Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 07/04/2026 10:35:29 AM PDT by John Semmens
In another ruling, US Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for a 5-4 majority, declared that "the writers of the Constitution purposely left the election rules flexible, knowing that there might be future instances in which additional votes would need to be found and counted to reverse an undesired outcome from the election day counts. Therefore there is no specified legal time limit on counting the ballots. Caches of ballots that were somehow overlooked within the five business day limit the Court has created, but subsequently found years later can still be counted. As a hypothetical, say a sufficient number of such ballots from the 2024 presidential election were discovered next week. If a count of these ballots were to show that then Vice-President Kamala Harris won the election, she and her running mate Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz would need to be immediately inaugurated in place of Trump and Vance."
Justice Samuel Alito called Justice Barrett's reasoning "clearly inconsistent with the plain text of the laws and of historical practice and precedents. It is feasible to ensure an honest election if all the ballots are cast and counted on the same day. Once the time frame for casting and counting ballots is expanded with early voting, unsupervised 'drop boxes,' and late mailed ballots the opportunities for fraud are also expanded. This decision risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
So a canvass of the votes month or even years after the election, when votes are still being counted, and the outcome shifts from the formerly leading candidate and the challenger, does the person who first assumed the office, of the basis of the “early” returns, have to surrender the position and allow the challenger to step in to fill out the term?
Dows anyone else see any obvious flaw with this interpretation?
“reverse an undesired outcome from the election day counts”
Note that this is precisely how the other side sees our recount of Nov 2020. It has nothing to do with objective fact. It is all about accepting “reality” and moving on.
Do I see any preparation to avoid a repeat on Nov 2020? Not here in GA. Just as we did in Nov 2020 we will wait until it is too late...and then cry foul.
An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
A good ground game where our ground troops personally know the voters in advance of the election is the best prevention. Of course, it is also the best offense...the best gain of voters for our side.
So, finding a truck load of old ballots from Obamby’s election that clearly shows he lost would nullify his election forever.
So Trump CAN serve a THIRD term then?
DID SHE EVEN GRADUATE FROM GRADE SCHOOL??????
Pieces of meat with two eyes and college “diplomas” need extra months to count ballots. It’s all part of being a low I.Q. Socialist DemonRAT Communist.
The idea that ballots can be counted years later, raises all kinds of horrible questions, some of which we are now trying to address.
For example, does a President’s signature on a law count, if years later he/she is no longer declared the President? What about people convicted of “crimes” that were illegally signed by someone who was not really a President?
What about the votes of a Senator in a tight Senate vote who was years later found to have not “won” the election.
There has to be some kind of rule on either election certification or the apparent looser conceding the negates a “new vote count” years later.
I see all kinds of flaws with this interpretation. The new president’s first term might be finished up for the next election before we found out who was actually elected. That person would likely be Democrat, tho.
I see all kinds of flaws with this interpretation. The new president’s first term might be finished up for the next election before we found out who was actually elected. That person would likely be Democrat, tho.
We just found a wad of ballots from 1964 for Goldwater. We’re counting them.
Republican presidents need to pick better Supreme Court candidates. Their record is abysmal.
Yes, Amy Barrett has a new maiden name: FRAUD!
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.