Completed Wisconsin recount widens Donald Trump's lead by 131 votes

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Incorrect. Please read more on legal precedent.

"If the Court divides 4-4 the lower court opinion is affirmed without creating any Supreme Court precedent," said Jeffrey Fisher, a professor of law at Stanford University. (A huge upcoming Supreme Court case could lead to an incredibly rare phenomenon)

"The death of Justice Antonin Scalia left the Supreme Court evenly divided on the issue. Thursday's tie vote means the justices were unable to announce a ruling, an outcome that leaves in place the lower court rulings against enforcing the plan." (Supreme Court Tie Dooms Obama Immigration Policy)
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Are you literally saying that unless a ruling makes it all the way through the Supreme Court with a majority decision it is not a valid ruling? Really????
Do you not know how the law works?

Show me the USC citation or SOMETHING that shows a split SCOTUS decision results in anything other than upholding the lower court decision
Just go look up with Legal precedent means. Its clear you don't know what it means. The lower court decision can be overturned at anytime. Seriously, just look up the definition.

I'm still waiting for you to refute my link. I'll just come to the conclusion that you can't or won't, thus I'll have to say you're wrong and the evidence shows it.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Do you not know how the law works?

I am not a lawyer, however I am a patent coordinator meaning I've had at least a small number of law classes.

Just go look up with Legal precedent means. Its clear you don't know what it means.

The concept of stare decisis is pretty straightforward and there specifically to maintain some degree of order. Courts can rely on precedent in future rulings. That does not mean a given lower court ruling that is still standing is no longer valid. It means that, in this case, IF SCOTUS were able to rule one way or the other it would establish a precedent. If they affirmed the lower court it would set precent that others could rely on, if they overturned the lower court it would establish a precedent.

As it stands now the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID, and no precedent is set.

But the lower court ruling IS STILL VALID.

The lower court decision can be overturned at anytime. Seriously, just look up the definition.

I understand that...but it has not yet been overturned. ANY court case that hasn't gone through SCOTUS can be overturned. And there are more court rulings out there that have NOT gone through SCOTUS than HAVE gone through SCOTUS...they are all currently valid until overturned.

I'm still waiting for you to refute my link. I'll just come to the conclusion that you can't or won't, thus I'll have to say you're wrong and the evidence shows it.

-sigh-

Do I have to refute it? It appears to be accurate. One election cycle in a state that enacted voter ID laws does not make a pattern. Perhaps it isn't going to actively suppress the black vote. Yahoo! I will wait for more data. Right now it looks like

1) the problem barely exists so it begs the question "why fix it?"
2) if fixed it establishes the idea that we need to fix all problems no matter the size

You can't have it both ways. If we "fix" the voter ID "fraud problem" (even though it amounts to only a couple cases ever found in the last 15 years) then we HAVE to investigate any possibility of hacking of votes because evidence indicated there was a possibility of that.

But again, if you were following along I pointed out repeatedly that studies fail to find significant numbers of voter identity fraud, meaning it is fixing a problem that doesn't seem to need fixing.

BUT, if we fix this problem the concept is that we are fixing it because we HAVE TO. That sets the precedent that no matter how insignificant the likelihood of any given type of fraud is, we HAVE TO FIX IT AS WELL. At the very least we have to investigate it.

Which is the point of the OP.

MY POINT all along has been: IF the GOP wants to fix a nearly non-existent problem like voter identity fraud but they don't appear to care about hacking the vote type fraud, then they obviously have an ulterior motive. That motive is best explained by the most likely outcome of strict voter ID laws, meaning disenfranchisement.

It is not "guaranteed" that it will bring about disenfranchisement in all cases, but it is the only logical explanation why the GOP would worry about ONE problem while not worrying about the OTHER.
 
Upvote 0

morningstar2651

Senior Veteran
Dec 6, 2004
14,555
2,589
39
Arizona
✟66,629.00
Faith
Pagan
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
I didn't see them fighting them so much as asking why the left thought it was so horrible that Trump might not accept the results because he thought they might be rigged but then when he won, the left decided it had to be rigged.
Trump continues to say that the system is rigged and that he doesn't care that it's rigged because he won.

He also continues to claim that there are millions of fraudulent votes, which would be a good argument for an audit of the votes.

If the green party is going to fund a recount or an audit of the votes, I see no reason to fight it. I didn't contribute any funds, but I'm not going to oppose double-checking the numbers.
 
Upvote 0

MrSpikey

Well-Known Member
Dec 1, 2015
1,431
740
53
UK
✟34,367.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
False Linkage. Requiring to identify yourself is not a restriction on a right to vote. The right to vote stands based on it's definition.
Which part of the constitution allows for a law stating you have to identify yourself?

Would you be equally keen on a statement such as requiring a licence to own a firearm is not a restriction on the right to own a firearm?
 
Upvote 0

LouisBooth

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2002
8,895
64
✟19,588.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I've had at least a small number of law classes
This should mean you know what legal precedent means and that I'm right then.

The concept of stare decisis
and ONLY applies when the SC DECLINES to hear a case. It does not apply in this case.

"For stare decisis to be effective, each jurisdiction must have one highest court to declare what the law is in a precedent-setting case. The U.S. Supreme Court and the state supreme courts serve as precedential bodies, resolving conflicting interpretations of law or dealing with issues of first impression. Whatever these courts decide becomes judicial precedent."--http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Stare+Decisis

Do I have to refute it?

Do I have to refute it? It appears to be accurate. One election cycle in a state that enacted voter ID laws does not make a pattern.
And it refutes your statement that ID laws discriminate against minorities. So yes, you need to refute it to cling to your claim. This is not a small time example, this is an actual state example.


1) the problem barely exists so it begs the question "why fix it?"
2) if fixed it establishes the idea that we need to fix all problems no matter the size
Again, false dichotomy. Sorry, you're incorrect here. Like I said, if you believe this, you shouldn't even be posting on a computer or you're admitting you're greedy and immoral. If you give to one charity, you must give to all of them and give everything away.

they don't appear to care about hacking the vote type fraud
No evidence has been found that this is confirmed. Sorry, you don't give credence to rumors.

My conclusion is that you've been refuted because you cannot address the example posted. Voter ID laws have no impact other then to cut back on voter fraud and graft.


Which part of the constitution allows for a law stating you have to identify yourself?
Does it specify you have to be a citizens to vote?

If the green party is going to fund a recount or an audit of the votes, I see no reason to fight it.
Neither do I, unless it holds up the election process. There is no reason to stop it when it is clearly shown who won.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
This should mean you know what legal precedent means and that I'm right then.

I don't know what to tell you, Louis. If you think that the only court cases that are valid are those that have ultimately made it to the Supreme Court and gotten an up-or-down vote you have clearly not read much in the area of law. I could pull down my Patent Law book here and show you about a zillion court cases that were decided at the appellate level and are still quite binding.

and ONLY applies when the SC DECLINES to hear a case. It does not apply in this case.

Stare decisis is not limited solely to SCOTUS. The concept applies to lower courts as well (cf Mead in the Nevada Law Journal HERE. The title might be a big give-away: "Stare decisis in the Inferior Courts of the United States") If you read Cornell Law's webpage you will see there's both "vertical" and "horizontal" stare decisis exist in which a given court can rely on its own prior rulings (horizontal) OR UPPER COURTS (vertical)...obviously SCOTUS can't really rely on HIGHER courts, but can presumably rely on lower court rulings. (SEE HERE)

I agree that SCOTUS is tasked as the precedential court, but that does not mean it is the only ones that utilize stare decisis

And it refutes your statement that ID laws discriminate against minorities. So yes, you need to refute it to cling to your claim.

It is clear you understand the concept of preponderance of evidence as well as you do the court system. I am more than willing to accept that there will be outliers and as I've said numerous times now I'm even willing to entertain a concept that perhaps voter ID fraud is a problem. But what you seem to be missing is that if one goes with that route you need to accept that all other voter fraud possiblities must be treated equally importantly.

Again, I wish I could simplify it more for you. But ultimately you will have to read more closely.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I didn't see them fighting them so much as asking why the left thought it was so horrible that Trump might not accept the results because he thought they might be rigged but then when he won, the left decided it had to be rigged.

Trump was prophylactically decreeing the vote to be rigged BEFORE THE VOTE WAS CAST. He was setting up a "fall-back position" allowing him to negate the election if he lost. It was a simple strategy. He had ZERO evidence of fraud.

The Democratic recount demand was based on some statisticians looking at irregularities in the voting patterns indicating a potential issue.

There is no equivalence between the two.

Count away as far as I'm concerned. And many of my friends felt the same.

Good.

Of course, when the taxpayers get the bill I'm sure everyone will be just THRILLED

You see, this is my point: the GOP cannot demand voter ID fraud be "solved" when almost no evidence for it exists or it is within the noise (only a handful of cases found since 2000) but then COMPLAIN about investigation of vote fraud that the other side asks for.

Presumably increasing voter ID WILL COST MONEY, but the GOP doesn't ever tell their base that. They just attack the poor and minorities. It WILL cost. If the GOP wants to solve voter ID fraud it will cost money. Please don't shed crocodile tears over how it will cost if we do a recount on this election. It makes conservatives look disingenuous.

we had the recount. And see, if there WERE conservatives (GOPers or otherwise) who were against them, at least they can say "hey, we didn't want the recount!"

And if the RIght says that then it makes their Voter ID fraud complaints look like they want to disenfranchise the poor and minorities.

Sorry, but that's how it works.

Something a lot of folks on the Right missed in school was LOGIC and PHILOSOPHY classes. One learns early on that IF YOU TAKE A POSITION YOU ARE WEDDED TO ALL THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT POSITION.

If people on the Right are incapable of understanding this simple point it will only be problematic for them moving forward.
 
Upvote 0

aachen_hexagon

Active Member
Dec 6, 2016
307
274
60
California
✟21,283.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Oh, Christian Forums readers: when I used the term "prophylactically" in post #95 it was NOT a "dirty word" so you don't have to report it. It is an actual word that isn't necessarily limited to birth control. So please don't report the post for "vulgarity". (Hope that helps)
 
Upvote 0

dogs4thewin

dog lover
Christian Forums Staff
Hands-on Trainee
CF Ambassadors
Supporter
Apr 19, 2012
30,291
5,593
32
Georgia U.S. State
✟887,200.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Libertarian
I am actually glad they did the recount. And I'm glad the info has come back so quickly.

I am surprised, however, how much the GOP was fighting these recounts. I thought the GOP actually cared to make sure there was no voter fraud. Why would people fight against an honest recounting? Especially the same party that wants to check out every brown-skinned voter to make sure they're on the up and up and not illegal.
I think that it was not the recount at least for me, but whether WHEN they did it. It was not requested until a couple of weeks AFTER the election after WI and several other states voted for Trump, unexpectedly.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Paidiske

Clara bonam audax
Supporter
Apr 25, 2016
34,110
19,005
43
Albury, Australia
Visit site
✟1,473,143.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Married
red-strawberry-hat-wool-beret-girls-winter-wear20667.jpg

MOD HAT ON

This thread is closed for review

MOD HAT OFF
 
Upvote 0

PreachersWife2004

by his wounds we are healed
Supporter
May 15, 2007
38,590
4,179
50
Land O' 10,000 Lakes
✟84,030.00
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
Married
Trump continues to say that the system is rigged and that he doesn't care that it's rigged because he won.

He also continues to claim that there are millions of fraudulent votes, which would be a good argument for an audit of the votes.

If the green party is going to fund a recount or an audit of the votes, I see no reason to fight it. I didn't contribute any funds, but I'm not going to oppose double-checking the numbers.

Kinda like how the only time the EC is a problem is when it doesn't help the left, I guess.
 
Upvote 0