Posted on 12/17/2020 8:44:23 AM PST by Uncle Sham
By refusing to hear the Texas case against allowing Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Georgia to ignore the Constitutional requirement that only state legislatures control federal election laws, the supreme court (I used lower case intentionally) has ruled the Constitution dead and meaningless as it pertains to elections. This means that none of us has to respect the intended meaning of "January 2oth". The court says there is no longer a need to assume that law exist in this country or whatever it is without a government interested in anything other than enslaving us.
I would like to suggest to President Trump that he is our current leader and that there are no longer any legal restrictions on how long he can stay in power. The supreme court says so.
So why hasn’t SCOTUS taken the case? My answer: because they are cowards who have no interest in protecting the Republic.
On its face, this looks silly, however there is a very large grain of truth to be told here. Selective enforcement of the law doesn’t work for the little people, and the government(s) shouldn’t be able to either.
This is a bad idea.
l8r
Anarchy, excellent. Can I still get that with a side of fries?
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
If I understand correctly, Congress never declared war on the Civil War Confederate States, correction welcome.
And when Lincoln was reelected in 1864, any electoral votes of the Confederate States were ignored.
"As the Civil War was still raging, no electoral votes were counted from any of the eleven southern states that had joined the Confederate States of America." —1864 United States presidential election.
Seventy Four+ million disenfranchised patriots need to sign a petition to have the Supreme Court recognize Democratic voting fraud.
Or if Trump can still win if the electoral votes of the Democratic-controlled swing states are thrown out, then let’s do that.
Red States need require voter ID laws in the week before the election, then enforce it.
As a result of the SCOTUS lack of action, all states need not abide by anything that the federal government dictates.
Secession is a viable alternative to counter the courts lack of action.
No constitution? No contract between the union of states.
ITS OVER!
I think you have hit the magic button...
If the Constitution is null & void...then, there is no “Rule of Law” that Adams and the other Founders strived for...
Thus, anything goes...
I can go into a nearby grocery store and shoplift anything I want...
Oh, wait a minute...Commiefornia already allows that...
The question would be for someone to define an excellent civil disobedience that would send a message to the Government...?
I love vanities. Keep ‘em coming.
F that. Proper? Oh I get it the next step is secession. Now that is proper.
You are a bad idea.
You're right that, unlike the Texas case, Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar and Scarnati v. Pennylvania Democratic Party likely has proper parties with standing (although standing has been challenged in that case as well). However, regardless of the results, there is no possibility that any remedy will affect the outcome of the election. First, the case only concerns the extension of the deadline to receive mail-in ballots, which only applies to about 10,000 ballots, too few to change the results of the Pennsylvania election. Second, this case only involves Pennsylvania, so even if it could affect the results, voiding Pennsylvania's electors or even giving them to Trump would still result in Biden's election.
Also, as someone else noted, this case is set for conference on January 8, after Congress will count the votes. And that is just to determine whether to grant certiorari, not to decide the merits of the case. The Supreme Court has not even requested briefing on the merits, so if this case is heard, it will probably not be until after Biden has already been inaugurated.
Most importantly, it should be noted that, that no one is asking the Supreme Court to alter the outcome of the election in either case.
In response to the argument that the case is moot, the Republican Party explicitly concedes in its reply brief that “this case cannot change the outcome of this election.” They argue that changing the vote count is still meaningful relief and, alternatively, assert the “capable of repetition yet evading review” doctrine. The Scarnati petitioners essentially make the same concession, because their only response to the mootness argument is the “capable of repetition...” doctrine.
Neither argument against mootness argument is very persuasive, so my prediction on those cases is that the Supreme Court will issue an order on January 11 (the following Monday) denying certiorari, with a statement (probably not a full concurrence) by one or more of the conservatives that the Court lacks Article III jurisdiction because the case is moot.
You are an ignorant racist. But we let you post here.
“Lets be brutal and pull no punches.“
Yes indeed!
I wish we had a few hundred of you in our Congress!
“First, the case only concerns the extension of the deadline to receive mail-in ballots, which only applies to about 10,000 ballots, too few to change the results of the Pennsylvania election. Second, this case only involves Pennsylvania, so even if it could affect the results, voiding Pennsylvania’s electors or even giving them to Trump would still result in Biden’s election.”
1. Assumes facts not in evidence. It is my understanding that the arrival stamped envelopes were trashed upon opening. There is no way to even know which ballot arrived on time or not. Because of that you cannot state that it’s only 10,000 ballots. Truth is, nobody knows and never will, now.
2. A finding that executive order and/or judicial fiat violated the US Constitution in regard to changing election law establishes nationwide precedent to use against all of the other states that did the same naughty thing - which is quite a few.
Alito ordered all late-arriving ballots to be segregated, and no one has even alleged that Pennsylvania failed to comply with that order. Boockvar's office has reported that there are 10,000 segregated votes, and no one has controverted that report. Regardless, as I mentioned, no one in these cases are even asking for the results of the election to be overturned. The petitioners in both cases have conceded that the outcome of this election cannot be changed by these cases.
2. A finding that executive order and/or judicial fiat violated the US Constitution in regard to changing election law establishes nationwide precedent to use against all of the other states that did the same naughty thing - which is quite a few.
That list would include Texas, where the governor extended early voting from 17 to 23 days before Election Day, without the authorization of the legislature. More than 3 million votes were cast during those extra six days, which is about 5 times Trump's margin of victory in Texas. I don't like Trump's chances if Texas's electoral votes are invalidated.
In any event, even if the ruling served as precedent, it would be too late to affect this election when the electors have already met and voted, and no one is asking the Court to change the results of the election anyway.
Is there a constitutional clause or other legal precedent that says that the Joint Session count of electoral votes is inviolate, final and incontestable?
Even in the face of constitutional violations having occurred that very well may have affected election outcomes?
How about, along with that, SCOTUS intentionally sat on a Petition for Writ of Certiorari regarding a constitutional violation? Until any remedy for the Petitioner is moot, not the case about the violation, but the remedy?
Mootness is a false argument here because the Joint Session merely forecloses a a particular remedy, one which was not requested. Regardless of the lack of a nuclear remedy, there is still the matter of a constitutional violation. That, can never be mooted.
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.