Thursday Election Updates

[subgenius]

My, my, my. We’re really butt hurt tonight, aren’t we Trump sycophant?

GA: 2400

AZ: Biden lead shrinks to 46K.

GA: 2000

PA: 42,000

All that aside, given your vast, albeit admittedly steeped in systemic racism training, legal knowledge- what is your opinion on
the Boockvar case ?
Is there merit in the argument that the U.S. Constitution directly grants "election powers" to the legislature of Pennsylvania, thus state courts have no authority to alter state election law for federal office, including the presidency. Ergo, the U.S. Supreme Court could strike down the extension of the Pennsylvania deadline to accept ballots until Friday and order the state to reject any ballots that arrived after Election Day on Tuesday ?

BUMP for Res

[canpakes]

Because the relentless and false claims about Russians in 2016 entitles guys like you to feign contempt now...legit.

I heard that the Russkies were miffed at Don Jr. for not putting a mint on their pillows when he met them at the hotel. Not that he really met them (it was actually his body double), or that they were Russians (they were actually ‘crisis diplomats’).

[Chap]

Better than a meme ....

Martin Rowson in the Guardian.

[Dr Exiled]

Well, the bogeyman pissed off a bunch of Republicans with regard to to his attempts to undermine our faith in voting:

https://www.axios.com/trump-republicans ... 52b85.html

Not that I’d expect any —-o O o——s to actually click on the link and read the quotes. There’s scrolling involved, after all.

- Doc

Always ready to help those in need ....

"This is getting insane": Republicans rebuke Trump over baseless election claims

A growing list of Republicans have reproached President Trump for his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Why it matters: In televised remarks on Thursday evening. the president provided no evidence for his claim that widespread voter fraud has caused his initial lead in the presidential race to slip away. He also pledged to continue fighting to have ballots thrown out in the courts.

What they're saying:

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: "We heard nothing today about any evidence. This kind of thing, all it does is inflame without informing. And we cannot permit inflammation without information."

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): "Counting every vote is at the heart of Democracy. That process is often hard and, for those running, frustrating. The votes will be counted. If there are irregularities alleged, they will be investigated and ultimately resolved in the courts. Have faith in democracy, in our Constitution, and in the American people."

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.): "I saw the president's speech last night and it was very hard to watch. The president's allegations of large-scale fraud and theft of the election are just not substantiated. I'm not aware of any significant wrongdoing here."

Former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.): "No Republican should be okay with the President's statements just now. Unacceptable. Period."

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R): "There is no defense for the President’s comments tonight undermining our Democratic process. America is counting the votes, and we must respect the results as we always have before. No election or person is more important than our Democracy."

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas): "A sitting president undermining our political process & questioning the legality of the voices of countless Americans without evidence is not only dangerous & wrong, it undermines the very foundation this nation was built upon. Every American should have his or her vote counted."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.): "We want every vote counted, yes every legal vote (of course). But, if you have legit concerns about fraud present EVIDENCE and take it to court. STOP Spreading debunked misinformation... This is getting insane."

Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.): "Like [Rep. Kinzinger], I took an oath to defend this country and fight for the democratic ideals it stands for. Count every vote, yes, but stop the Bravo Sierra, Mr. President, and respect the democratic process that makes America great."

Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.): "Every legal vote should and will be counted — as they always are. Where there are issues there are ways to address them. If anyone has proof of wrongdoing, it should be presented and resolved. Anything less harms the integrity of our elections and is dangerous for our democracy."

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R): "With his remarks from the White House tonight, the President disrespected every single American who figured out a way to safely vote amid a pandemic that has taken 235,000 lives. Not to mention those who are dutifully counting that vote. Absolutely shameful. Yet so predictable."

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer: "I haven't seen any evidence of it. And again, I don't think it helps his case ... If he sees an instance in Pennsylvania or Nevada and this particular thing happened, then call it out. ... But saying voter fraud ... You can't just throw a term out that without being specific."

19 former U.S. attorneys, all of whom served under Republican presidents, said in a statement: “We hereby call upon the president to patiently and respectfully allow the lawful vote-counting process to continue, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, and to avoid any further comments or other actions which can serve only to undermine our democracy."

Of note: Many Republicans who have condemned Trump's recent comments have been critics of the president in the past.

The big picture: Vice President Mike Pence, who did not appear with Trump at Thursday's televised briefing, tweeted, "I Stand With President [Trump]. We must count every LEGAL vote."

We can always count on Trump to get ahead of himself. I pity the lawyers that have to manage that grizzly bear. Anyway, assuming Biden wins, I think he would be served to let Trump and his supporters do their investigation of Trump's claims. There are some issues and there is a little smoke:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/correia-fkery-afoot

Maybe it is nothing, but prematurely shutting down an investigation will just exacerbate the divide and might cause unnecessary violence with the unstable militia and antifa crowds.

[Jersey Girl]

Well, the bogeyman pissed off a bunch of Republicans with regard to to his attempts to undermine our faith in voting:

https://www.axios.com/trump-republicans ... 52b85.html

Not that I’d expect any —-o O o——s to actually click on the link and read the quotes. There’s scrolling involved, after all.

- Doc

Always ready to help those in need ....

"This is getting insane": Republicans rebuke Trump over baseless election claims

A growing list of Republicans have reproached President Trump for his baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

Why it matters: In televised remarks on Thursday evening. the president provided no evidence for his claim that widespread voter fraud has caused his initial lead in the presidential race to slip away. He also pledged to continue fighting to have ballots thrown out in the courts.

What they're saying:

Former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie: "We heard nothing today about any evidence. This kind of thing, all it does is inflame without informing. And we cannot permit inflammation without information."

Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah): "Counting every vote is at the heart of Democracy. That process is often hard and, for those running, frustrating. The votes will be counted. If there are irregularities alleged, they will be investigated and ultimately resolved in the courts. Have faith in democracy, in our Constitution, and in the American people."

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.): "I saw the president's speech last night and it was very hard to watch. The president's allegations of large-scale fraud and theft of the election are just not substantiated. I'm not aware of any significant wrongdoing here."

Former Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.): "No Republican should be okay with the President's statements just now. Unacceptable. Period."

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan (R): "There is no defense for the President’s comments tonight undermining our Democratic process. America is counting the votes, and we must respect the results as we always have before. No election or person is more important than our Democracy."

Rep. Will Hurd (R-Texas): "A sitting president undermining our political process & questioning the legality of the voices of countless Americans without evidence is not only dangerous & wrong, it undermines the very foundation this nation was built upon. Every American should have his or her vote counted."

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.): "We want every vote counted, yes every legal vote (of course). But, if you have legit concerns about fraud present EVIDENCE and take it to court. STOP Spreading debunked misinformation... This is getting insane."

Rep. Denver Riggleman (R-Va.): "Like [Rep. Kinzinger], I took an oath to defend this country and fight for the democratic ideals it stands for. Count every vote, yes, but stop the Bravo Sierra, Mr. President, and respect the democratic process that makes America great."

Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-Mich.): "Every legal vote should and will be counted — as they always are. Where there are issues there are ways to address them. If anyone has proof of wrongdoing, it should be presented and resolved. Anything less harms the integrity of our elections and is dangerous for our democracy."

Former Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Ridge (R): "With his remarks from the White House tonight, the President disrespected every single American who figured out a way to safely vote amid a pandemic that has taken 235,000 lives. Not to mention those who are dutifully counting that vote. Absolutely shameful. Yet so predictable."

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer: "I haven't seen any evidence of it. And again, I don't think it helps his case ... If he sees an instance in Pennsylvania or Nevada and this particular thing happened, then call it out. ... But saying voter fraud ... You can't just throw a term out that without being specific."

19 former U.S. attorneys, all of whom served under Republican presidents, said in a statement: “We hereby call upon the president to patiently and respectfully allow the lawful vote-counting process to continue, in accordance with applicable federal and state laws, and to avoid any further comments or other actions which can serve only to undermine our democracy."

Of note: Many Republicans who have condemned Trump's recent comments have been critics of the president in the past.

The big picture: Vice President Mike Pence, who did not appear with Trump at Thursday's televised briefing, tweeted, "I Stand With President [Trump]. We must count every LEGAL vote."

I was going to post about this (since I read some of the comments last night) but you did it better than I ever could and the quotes in opposition have seemingly expanded by now.

I am more than heartened to see Republicans speaking out against DJT's remarks. I don't know if they really mean it or are using this occasion to finally stick it to the one who has embarrassed them for the past 4 years while they sucked it up. Possibly both.

Notice that Pence was nowhere to be found during last night's remarks in the White House briefing room. Is he furiously paddling away from the Titanic in a life raft?

Stay tuned. This may be the one and only chance we ever get to see a narc meltdown in real time which I am keenly interested in seeing. He'll run out of options as his lawsuits get kicked back one by one, and with no support from the GOP except for the few boot lickers he has left...who knows what will happen.

Pretty sure SDNY has some ideas about that.

You couldn't have made this crap up if you wanted to, folks. Narcs don't deal well with narcissistic injury. Write that down.

[Res Ipsa]

All that aside, given your vast, albeit admittedly steeped in systemic racism training, legal knowledge- what is your opinion on
the Boockvar case ?
Is there merit in the argument that the U.S. Constitution directly grants "election powers" to the legislature of Pennsylvania, thus state courts have no authority to alter state election law for federal office, including the presidency. Ergo, the U.S. Supreme Court could strike down the extension of the Pennsylvania deadline to accept ballots until Friday and order the state to reject any ballots that arrived after Election Day on Tuesday ?

Given your well poisoning and your well-established history as a disingenuous troll, my first reaction is to suggest you decouple your lips from the President's posterior and read up on both issues and try to understand how the Supreme Court Justices decide cases, especially in the context of what it means to believe in federalism.

My second reaction is to tell you what I think, with the caveat that I've never held myself out as a constitutional scholar. By the Bookckvar case, I'm assuming you mean this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/ ... ourt%27%22 The decision is based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of both Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional law. It is quite rare that the U.S. Supreme Court would tell a State Supreme Court that it had interpreted state and constitutional law incorrectly. It would be shocking for Justices of the Federalist Society school to do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has well recognized canons for when it how to determine whether a state's law or court decision violates the U.S. Constitution. First, they duck constitutional issues whenever possible. So, if the disputed ballots wouldn't change the result, they will decline review because the case is moot. Beyond that, it is quite easy to duck the constitutional question. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not change the statute or find it unconstitutional. Rather, it relied on established case and statutory law to take action to preserve the people's right to vote in the event of a natural disaster. All that five Justices have to do is declare that what the court did under the facts of this case is based on the state constitution, which is specifically protective of the right to vote, and does not violate the delegation of the method to select electors in the U.S. Constitution. The court is extremely unlikely to hold that election law is immune from judicial review based on the fact that the constitutional language is silent on that issue. It can't, without undoing its own authority to review statutes for constitutionality under Marbury v. Madison. And it would be difficult to sustains, say, an equal protection argument when what the court did was impose a uniform deadline for all mail-in ballots: regular, absentee, military, and overseas. Who, in that case, isn't getting equal treatment? In fact, it would be interesting to challenge statutes that have different deadlines for different categories of mail in ballots.

Zooming out to look at the big picture: what Trump will be asking the Supreme Court to do is change the result of a presidential election by invalidating the votes of Americans who cast their votes on election day. Given philosophy of the newest Justices on the Court, that is very difficult to imagine. If the right to govern flows from the consent of the people, it is very difficult for a conservative Justice to justify taking away votes that were cast legally on the basis that the Post Office was slow. Nobody wants their name on an opinion that would likely be viewed on par with the Dred Scott decision.

So, what I think is that the Supreme Court, quite appropriately, will decline jurisdiction. If it takes jurisdiction, it will be to affirm the State Supreme Court, emphasizing the very limited role the federal judiciary has with respect to election law.

In my opinion, there is no merit to the argument that state election laws are not subject to judicial review and to the state constitution. Pennsylvania has a state constitution that expressly protects the voting rights of its citizens. States are permitted to provide greater constitutional protections to their citizens than are provided in the U.S. Constitution.

[Res Ipsa]

BUMP for Res


Unlike regurgitating sound bites from Faux News, analyzing constitutional issues takes time, both in reading the pertinent decisions and in giving serious thought to both the immediate effect of a decision and the long-term ramifications on our system of government. And, in terms of demands on my time, catering to the whims of an insincere troll, is not a priority.

[Moksha]

Because the relentless and false claims about Russians in 2016 entitles guys like you to feign contempt now...legit.

Still trying to whitewash history? Could you do something for Nixon and Vlad the Impaler too?

[subgenius]

...(snip)...And, in terms of demands on my time, catering to the whims of an insincere troll, is not a priority.

also Res

Given your well poisoning and your well-established history as a disingenuous troll, my first reaction is to suggest you decouple your lips from the President's posterior and read up on both issues and try to understand how the Supreme Court Justices decide cases, especially in the context of what it means to believe in federalism.

My second reaction is to tell you what I think, with the caveat that I've never held myself out as a constitutional scholar. By the Bookckvar case, I'm assuming you mean this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/ ... ourt%27%22 The decision is based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of both Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional law. It is quite rare that the U.S. Supreme Court would tell a State Supreme Court that it had interpreted state and constitutional law incorrectly. It would be shocking for Justices of the Federalist Society school to do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has well recognized canons for when it how to determine whether a state's law or court decision violates the U.S. Constitution. First, they duck constitutional issues whenever possible. So, if the disputed ballots wouldn't change the result, they will decline review because the case is moot. Beyond that, it is quite easy to duck the constitutional question. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not change the statute or find it unconstitutional. Rather, it relied on established case and statutory law to take action to preserve the people's right to vote in the event of a natural disaster. All that five Justices have to do is declare that what the court did under the facts of this case is based on the state constitution, which is specifically protective of the right to vote, and does not violate the delegation of the method to select electors in the U.S. Constitution. The court is extremely unlikely to hold that election law is immune from judicial review based on the fact that the constitutional language is silent on that issue. It can't, without undoing its own authority to review statutes for constitutionality under Marbury v. Madison. And it would be difficult to sustains, say, an equal protection argument when what the court did was impose a uniform deadline for all mail-in ballots: regular, absentee, military, and overseas. Who, in that case, isn't getting equal treatment? In fact, it would be interesting to challenge statutes that have different deadlines for different categories of mail in ballots.

Zooming out to look at the big picture: what Trump will be asking the Supreme Court to do is change the result of a presidential election by invalidating the votes of Americans who cast their votes on election day. Given philosophy of the newest Justices on the Court, that is very difficult to imagine. If the right to govern flows from the consent of the people, it is very difficult for a conservative Justice to justify taking away votes that were cast legally on the basis that the Post Office was slow. Nobody wants their name on an opinion that would likely be viewed on par with the Dred Scott decision.

So, what I think is that the Supreme Court, quite appropriately, will decline jurisdiction. If it takes jurisdiction, it will be to affirm the State Supreme Court, emphasizing the very limited role the federal judiciary has with respect to election law.

In my opinion, there is no merit to the argument that state election laws are not subject to judicial review and to the state constitution. Pennsylvania has a state constitution that expressly protects the voting rights of its citizens. States are permitted to provide greater constitutional protections to their citizens than are provided in the U.S. Constitution.

Glad I got the answer that wasn't a demand on your time - whew!

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Don’t worry, RI. It’s not like he read it, anyway. ——o O o—— gon’ ——o O o——.

- Doc