Posted on 12/09/2016 2:59:05 PM PST by bobsunshine
Blocked due to Copyright - Link Below.
I agree, and would add that the election officials who are essentially accused of participating in a giant conspiracy by Stein and her experts are also Democrats. So under Stein’s theory a number of Democrats hatched a plan in Pennsylvania to throw the election to Trump. I guess they were supposed to be under some kind of Russian mind control ray gun.
They did exactly the right thing. They knew it would be a 3-2 reault but if they made it 5-2 their alleged conflict would be the story and Stein’s hope for federal intervention. Sometimes stepping away is exactly the right thing to do.
She isn’t doing this for Hillary. She is trying to protect the vote. People with floppy disks running around reprogramming machines and erasing votes on ballots. What else can explain this?
If the green party has her as their head after this, they are all even dumber than she is.
Perhaps a thorough recount could take place after the fact, that is, after the count has been certified.
A software contractor or the like could take whatever time is needed to perform the recount, identify discrepancies and causes, assess the veracity of the votes, and the overall accuracy of the system, with special attention to errors and causes. The contractor could then recommend actions to mitigate the weaknesses in the system.
These studies would produce a voting system that the people would have confidence in the results for future voting. How good are our voting systems across the country? Voter concerns include double counting, illegal voters, stuffed ballot boxes, hacking of voting machines, etc.
You mean drinking and throwing things?
Read the recusal statement of CJ Young. He blistered the federal district court.
I still see no need to recuse. Do you have a link to the recusant?
The Court hears Cases when Lower Courts Disregard past Supreme Court decisions
Not always. The SCOTUS allowed Federal Circuit courts to apply the Presser case for the OPPOSITE of what it waid, for decades. It did so becuase SCOTUS approved of the result.
Courts are highly political, but because of the role they have, they will deny this fact. Same idea as the press being objective. The press will deny being partisan, because it is in the press's self-interest that people believe the myth.
The ED of MI ruled on the merits of Stein’s case. Just because she lost doesn’t mean that federal court didn’t rule. The long hearing on Wednesday was to address her claims on the merits, and the opinion was on the merits.
I expect her to use her favorite phrase, “Make no mistake.”
He agrees with yout technical argument, and expalins why he recused in spite of having no legitimate/legal reason to do so.
Federal Courts of Appeal don’t have appellate jurisdiction over state courts. Stein could seek a writ from the United States Supreme Court (if she wanted to make an utterly complete fool of herself).
This is a coup by Soros
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/5eqg9p/red_alert_jim_stone_discovers_soros_bot_funding/
That’s where Soros is going. He’s got an army of lawyers and billions to put to this
The dissent in the MI Supreme Court decision to deny hearing her case is a template for arguing something slightly different to SCOTUS.
She has already made a complete fool of herself. In for a penny, in for a pound (as opposed to not sending good money after bad, a cliche for every occasion!)
I have read his recusal (many thanks for the link) and don’t find it compelling. Quite the contrary as he explains why he is quite unlikely to be appointed (age).
The need to at least send a check for 2 cents.
Even though he agrees with your technical legal point, and cites his own further elaboration? Even though he explains that he is recusing
... in order that the decision made by my colleagues in this case will not be legitimately challenged by base speculation and groundless innuendo by the partisans in this controversy and beyond.
For others, those who are too lazy to read the linked statement, CJ Young also alludes to the principle of keeping courts out of politics (unless necessary), rather than being quick to jump in as the federal courts did in this case.
You are of course free to disagree with his judgment and decision. I think his statement is compelling and correct, so we part in disagreement. No big deal, such is life.
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.