of federalism” that “will almost certainly fail.”
The case was a Hail Mary play for Trump, who hoped the court would hand him a victory that the voters did not. His campaign has filed dozens of lawsuits across the country in an overwhelmingly unsuccessful bid to overturn the election.
But the case carried high stakes, too, for Paxton, who filed it at a nadir in his two-decade roller coaster of a political career. Paxton found himself back in the spotlight and at the center of the conservative media ecosystem this week to tout his pro-Trump efforts — even as the FBI served a subpoena at the Texas attorney general’s office as part of a probe into his alleged criminal activity, according to the Austin American-Statesman. Eight senior aides told authorities they believed Paxton broke the law in using the agency to do favors for a political donor, Nate Paul. Their allegations have reportedly sparked an FBI investigation.
Critics have speculated that Paxton may have been using the lawsuit as a way to angle for a presidential pardon from Trump. A spokesperson for Paxton dismissed that suggestion as “an absurdly laughable conspiracy theory.”
Separate from the latest allegations, Paxton was indicted in 2015 on felony securities fraud charges but has yet to stand trial amid side battles over venue and prosecutor pay. Currently, the case is delayed indefinitely as a Houston appeals court weighs the venue issue.
A presidential pardon does not protect against prosecution for state or local crimes.
metmike: Agreeing to hearing this case would have just dragged this thing on longer because the chance of it succeeding was close to 0% based on the Constitution and separation of state powers. When Trump tweeted out afterwards that the Supreme Court has "No wisdom, No courage" metmike was thinking "Mr. President, look no farther than your tweets to see the reason for why you just lost!"
that seems to be the gest of it...the supremes decided because of a time line problem....wow sowed some real backbone there didn't they? Now tell how the Ruth Bader and the other libs that have been there and are there now would of voted if the dems brought a similar case? They blow like the wind and having the courage of their convictions left town years ago.
metmike: With President Trump near the end of his term, let's learn a language lesson here.
In a series of tweets after the ruling, Trump raged against the decision, which he called "a disgraceful miscarriage of justice."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/tactful
Near Antonyms for tactful......that all describe President Trump
Antonyms for tactful.....................that all describe President Trump
Words Related to tactful..................how people act to get elected as president
and guess what MM. that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee. This man has done more in 4 years that anyone thought possible. Fought harder held stronger than any human could be expected. Is he what you say, of course. Who would you want fighting the Iranians, the isis animals, china,,,, a polite guy so full of appeasement that we would be run over or a guy that can be rude at times? I know we have been thru this before who of us that of had to make that choice found it difficult? He is a doer. Has backed every campaign pledge with action. The dems fight dirty, and I mean gutter dirty, you think a Romney type could of stood this pressure? Really, a Mc Cain type? Really? A jeb Bush type? Give me a break. With Trump you know what you are getting, warts and all. And for most of us were willing to give him 4 more years to finish that swamp in DC, once and for all.
Mark my words in months of Biden taking office the Iranians will be acting out again, the middle peace accords will blow up, the Chicomms will be emboldened and Taiwan looks to be a n easy target. The US economy will take a turn with the new lib policies and as the US economy goes so goes the world. Maybe with any luck Comey Clapper and Brennan will all brought back and the elites will all celebrate their return to their rightful place of power. This rude man you dislike so much is one of the last fighting and we will all suffer for his loss.
"and guess what MM. that and a dollar will get you a cup of coffee."
And a presidency!
You are right about all that stuff mcfarm but are completely missing why Trump lost the elections and acquired a massive, growing list of enemies.
Not always because of what he was trying to do but because of HOW he went about it, constantly using offensive words that were usually very uncalled for and very divisive.
Words Matter!
Started by metmike - Dec. 12, 2020, 11:40 a.m.
Wayne,
We already have an active thread on this going this morning. It's just discombobulates things when you want to start your own thread on the exact same thing.
Here is your post below. Please use this thread to continue the discussion.............thanks.
Is Texas right
0 responses | 0 likes
Started by wglassfo - Dec. 12, 2020, 12:10 p.m.
As I understand things
Texas says the 4 states in question had unelected officials unlawfully make decisions that affected the election
Texas says somebody needs to separate from the republic
Either those who follow the law or those who don't need to go
Texas says this opens the door to a possibility of more states who won't follow the law but make their own laws
This then leads to a republic which is ungovernable
Edit to add:
I think the Supreme Court lacked the back bone to delve into the legality of unelected officials actions and alleged fraud which needed forensic experts to make an official determination of these machines
To do all this properly might have taken too much time and gone past certification deadlines or even who occupies the WH
No matter the out come the Supreme Court did not want to even think of the ramifications of the time involved to properly investigate
The Supreme Court decided other avenues existed for a proper investigation
The Supreme Court had no back bone to do their job
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/reply_post/62617/
So the reaction is......................to do exactly what causes COVID to spread during a pandemic....gathering in large groups.
Maybe we'll hear that this spreads COVID because its all conservatives.
We all know that COVID would never dare threaten/enter a liberal's body at a protest (-:
Covering up massive COVID being spread from protests-8/8 update below
29 responses |
Started by metmike - July 30, 2020, 7:28 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/57070/
Hi Mike
My thought was a divided country is becoming more serious if some states start talking secession or other actions
So far it looks like many pub states are talking about banding together. But we all know talk is cheap and action is different
So: You are correct to put this post where you did. So far this post is about the various thoughts and re-action to the Supreme Court decision
My apology for not thinking
Thank YOU Wayne for being a humble guy, taking it the right way and always for your sincere contributions/thoughts.
Some of these people will get COVID at the rally. A few will likely die because of it.
At least they aren't rioting.