[Rama Set]

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

[Tom Bishop]

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Dispooted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/electoral-election-deadline/

"The Amistad Project notes that the only 'deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,' when a President’s term would end.

All other deadlines, such as the 'safe harbor' deadline of December 8th, the Electoral College vote occurring on December 14th, and the congressional count on January 6th are set by federal law. Therefore, if 'federal law presents an obstacle to faithfully adhering to constitutional requirements, it is necessary to disregard the statute in favor of the plain meaning of the Constitution.'

In other words, the only deadline the Constitution requires is for the election to be decided on or by January 20th."

[stack]

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Dispooted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/electoral-election-deadline/

"The Amistad Project notes that the only “deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,” when a President’s term would end.

All other deadlines, such as the 'safe harbor' deadline of December 8th, the Electoral College vote occurring on December 14th, and the congressional count on January 6th are set by federal law. Therefore, if 'federal law presents an obstacle to faithfully adhering to constitutional requirements, it is necessary to disregard the statute in favor of the plain meaning of the Constitution.'

In other words, the only deadline the Constitution requires is for the election to be decided on or by January 20th."

Disputed, yes, but not assuredly accurate. The Amistad Project is from The Thomas More Society:

The Thomas More Society is a conservative anti-abortion law firm based in Chicago. Their website describes them as "a not-for-profit, national public interest law firm dedicated to restoring respect in law for life, family, and religious liberty." Wikipedia

So this is all their legal interpretation, which may be spot on. I certainly don't know. But it is certainly their particular point of view and nothing "official". And, obviously, they have a decided leaning as they just filed this:

"The Amistad Project of the Thomas More Society filed a motion Wednesday night in Maricopa County Superior Court contesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, citing expert data analysis indicating that hundreds of thousands of potentially illegal votes were counted, while over 100,000 legal ballots were not counted."
https://prescottenews.com/index.php/2020/12/04/amistad-project-files-election-litigation-challenging-300000-ballots-in-arizona/

"Amistad Project: Challenges presidential election results with planned lawsuits in six swing states"
https://www.wispolitics.com/2020/amistad-project-challenges-presidential-election-results-with-planned-lawsuits-in-six-swing-states/

So, it's an opinion, that's all.

[Rama Set]

He are reasons why the decision to move up the hearing doesn’t matter:

https://mobile.twitter.com/steve_vladeck/status/1335651191951417345?s=20

"worst-case scenario is that PA's electoral votes get tossed"

He does not address that such a ruling would set up a precedent for any other states that have made similar mail-in ballot laws. A bunch of them did try to make mass mail-in ballots easier to implement this election cycle. Better hope that the details of this are very specific to PA and that the same situation does not exist in other states.

Safe harbour is still a thing.

Dispooted.

https://thenationalpulse.com/news/electoral-election-deadline/

"The Amistad Project notes that the only 'deadline specifically required by the Constitution is noon on January 20,' when a President’s term would end.

All other deadlines, such as the 'safe harbor' deadline of December 8th, the Electoral College vote occurring on December 14th, and the congressional count on January 6th are set by federal law. Therefore, if 'federal law presents an obstacle to faithfully adhering to constitutional requirements, it is necessary to disregard the statute in favor of the plain meaning of the Constitution.'

In other words, the only deadline the Constitution requires is for the election to be decided on or by January 20th."

Yes, but there is a well respected statute on the books saying all State Level lawsuits must be resolved by Dec 8th. Laws are still a thing to be followed and safe harbour is recognized as a key to enfranchisement of the population so donkey’s like Trump can’t hold up an election with shitty lawsuits.

Enfranchisement being crucial to your democracy and the lawsuits pursued by Trump being utter garbage means that, like the authority I quoted above discusses, this is likely a political move by Alito since their hasn’t been any merit to this suit and is being dragged out by bogus procedural nonsense.

[Tom Bishop]

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts. A good portion of the leftists here aren't American, and have not taken American civics. And if some of the leftists here are American, then they didn't pay attention. It has happened in the past that the state courts would reject something, only to prevail in the US Supreme Court. That is basic US court history. This argument is like arguing that HR department is the perfect organization to properly police its company. "The HR department said it wasn't harassment so it's not!"

Here's a message from American lawyer Robert Barnes at Barnes Law:



If there is precedence of the SCOTUS overturning cases rejected by the states then the argument that the states are appropriate arbiters of justice when arbitrating it's own elections or laws is pretty bad.

[Lord Dave]

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts. You aren't American, and have not taken American civics. And if one of the leftists here is American, then they didn't pay attention. It has happened in the past that the state courts would reject something, only to prevail in the US Supreme Court. That is basic US court history. Your argument is like arguing that HR department is the perfect organization to properly police its company. "The HR department said it wasn't harassment so it's not!"

Here's a message from American lawyer Robert Barnes at Barnes Law:



If there is precedence of the SCOTUS overturning cases rejected by the states then your argument is pretty bad that the states are appropriate arbiters of justice when arbitrating it's own elections or laws.

Then why hasn't Trump jumped right to SCOTUS, as you proved he could?  He could have had Guliani presented the massive evidence November 10th.  But its now December 7th.  Whats the holdup?  He already has the evidence and had it since before the election!

[Tom Bishop]

Look at what Barnes said. The election contests only recently started. New lawsuits have been filed to contest the elections in this phase. SCOTUS will act before certification and interfere with the state process if it's an emergency or urgent measure, which it has already done, in favor of Trump's campaign.

Election contests can also be in process and decided up until inaguration. See this next post from lawyer Robert Barnes:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Barnes_Law/status/1335683649597947904?s=20

[stack]

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts. A good portion of the leftists here aren't American, and have not taken American civics. And if some of the leftists here are American, then they didn't pay attention. It has happened in the past that the state courts would reject something, only to prevail in the US Supreme Court. That is basic US court history. This argument is like arguing that HR department is the perfect organization to properly police its company. "The HR department said it wasn't harassment so it's not!"

Here's a message from American lawyer Robert Barnes at Barnes Law:



If there is precedence of the SCOTUS overturning cases rejected by the states then the argument that the states are appropriate arbiters of justice when arbitrating it's own elections or laws is pretty bad.

I think your guy Barnes may not have all of his facts straight. He says every Fed and State Supreme court ruled in favor of Gore over Bush before it got to SCOTUS. I'm not seeing that from the timeline found here:
https://legacy.npr.org/news/national/election2000/archives/timelinepop.html

Specifically here:

Thursday, November 23
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount.

Friday, December 1
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore's appeal for expedited recount
- Florida Supreme Court rules "butterfly ballot" constitutional

Tuesday, December 12
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Democrats' bid to throw out absentee ballots they charge Republicans tampered with.

So I'm not sure he is the best source to be using.

Edit:
I had forgotten what a mess 2000 FLA was. Just look at that timeline, kinda makes what's going on right now almost straight forward.

[Tom Bishop]

According to that link there weren't any favorable rulings for Bush until SCOTUS, which made him the President. Pointing out that there were some unsuccessful requests for expedited recounts or whatever by Gore is irrelevant.

Another reference of losing in the state courts and winning in the SCOTUS is here:

https://wallbuilderslive.com/movement/

"Giuliani said that they’re prepared to lose cases in several states and that doesn’t bother them, because what they want to do is get to the US Supreme Court. And that was the same thing that happened with the 2000 election with Bush-Gore, they lost in the State courts, it got to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court said no, you have to treat everyone the same. You can’t have a different standard for Republicans than you have for Democrats and etc."

[stack]

According to that link there weren't any favorable rulings for Bush until SCOTUS, which made him the President. Pointing out that there were some unsuccessful requests for expedited recounts or whatever by Gore is irrelevant.

Another reference of losing Ithe state courts and winning in the SCOTUS is here:

https://wallbuilderslive.com/movement/

"Giuliani said that they’re prepared to lose cases in several states and that doesn’t bother them, because what they want to do is get to the US Supreme Court. And that was the same thing that happened with the 2000 election with Bush-Gore, they lost in the State courts, it got to the US Supreme Court, and the US Supreme Court said no, you have to treat everyone the same. You can’t have a different standard for Republicans than you have for Democrats and etc."

I believe that is incorrect as well. This is not the same path as 2000. Gore v Bush, SCOTUS was engaged far before all of the State and Circuit court wrangling was completed.
 
Wednesday, November 22
- Bush appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Friday, November, 24
- U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Bush appeal.

Tuesday, November 28
- Gore, Bush lawyers deliver briefs to U.S. Supreme Court for December 1 hearing.

Lots of stuff was still going on in Florida courts. Your quote makes it seem like all of the State court appeals were exhausted, then it landed at SCOTUS when if fact State and SCOTUS were on two parallel paths. But it was the final recount bid on the 8th that led to the SCOTUS ruling on the 12th.

And no, the SCOTUS ruling had nothing to do with having a different standard for Republicans than you have for Democrats, it was specific that you couldn't have a different standard of vote counting for one county versus another county. Your reference made that bit up.

"Bush argued that recounts in Florida violated the Equal Protection Clause because Florida did not have a statewide vote recount standard. Each county was on its own to determine whether a given ballot was an acceptable one. Two voters could have marked their ballots in an identical manner, but the ballot in one county would be counted while the ballot in a different county would be rejected, because of the conflicting manual recount standards...
Seven justices agreed that there was an Equal Protection Clause violation in using differing standards of determining a valid vote in different counties, causing an "unequal evaluation of ballots in various respects"."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

[Tom Bishop]

You're just quoting stuff like "Bush appealed". You have not shown where Bush won in the lower courts.

Gore winning in State Court, but loses in US Supreme Court:

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2020/09/17/2043052/joe-biden-may-win-popular-votes-lose-presidency

"The decisive state was Florida, where George Bush's brother Jeb was the state governor. In Florida, where more than 6 million votes were cast, Bush edged Gore by the slimmest plurality of only 551 popular votes. In the recount, Gore was winning, and the Florida Supreme Court favored Gore. But the Supreme Court awarded the electoral votes to Bush. Thus, it was said by one Filipino in Tampa, Florida that Gore was the president of the people while Bush was the president of the Supreme Court and the electoral college."

[AATW]

Your only evidence that the cases are bad is that they are being rejected in the state courts.

Wow.

Yes, you're right. The only evidence that the cases are bad is that the judges - you know, the people whose literal job it is to judge the merit of cases, or lack thereof - are tossing them out.
And yeah, sure, higher courts can overturn judgements. But this isn't Bush vs Gore, that was a genuinely close election. This was a landslide (by Trump's own judgement). Trump is 1 for...I lost count, it's over 40 now I think in court. So...yeah. Good luck.

[stack]

You're just quoting stuff like "Bush appealed". You have not shown where Bush won in the lower courts.

Like I said, SCOTUS activity was running in parallel with State stuff. Unlike today:

Friday, November, 24
- U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear Bush appeal.

And this would be considered a win for Bush:

Thursday, November 23
- Florida Supreme Court rejects Gore appeal to force Miami-Dade to reconvene their recount.

Gore winning in State Court, but loses in US Supreme Court:

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2020/09/17/2043052/joe-biden-may-win-popular-votes-lose-presidency

"The decisive state was Florida, where George Bush's brother Jeb was the state governor. In Florida, where more than 6 million votes were cast, Bush edged Gore by the slimmest plurality of only 551 popular votes. In the recount, Gore was winning, and the Florida Supreme Court favored Gore. But the Supreme Court awarded the electoral votes to Bush. Thus, it was said by one Filipino in Tampa, Florida that Gore was the president of the people while Bush was the president of the Supreme Court and the electoral college."

Wow, where do you come up with these sources?

[Tom Bishop]

Here is an academic source on Bush v Gore. Bush lost in the state courts.

https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/the-pursuit-of-justice/pursuit-justice-chapter-23-judicial-path-white-house/

"Florida law seemed to favor Gore. It provided that a candidate could request a hand recount in any county and that, if the election were close enough, as this one was, an automatic recount would be triggered statewide. But the Republicans, led by James Baker, the former secretary of state for President George H. W. Bush, decided to contest these recount efforts. They filed suit in federal court asking for an injunction to block them. The judge refused to grant the injunction and instead directed the Republicans to plead their case before the Florida courts. They found an unreceptive audience. The Florida Supreme Court rebuffed attempts by Florida secretary of state Katherine Harris to order an end to the recounts. Nevertheless, Harris proceeded on her own authority to declare that any recounted ballot would not be accepted after a specified time. Gore’s lawyers challenged her order in the state courts, and on November 21, 2000, the Florida Supreme Court again rejected Harris’s actions and ordered that the recounts continue through the Thanksgiving weekend. Harris also ignored these findings and declared Bush the winner.

The Bush team again turned to the lower federal courts and ultimately the Supreme Court, which held an expedited review of the case. The Bush team argued that the Florida court had erred in two ways. First, it had violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by permitting the recounts. Bush claimed that because there was no standard that could be applied statewide to what constituted a legal ballot, some counties would have more liberal standards than others."

---

So the state courts did not favor Bush, but the US Supreme Court did favor Bush. The Secretary of State also favored Bush in the above passage on her own authority, but we are only talking about courts here.

This state court bias towards state laws and processes shows that an argument based solely on state rulings is fallacious.

[Rama Set]

I know enough about SCOTUS and have heard enough from legal experts to be confident that there is no legal white knight coming to save his many defective and incompetent suits. It’s astonishing that you see this legal farce as effective.

[Tumeni]

Trump has lost some 40 or so times already in the lower courts, whether by having cases thrown out, by his lawyers deserting the team, or cases failing on their lack of merit.

He's way behind on EC vote numbers. It's not even close, so even if he did win in some lower courts, he would still be behind.

[Rama Set]

Speaking of losing:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mied.350905/gov.uscourts.mied.350905.62.0_1.pdf

The Michigan Kraken failed.

[honk]

None of the legal failures matter! The only thing that matters will be the SC inevitably siding with Trump!

[Rama Set]

Here's how Trump can still win

[Tumeni]

Trump has lost some 40 or so times already in the lower courts, whether by having cases thrown out, by his lawyers deserting the team, or cases failing on their lack of merit.

He's way behind on EC vote numbers. It's not even close, so even if he did win in some lower courts, he would still be behind.

1-47 at last count, against Trump.

Meanwhile, Queen Melania has announced completion of the refurbished Tennis Pavilion at the Whitehouse ...

"Let them eat COVID" is going through her mind, says one commentator...