2020

[dougrz]

The PA case has been brewing for weeks, if not on the minds of the justices for months. I'd expect a ruling this week.

TX case being explosive would take time to argue. But if PA goes down, TX goes down foregone.

[caverdan]

..

[Iceaxe]

It will be interesting to see if Rumps packing of the supreme court actually helps him out.

Packing of the SC?!?

Dude, do you have the slightest idea of how our Constitution works? Because you obviously don't understand what court packing is.

What Trump and McConnell have don't is the exact opposite of court packing.

[caverdan]

..

[devo_stevo]

Rump appointed three of the justices during his term. Sounds like packing to me. Now to see if they do his bidding for him.

So because 3 justices passed away while he was president, and he did his constitutionally mandated duty of replacing them, he packed the courts? ok. Curious if Hillary was president and did the same thing, you'd call it court packing.

[caverdan]

..

[devo_stevo]

Fair enough. I disagree, but that's ok.

Imagine a situation where, let's just say, the results of an election were in question and we had a court that couldn't decide what to do about it because there was an even number of justices and they were at a stalemate as to what their decision would be. Seems like a tie breaker would be useful, but I could be wrong.

[caverdan]

..

[Iceaxe]

Rump appointed three of the justices during his term. Sounds like packing to me. Now to see if they do his bidding for him.

As I already mentioned, you obviously don't understand our Constitution and how our Republic works... the President was doing his job exactly as required by the Constitution. Get back to me after you finish 8th grade Civics.

And just for the record and to help you get started... a President only nominates a SC candidate. It's congress that appoints them.

[Iceaxe]

Yes I would. Rump should of had to wait on his third choice like Obummer had to.

It appears you also need to work on your history as Obama did not wait. He nominated Merit Garland for the SC. Just as he was Constitutionally required to do. It was congress that did not confirm Garland, as is their prerogative under the Constitution.

At least work on your basic Civics before beginning this crap in here. Obama tried every trick in the book to get Garland confirmed, but in the end the SC judge is not the presidents call.

[dougrz]

Trump appointed three of the justices during his term. Sounds like packing to me. Now to see if they do his bidding for him.

"Packing" means something specific. The left are masters at changing and using language to lie. Don't contribute to that.

Expanding the court from 9 to 11+ is packing. Appointing as they come along isn't.

Sad thing is, the Dems may very well get 2 flips and 3 total if Biden gets in. Thomas and Alito could pass any moment. And Breyer could pass, or retire. The timing of death doesn't dictate calling it packing.

[Iceaxe]

I'm not sure how tie breakers work for the SC.

If the vote is questioned or deemed fraudulent the election goes to The House with each state getting ONE vote.

If this happens Trump would likely win as Republican states out number Democratic states. This has actually happened twice in our history, 1801 and 1825.

[Iceaxe]

"Packing" means something specific. The left are masters at changing and using language to lie. Don't contribute to that.

Expanding the court from 9 to 11+ is packing. Appointing as they come along isn't.

Sad thing is, the Dems may very well get 2 flips and 3 total if Biden gets in. Thomas and Alito could pass any moment. And Breyer could pass, or retire. The timing of death doesn't dictate calling it packing.

^^^THIS^^^

You have to give Kennedy a lot of props for retiring and allowing Trump to nominate his replacement.

To bad RBG didn't do the same thing when the left begged her to near the end of Obama's rein. The left has no one but RBG to blame for the current make-up of the SC.

[dougrz]

Scenes from the Georgia trail.

The good, the bad, and the unsightly.

[dougrz]

Had an invite to the White House last week.

Entering here.

[oldno7]

Had an invite to the White House last week.

Entering here.

Still can't believe you passed the SS BC

[2065toyota]

How did he 'pack' the court. He appointed justices by law the same way it was designed to. Unless he is behind the deaths of the justices there isn't a way to call it 'packing'

[oldno7]

Heres some precedent if anyone follows such.


Elections Undecided by Midnight are Void & Preempted by Federal Law – Foster v Love (1997; 9-0 Decision)



3 U.S.C. § 2 kicks the decision back to the State Legislatures after a failed election renders the previous results void. Failed elections nullify all votes, not just some votes, not just late votes, not just illegal votes. The election itself is void in late States.
Which States are late? The answer will be a question of first impression for the Supreme Court. But the only fair answer is obvious. If, at midnight, one candidate had enough of a lead, so that there was no mathematical possibility whatsoever of their being caught – after a review of the votes already counted, and the votes remaining – then the final selection has been made on time. But if the outcome was uncertain at Midnight, the State violated the deadline, and its election is void.
This hard mathematical rule will motivate States to develop better comprehensive procedures, and to commit sufficient monetary resources to safeguard our elections from despair going forward. Perfect elections are possible, and developing them is a fundamental purpose of paying taxes. We are a wealthy nation. Get it right.
As to Representative and Senate races, the statutes mandate subsequent elections, but as to presidential electors, 3 U.S.C. § 2 provides a deadline extension to the State Legislatures alone to determine – “in such manner as the legislature of such State may direct” – which electors shall be appointed. This statute simply reiterates the plenary authority in the United States Constitution.
We should find out soon what the State Legislatures will do, because the United States Supreme Court is about to nullify the results of this election in every State that failed to report a clear winner before November 4th.


[W]e have a Supreme Court decision which we must follow, explaining that the word ‘election’ means a ‘consummation’ of the process of selecting an official…The Foster definition of ‘election’ implies that there is only a single Election Day in Oregon, when the election is ‘consummated,’ even though there are prior voting days.”
The 9th Circuit interprets Foster v. Love as mandating that the word “election” means a final selection of an official on Election Day.


WHAT ABOUT BUSH V. GORE?
At this point, you may be wondering, if my analysis above is correct, why the election in Bush v. Gore wasn’t void? It’s a very good question. That nightmare dragged on for 37 days, finally settled by a nebulous opinion, just as the Florida Legislature was getting ready to use the nuclear option to seat Bush electors via bicameral resolution. Incredibly, the answer to this very relevant question is shockingly simple:
That election wasn’t void because nobody asked the court to void it.


CONCLUSION
Consider all of the above in light of the results of the 2020 presidential elections; in Pennsylvania today, two weeks after Election Day, 8000 votes suddenly appeared, and the initial count is still not complete; Arizona has tens of thousands of ballots left to count in the initial canvass; Georgia discovered over 2600 missing votes yesterday, and the entire State is conducting a recount; Wisconsin just announced the details and costs of a forthcoming recount; Michigan is buried in litigation supported by many sworn affidavits alleging irregularities. None of these states consummated their elections on November 3rd. The elections have failed, as a matter of law. The results should be voided.

https://www.thepostemail.com/2020/11...-9-0-decision/

[oldno7]

Republicans Block Inaugural Committee Recognizing Biden as President
“Today, at a meeting of the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies (JCCIC), Republicans voted to reject a motion offered by House Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) that the committee affirm that it is preparing for the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris in coordination with the Biden Presidential Inaugural Committee,” read a statement from Rep. Steny H. Hoyer.
“Senators Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Roy Blunt (R-MO) were joined by House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy (CA-23) in blocking the motion, effectively preventing JCCIC from publicly accepting that the upcoming inauguration will be for President-elect Biden,” continued the statement.

https://trishintel.com/republicans-b...-as-president/

[dougrz]

The SC has agreed to hear the TX case. Whole ballgame in that one case.

This is Bush v Gore in magnitude. One ruling can change it all.