Skip to comments.Why the Dems are Stuck with Cankles
Posted on 09/11/2016 7:20:32 PM PDT by LS
click here to read article
What is YOUR problem? I keep referring-—since you apparently are too dense to do the research-—to the Palm Beach ballot of 2000, which was just as clearly written as the AZ election laws (I am here in AZ, by the way).
The Palm Beach ballot’s LANGUAGE was ignored by the courts to go with the “will of the public” and the “spirit of the law.” Not once, but several times, both courts and election boards.
What I’m telling you and what you are apparently too dense to get is that the language of the law as YOU read it doesn’t count. It’s only what a court says, and courts are heavily influenced by public opinion. So, for the umpteenth time, regardless of what the LANGUAGE of the Arizona law says, the court can and based on historical precedence WILL interpret that to say what the court wants it to say. And in a Republican state, I seriously doubt that they would uphold the precise language of the law and would instead go with Bush v. Gore that says that you cannot have multiple elections, multiple vote counts. It’s either who is on the ballot (not the “electors”, but the person named) or it isn’t a valid election. But you can have it your way and see what the courts rule.
I don’t give a pinch of shit what you have to say about the courts. You keep blathering about Palm Beach and all sorts of other crap, and I just don’t care what you have to say about that. Don’t tell me I’m too dense to do research, or what I’m too dense to get, you miserable asshole.
Hillary is not, and never was, a Golda Meier or a Lady Thatcher. Neither character nor class.
She is a chronic liar & degenerate criminal. She should be in prison.
Good, that’s it. Name calling, the final indicator you’ve lost the argument, spiced with a few clever swear words. Glad we resolved that. By the way, any more of that and we’ll let the moderators know.
They tend to take a dim view of such behavior.
So calling people dense isn’t name calling. Right. Tattle to the moderators if you want. I really don’t care.
It is still idiotic of you to assert that anyone could be successful in a lawsuit by claiming that they had not voted for electors when the ballot had clearly stated that they were voting for those electors. Idiotic, as in put forth by an idiot. Now run crying to the moderators, because I was mean to poor little you. Talk about an indicator that you’ve lost an argument.
Glad you calmed your tone. So back to the point: how did the lawsuits regarding the very clearly written Palm Beach ballots go?
It won. It sent all the way to the USSC, meaning, for the fourth time, just like disclaimers-—CLEARLY WRITTEN DISCLAIMERS-—do not protect you from judgments, neither do clearly written statements about voting for electors rather than people mean anything. It is a court that decides and in America anyone can find courts to rule for them.
It then ends up in the USSC which, unless you can find another justice between now and December, would be 4-4 and case remanded to lower court-—which would be the same court that allowed the person to get to the USSC in the first p,ace (I.e., the one that said that langauge doesn’t matter).
Or, for some reason the USSC could cite Bush v. Gore and say you cannot have multiple elections/vote counts-—regardless of the language on the ballot.
There is no scenario in which a court would just allow electors to be “assigned” because a party ways it so OR because “that’s what the language say”. In our legal world, the specific language of documents means nothing (remember Roberts’ Obamacare decision?)
Just because you can find cases in which a court, or even a series of courts, rules wrongly, does not mean that every court will always ignore plain language. Arizona does not require the electors for whom a voter votes to then vote for the candidate who is preferred by the voter. Such a voter might be thoroughly ticked off, but it would require a court to disregard the incontrovertible fact that the voter did vote for the electors, and not the candidate, for the voter’s suit to have any chance of winning.
Perhaps such a thing might happen, and perhaps it did in this Palm Beach whatever you keep going on about. Or perhaps, as I suspect, Palm Beach addressed something other than my point that Arizona voters do not vote directly for Presidential candidates and that that is clearly stated on the ballot. (I freely admit that I do not come home from a typical 12+ hour workday and research political lawsuits.)
I do not know why you are bringing up Bush v. Gore, nor mentioning some mythical scenario in which a party assigns electors, other than your obvious penchant for irrelevance. Those things have nothing to do with what I pointed out in the first place.
Anyway, I’ve spent far too much time trying to make a really simple point. I apologize for the earlier profanity, but I find it really annoying when people drag in a lot of off-topic nonsense and think they’re making an argument.
Enjoy the election in November, and let me know how it works out if you decide to sue because you aren’t happy with the result of your vote.
I will be thrilled with my vote for Trump. Sorry you couldn’t follow the bread crumbs to get why Palm Beach ballots and Bush v. Gore would, if anyone tries to switch out any other candidate for Cankles, will fail.
Irrelevant again. Give it a rest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.