SHOCKING action by the SCOTUS!!!

[hopefultiger13]

The latest batch of Trump challenges asking for a fast track... DENIED!!! This is a 6-3 conservative majority court (including 3 Trump appointees) ruling on what the Dear Leader calls the most important decision ever. It kind of shows what their opinion of this whole fraudulent election thing doesn't it?

 

[yoshi121374]

The latest batch of Trump challenges asking for a fast track... DENIED!!! This is a 6-3 conservative majority court (including 3 Trump appointees) ruling on what the Dear Leader calls the most important decision ever. It kind of shows what their opinion of this whole fraudulent election thing doesn't it?

What is the score now? 1-62?

 

[scotchtiger]

What is the score now? 1-62?

And we thought our record in the Dean Dome was bad.

 

[jroller]

And we thought our record in the Dean Dome was bad.

It is...

 

[CU Alumnus]

The latest batch of Trump challenges asking for a fast track... DENIED!!! This is a 6-3 conservative majority court (including 3 Trump appointees) ruling on what the Dear Leader calls the most important decision ever. It kind of shows what their opinion of this whole fraudulent election thing doesn't it?

Which three dissented?

 

[other1]

Which three dissented?

Supreme Court rejects fast track for Trump election cases

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday formally refused to put on a fast track election challenges filed by President Donald Trump and his allies.

apnews.com

 

[Trading Tiger]

The latest batch of Trump challenges asking for a fast track... DENIED!!! This is a 6-3 conservative majority court (including 3 Trump appointees) ruling on what the Dear Leader calls the most important decision ever. It kind of shows what their opinion of this whole fraudulent election thing doesn't it?

How so?

 

[other1]

How so?

If there was any sense of urgency they would be acting

 

[hopefultiger13]

Which three dissented?

There's not voting record on this that I saw (but I didn't look very hard either). I meant that 6 of the justices are defined as conservative and 3 liberal.

 

[hopefultiger13]

How so?

Well, IF they believed that there was election fraud, they could have... you know... actually looked at the case and made a ruling. By not even hearing the case, they read the briefs and decided that there wasn't enough there to merit them looking at it until LONG after the election is over and a new President is in office.

 

[Trading Tiger]

Well, IF they believed that there was election fraud, they could have... you know... actually looked at the case and made a ruling. By not even hearing the case, they read the briefs and decided that there wasn't enough there to merit them looking at it until LONG after the election is over and a new President is in office.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Uh, no. The SCOTUS picks what's on their docket. They chose NOT to look at this more than once.

 

[Trading Tiger]

Uh, no. The SCOTUS picks what's on their docket. They chose NOT to look at this more than once.

Absolutely correct, but not for the reasons that you previously stated.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Absolutely correct, but not for the reasons that you previously stated.

So what are they thinking? please tell us how Trump won the election. But the SCOTUS is not doing anything about it.

 

[Trading Tiger]

So what are they thinking? please tell us how Trump won the election. But the SCOTUS is not doing anything about it.

How many elections has the SCOTUS gotten involved in? Before this one obviously.

 

[hopefultiger13]

How many elections has the SCOTUS gotten involved in? Before this one obviously.

I'm not looking it up, but at least one. The 2000 election where they ordered the recount in Florida stopped and essentially ensuring Bush was made President. So yeah, they have essentially "called the shots" before. They decided NOT to this time. What are you trying to say?

 

[Trading Tiger]

I'm not looking it up, but at least one. The 2000 election where they ordered the recount in Florida stopped and essentially ensuring Bush was made President. So yeah, they have essentially "called the shots" before. They decided NOT to this time. What are you trying to say?

That's it, that's the only one. And they didn't really get truly involved in that one either. They asked a simple question, "can you complete a recount by the deadline"? The answer was no, so they said "no recount then".

Sources may say that there was another election back in the mid to late 1800's that the SCOTUS decided, but that's not really true. A special commission decided that election, and there were some justices on that commission.

What I'm trying to say is that the left leaning people and media who think that the courts are rejecting to hear this case of voter fraud because there is "no evidence" are morons. There is plenty of evidence. The courts are rejecting the case because it sets a dangerous precedent, and it's not part of their main function anyway.

 

[hopefultiger13]

That's it, that's the only one. And they didn't really get truly involved in that one either. They asked a simple question, "can you complete a recount by the deadline"? The answer was no, so they said "no recount then".

Sources may say that there was another election back in the mid to late 1800's that the SCOTUS decided, but that's not really true. A special commission decided that election, and there were some justices on that commission.

What I'm trying to say is that the left leaning people and media who think that the courts are rejecting to hear this case of voter fraud because there is "no evidence" are morons. There is plenty of evidence. The courts are rejecting the case because it sets a dangerous precedent, and it's not part of their main function anyway.

Bullshit. The courts have REPEATEDLY said that Trump's lawsuits have NO MERIT. Here's one brought in Pennsylvania by Rudy himself. Even Rudy doesn't say that there's fraud. Because he had no evidence. But heres a Trump appointee commenting on the absurdity:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

I'm not looking anything else up. You are never going to accept the results.

 

[Trading Tiger]

Bullshit. The courts have REPEATEDLY said that Trump's lawsuits have NO MERIT. Here's one brought in Pennsylvania by Rudy himself. Even Rudy doesn't say that there's fraud. Because he had no evidence. But heres a Trump appointee commenting on the absurdity:

https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/203371np.pdf

I'm not looking anything else up. You are never going to accept the results.

Ironic coming from someone still arguing about the results of the 2016 election.

 

[hopefultiger13]

Ironic coming from someone still arguing about the results of the 2016 election.

And again, I say bullshit. I'm not arguing about the results of the 2016 election. Trump won. Period. Show me a post where I said Trump's win wasn't legit. I refer to him as President all the time and OUR President in quite a few posts. I'll hang up and wait for you to find that for us...

By the way, nice pivot on the argument. Attack the poster is straight out of the Trump playbook. Well done sir!

 

[Trading Tiger]

And again, I say bullshit. I'm not arguing about the results of the 2016 election. Trump won. Period. Show me a post where I said Trump's win wasn't legit. I refer to him as President all the time and OUR President in quite a few posts. I'll hang up and wait for you to find that for us...

By the way, nice pivot on the argument. Attack the poster is straight out of the Trump playbook. Well done sir!

I'm not looking anything else up. You are never going to accept the results.

 

[gardentiger]

There is a backlash to all this. Pelosi's bill which federal-izes voting laws would be deemed ruled unconstitutional based on the current behavior of SCOTUS, right?? Meaning states have sovereignty on how they cast votes??? Asking for a libertarian friend.

 

[FLaw47]

There is a backlash to all this. Pelosi's bill which federal-izes voting laws would be deemed ruled unconstitutional based on the current behavior of SCOTUS, right?? Meaning states have sovereignty on how they cast votes??? Asking for a libertarian friend.

There's obviously limits to State's rights on voting laws because the Voting Rights Act exists. I'm sure it's an actual question as to how much the federal government can push onto the states but there is clearly some federal power.

 

[jakefest]

There's obviously limits to State's rights on voting laws because the Voting Rights Act exists. I'm sure it's an actual question as to how much the federal government can push onto the states but there is clearly some federal power.

How does funding work to run the voting process then? Is that state lead funding or federal? I think someone answered that for me a while back, I just can't find the post.

 

[FLaw47]

How does funding work to run the voting process then? Is that state lead funding or federal? I think someone answered that for me a while back, I just can't find the post.

It looks like funding is comes from all levels of government but mostly state and local. I have no idea if that source is any good.

I (predictably) think federal oversight is good, though. If it were fully left up to the states, Tennessee would still be cramming all of the black people into one huge district and splitting up the whites into much smaller (population wise) districts to concentrate power (malapportionment).

I think the states have proven time and time again that their power should not be absolute (and it isn't, I'm just stating my frustration with some "State's Rights" people).

 

[jakefest]

It looks like funding is comes from all levels of government but mostly state and local. I have no idea if that source is any good.

I (predictably) think federal oversight is good, though. If it were fully left up to the states, Tennessee would still be cramming all of the black people into one huge district and splitting up the whites into much smaller (population wise) districts to concentrate power (malapportionment).

I think the states have proven time and time again that their power should not be absolute (and it isn't, I'm just stating my frustration with some "State's Rights" people).

Fair points, thanks for answering.

The challenge regarding decision/direction ownership will always come down to money and funding. If a State mandates a change, then states ought to fund that directly. If they have their hands out to the fed but don't abide by fed direction, this is where it starts to get dicey. This works in both ways for states and against them in my opinion.

Agree on absolute power, The Fed is there for checks and balances.

 

[iceheart08]

Fair points, thanks for answering.

The challenge regarding decision/direction ownership will always come down to money and funding. If a State mandates a change, then states ought to fund that directly. If they have their hands out to the fed but don't abide by fed direction, this is where it starts to get dicey. This works in both ways for states and against them in my opinion.

Agree on absolute power, The Fed is there for checks and balances.

Most elections are funded primarily by the states, with a significant chunk of cash (roughly 20%) coming from federal agencies through grants etc.

 

[scotchtiger]

If Republicans were smart, they would coordinate election processes at the state level through collaboration with other Republican led states (which is the majority right now). Draft general principles that would ensure access, security, integrity and efficiency. Including:

• Access to voting via election day PTO, absentee ballots and a limited early voting period (ex Th/Fr/Sa before election day).
• Voter ID requirement, including access to free ID cards.
• Elimination of mailed ballots without request from registered voter to their registered address.
• Elimination of ballot harvesting. Absentee ballots can be dropped off at secure location or mailed. Protect the chain of custody.
• Combine purchasing power to ensure access to secure, reliable voting machines like the one I used (electronic screen entry, printed ballot, scanned ballot). This provides immediate electronic access to vote tallies with an auditable paper trail.

Then on election day, Republican states have no controversy, rapid and efficient vote tallies and no opportunity to cast doubt on the counting process. Lead by example and produce clean results.

 

[nytigerfan]

If Republicans were smart, they would coordinate election processes at the state level through collaboration with other Republican led states (which is the majority right now). Draft general principles that would ensure access, security, integrity and efficiency. Including:

• Access to voting via election day PTO, absentee ballots and a limited early voting period (ex Th/Fr/Sa before election day).
• Voter ID requirement, including access to free ID cards.
• Elimination of mailed ballots without request from registered voter to their registered address.
• Elimination of ballot harvesting. Absentee ballots can be dropped off at secure location or mailed. Protect the chain of custody.
• Combine purchasing power to ensure access to secure, reliable voting machines like the one I used (electronic screen entry, printed ballot, scanned ballot). This provides immediate electronic access to vote tallies with an auditable paper trail.

Then on election day, Republican states have no controversy, rapid and efficient vote tallies and no opportunity to cast doubt on the counting process. Lead by example and produce clean results.

Based on what I have read about Georgia's election process, they are following to the letter what you described above. The only exception I think is they have an early voting period that lasts for weeks and there is no current election day PTO mandate. But those results are still being called fraud by republicans.

 

[iceheart08]

If Republicans were smart, they would coordinate election processes at the state level through collaboration with other Republican led states (which is the majority right now). Draft general principles that would ensure access, security, integrity and efficiency. Including:

• Access to voting via election day PTO, absentee ballots and a limited early voting period (ex Th/Fr/Sa before election day).
• Voter ID requirement, including access to free ID cards.
• Elimination of mailed ballots without request from registered voter to their registered address.
• Elimination of ballot harvesting. Absentee ballots can be dropped off at secure location or mailed. Protect the chain of custody.
• Combine purchasing power to ensure access to secure, reliable voting machines like the one I used (electronic screen entry, printed ballot, scanned ballot). This provides immediate electronic access to vote tallies with an auditable paper trail.

Then on election day, Republican states have no controversy, rapid and efficient vote tallies and no opportunity to cast doubt on the counting process. Lead by example and produce clean results.

Orrrrr, and this is significantly more likely, they will continue to take an ad hoc approach to figuring out how to disenfranchise as many Dems and people of color as possible.

Want the real answer. Do what we do in Colorado. Across the whole country. Problem solved.

 

[iceheart08]

If Republicans were smart, they would coordinate election processes at the state level through collaboration with other Republican led states (which is the majority right now). Draft general principles that would ensure access, security, integrity and efficiency. Including:

• Access to voting via election day PTO, absentee ballots and a limited early voting period (ex Th/Fr/Sa before election day).
• Voter ID requirement, including access to free ID cards.
• Elimination of mailed ballots without request from registered voter to their registered address.
• Elimination of ballot harvesting. Absentee ballots can be dropped off at secure location or mailed. Protect the chain of custody.
• Combine purchasing power to ensure access to secure, reliable voting machines like the one I used (electronic screen entry, printed ballot, scanned ballot). This provides immediate electronic access to vote tallies with an auditable paper trail.

Then on election day, Republican states have no controversy, rapid and efficient vote tallies and no opportunity to cast doubt on the counting process. Lead by example and produce clean results.

How about this option? A federal law requiring states to institute a non-partisan redistricting commission along with public funding of elections.

All problems solved.