Posted on 12/09/2016 7:22:15 AM PST by TangoLimaSierra
Assuming you had gone through the same moves she did to set it up (petition election board, petition federal court, lose in both of those places), yes. She has argued that a person who cannot be made the winner via a court proceeding has a right to recount, because a recount is essential to insure the outcome was correct.
Even initally-friendly Judge Conehead in the ED of MI figured out that her argument is loopy.
That's what I've understood you to be saying, with the caveat that she 'could' keep going if she was of a mind to do so.
If she's got a screw loose, then she'll do just that. (And I'm not sure she doesn't have a screw loose.)
If she steps of an airplane anywhere in the state of Michigan she should be pummeled with thousands of floppy disks and anything ‘floppy’ left lying about.
I recall. I was livid that thanks to a gutless legislature and a tyrannical judiciary another very important part of the Constitution has been gutted.
The prohibition of ex post facto laws was very important to our founders because they had seen first hand the evil they represent.
I can see no reason for a recount other than to settle a close contest.
Some kind of state review of an election should be a regular order of business in any state to determine if their system is working correctly. Maybe every 4 or 5 years.
But I cannot see a disgruntled candidate being able to initiate that process.
LOL, that sounds somewhat threatening!
CJ Young on the MI SC has telegraphed that he is no mood to let the federal courts walk on his state's law, and while judges relish dealing with controversy, not so much when they are the ones causing it. MI courts handled this case very well, and after being burned already (in this case, by Goldsmith), the federal courts aren't going to jump into the fire. If they say anything, it will be to blister her even more.
I’ve read a number of court decisions. Makes me a geek, and I’m not a lawyer. But I’ve read a LOT of excellent, carefully thought out and clear court decisions. Many judges are excellent.
Some decide what they want the outcome to be, and vote accordingly. 5 members of the US Supreme Court are like that.
There used to be a guy on the Arizona Supreme Court. He would make (with help) a decision based on what he wanted. The next year, the AZ Legislature would pass a law specifically overturning his decision. It went on for years. The court would say, “X means Y”. The Legislature would pass a law the next year, defining X as X in extreme detail. In many cases, they would outlaw what the court had just ruled legal.
But there are many good judges, and I’ve met a number of good lawyers.
There is no reason, with a little caveat. Courts will look at wider margin cases when fraud is alleged to be involved. Even then, if the fraud isn;t big enough to reverse the outcome, recounting is pointless.
The point of a recount is to make sure the first count was "correct enough" to result in the right candidate being declared winner. There are several other tools in the election process to validate the way the contest was played.
After reviewing this in more detail based on comments posted on this thread, my understanding is that the punitive aspect of a law may define whether it's truly considered an "ex-post facto law" under constitutional terms. And the best description I've seen along those lines is this: A law or order is not punitive if its scope is limited to the compensation of harm suffered.
I look forward to FR lawyers weighing in on this one.
Make that NAZI activist criminal. He was a member of the NAZI party during WW II in which his role was in Seizing Jewish property.
You know, the elusive guy with a lot of money who is financing everything the political opposition is engaged in -- whether there is any evidence for this financial backing or not.
Soros is a war criminal and pure evil
Soros needs to be arrested.
Although it’s important to remember that from Marx came both communism and Nazism, among other vile and foolish ventures.
It sounds like it’s dead, but it will be moot shortly....Dec 19?
I agree, but the Justices caved.
I’ve noticed that as a pastor over the years. Some people are more in awe of Satan’s evil than they are of God’s power.
Always surprises me.
I fully agree with you and I never said otherwise.
Those justices recused themselves anyway. They weren’t sufficiently impressed with my opinion. :>)
You will be happy to know that since the case of Calder v. Bull in 1797, the prohibition against ex post facto laws only applies to criminal prosecution, not civil claims.
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.