Federal Court denies Donald's attempt to overturn PA certification

[GreatLakes4Ever]

Buddy... the state senate writes the law... that is why they are "legislators". They most certainly can change it as well.

They did write the law but to change it after the election happened is a bad look and one that would never stand up in court.

That is not true. The governor has no say in this matter. Look it up.

The county boards certify their results to the Secretary of State who goes over the tallies and certifies the election. Then the Governor is notified and they sign off on the electors for the winning candidate. The state legislature has removed themselves from the process. They can’t get back in after the election because their guy lost.

I am personally only concerned with assuring not a single illegal vote is accepted. And that is my only concern.

Just because someone voted against Donald Trump doesn’t make it an illegal vote.

 

[Pommer]

Then why quote me?

View attachment 289631

But whatever.... it is true I haven't been on the TOE forums in years tho.... However, I know the differences between speciation, genetic drift and mutation.

I was unaware of your views on TOE.
If I surmise correctly, you subscribe to the Six-Day-Creation on our “6000” (or so) year old planet?

This would explain much.

 

[LostMarbels]

I was unaware of your views on TOE.
If I surmise correctly, you subscribe to the Six-Day-Creation on our “6000” (or so) year old planet?

This would explain much.

Not so sure concerning YECist theory. Long ago I realized all it boils down to is God created us and I might not know/understand everything.

 

[Pommer]

No so sure concerning YECist theory. Long ago I realized all it boils down to is God created us and I might not know/understand everything.

I suffer/am blessed with “My reasoning is impeccable, therefore whatever opinion I hold will be ‘the correct’ opinion.”

I have to actively take steps to challenge myself constantly otherwise the “sound of my own wheels” gets in the way of things.

 

[LostMarbels]

I suffer/am blessed with “My reasoning is impeccable, therefore whatever opinion I hold will be ‘the correct’ opinion.”

That's human. I am actually quite a skeptic. I need things proven to me. But once it has been proven I am like a steel trap.

I have to actively take steps to challenge myself constantly otherwise the “sound of my own wheels” gets in the way of things.

We are all like that. I even watch the cult of Dusty to challenge myself from time to time.

 

[Pommer]

That's human. I am actually quite a skeptic. I need things proven to me. But once it has been proven I am like a steel trap.

We all have a need to be passionate about our own opinions, and I admire your tenacity but sometimes I see that strength that you display get in the way of understanding that you need to concede a bit more.

You defend every point and are not wont to give even an inch.

I’m sure it’s frustrating for you (too), at times.

We are all like that. I even watch the cult of Dusty to challenge myself from time to time.

You give our fellow humans too much credit, most people run “on automatic”, that’s why these times are so extra stressful, “normality” won’t be restored anytime soon and “automatic” don’t work so good.

Have a good night.

 

[Sparagmos]

The plan would work in theory; his flaw was in the execution. Unfortunately for Donald, he was only able to pull off part one without a hitch -- turns out he can't control the Postal Service and Judiciary as easily as he can his followers.

Don’t forget to give credit to the many people working their butts off getting the vote out early in anticipation of all this. And the electorate, for seeing Trump’s attempt and saying “not today”! And getting those ballots in the mail early.

 

[Sparagmos]

True, but if the supreme court is what determines who ultimately wins that war, does it matter how many battles were lost to get there? For trump that is.

Like loosing all your pawns (and perhaps a queen) to maneuver the opponent's king into a checkmate?

Do you think that you can just appeal any case until it gets to the Supreme Court and they have to hear it? The Supreme Court doesn’t take cases dismissed for lack of evidence.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but if Trump's plan was to take it to the supreme court, isn't this the outcome that he wanted?

You're not wrong -- but Donald's wrong if he thinks the that even this SCOTUS is going to award him the presidency based solely on their ideology.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, "I'll admit that my knowledge of the legal system is sketchy (although compared to Team Donald, I might be the next Clarence Darrow), but my understanding is that appellate courts are not places where new evidence is to be admitted, but rather where the lawyers can argue that the lower courts made an error in the law.

As Team Donald presented nothing of substance to the lower courts (as evidenced plainly and mercilessly in the Pennsylvania ruling), they're not going to have anything they can present to the appellate courts, either. They'll. Just. Keep. Failing."

And if it does go to SCOTUS, I made my prediction:
"Odds are, Donald will lose anyway -- the only question will be whether by 7-2 or 6-3.

• Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor will be hard "no" votes -- I assume that goes without saying.
• Alito and Thomas will side with Donald because, well... they're Alito and Thomas.
• Roberts is concerned about the court -- his court -- being politicized. I'll wager he'll vote "no" to save SCOTUS' reputation, if for no other reason.

So, going by the old guard, it's already 4-2 against Donald. Let's look at his own additions.

Even if we assume that Donald chose these justices because they're loyal and/or malleable, it should be noted that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh have sided against Donald in the past -- so in this case, I'm putting down Gorsuch as a hard "no," and Kavanaugh as a probable "no."

That leaves the new girl on the bench -- Barrett. The fact that she is new makes her something of a wild card. On the one hand, as noted above, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh aren't the slobbering sycophants Donald prefers, so he's not going to want to make the same mistake three times...

... then again, he does have a talent for picking the wrong people -- Barrett might not want to start her SCOTUS career with this. So who can say? Fortunately, if I'm right, it won't matter anyway.

But I'll hedge my bet and say she's a probable "yes" to ushering in the reign of Donald I.

6-3 against it is."

 

[lasthero]

That's human. I am actually quite a skeptic. I need things proven to me. But once it has been proven I am like a steel trap.



We are all like that. I even watch the cult of Dusty to challenge myself from time to time.

Pfft, Dusty is still making those lame videos? Almost completely forgot about him.

 

[QvQ]

Do you think that you can just appeal any case until it gets to the Supreme Court and they have to hear it? The Supreme Court doesn’t take cases dismissed for lack of evidence.

Gore/Bush lost in every Court but the Supreme Court. If the Court decides there is a Constitutional issue even without evidence required in civil or criminal cases.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Gore/Bush lost in every Court but the Supreme Court. If the Court decides there is a Constitutional issue even without evidence required in civil or criminal cases.

Is there a Constitutional issue for Team Donald? Or is it more of a competence issue?

 

[TLK Valentine]

True to form, Team Donald is blaming their latest failure on a conspiracy: 'Voters, Not Lawyers, Choose The President': Trump Team Dealt Another Blow In Court

The Trump legal team has already signaled its intention to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court. "The activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania continues to cover up the allegations of massive fraud," said Trump's attorneys Jenna Ellis and Rudy Giuliani on Twitter. "On to SCOTUS!"

Never mind that the judge that wrote the decision was one of Donald's own appointees...

 

[QvQ]

Is there a Constitutional issue for Team Donald? Or is it more of a competence issue?

I read local news papers. I see a case in Texas where there was a ballot harvesting scheme. The officials said "We have fraud on a local level, but we don't see any national voter fraud issues." However, over in the next county, same story..ballot harvesting..another pile of fraudulent votes.
That statement "fraud on local level" is a joke .
If 20% of local elections has 100 fraudulent votes, on a national level, how many votes is that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I read local news papers. I see a case in Texas where there was a ballot harvesting scheme. The officials said "We have fraud on a local level, but we don't see any national voter fraud issues." However, over in the next county, same story..ballot harvesting..another pile of fraudulent votes.
That statement "fraud on local level" is a joke .
If 20% of the local elections have 100 fraudulent votes, on a national level, how many votes is that?

The only problem is that those appear to be mere claims by clowns. If there was evidence to support them they would have published it. Local papers can range from whacko right to radical left. It is no problem to cherry pick the whacko right ones. Without any evidence the whacko right ones are no more reliable than the radical left ones. Ignore what papers claim, pay attention only to what they can support with evidence.

 

[QvQ]

The only problem is that those appear to be mere claims by clowns. If there was evidence to support them they would have published it. Local papers can range from whacko right to radical left. It is no problem to cherry pick the whacko right ones. Without any evidence the whacko right ones are no more reliable than the radical left ones. Ignore what papers claim, pay attention only to what they can support with evidence.

I think when Texas Authorities are arresting people and charging them in Court for voter fraud/ballot harvesting and that little case of only a few hundred or thousand votes, that is reported in the local news paper, it is probably credible
That won't make national news but if you start adding all those local news items together, then it becomes National. And the Democrats said voter fraud couldn't be done, (except by the Russians.)

 

[GreatLakes4Ever]

I think when Texas Authorities are arresting people and charging them in Court for voter fraud/ballot harvesting and that little case of only a few hundred or thousand votes, that is reported in the local news paper, it is probably credible
That won't make national news but if you start adding all those local news items together, then it becomes National. And the Democrats said voter fraud couldn't be done, (except by the Russians.)

If they have been charged in court that information will be online on the Texas court system’s website. You should have no problem providing links for this if what you say is true.

 

[QvQ]

I think that was the instance where the fraudsters were requesting absentee ballots for voters who registered at age 18, voted once, didn't vote thereafter and were still on the rolls. You are welcome to do your own search of voter fraud cases online.
Now, on November 19, 2020 Economist/yougov survey found that 75% of voters, R, D, I, said there was widespread voter fraud. That is after weeks of denial by the national media "Trump lies, Fake Voter Fraud." The fact is most voters know about fraud locally. And people are not mathematically challenged nor are they willing to believe that their little local is any different than your little local.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think when Texas Authorities are arresting people and charging them in Court for voter fraud/ballot harvesting and that little case of only a few hundred or thousand votes, that is reported in the local news paper, it is probably credible
That won't make national news but if you start adding all those local news items together, then it becomes National. And the Democrats said voter fraud couldn't be done, (except by the Russians.)

That is a mere claim. If they are making such arrests then there should be reliable records of it. Please post reliable links. Claims are not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think that was the instance where the fraudsters were requesting absentee ballots for voters who registered at age 18, voted once, didn't vote thereafter and were still on the rolls. You are welcome to do your own search of voter fraud cases online.
Now, on November 19, 2020 Economist/yougov survey found that 75% of voters, R, D, I, said there was widespread voter fraud. That is after weeks of denial by the national media "Trump lies, Fake Voter Fraud." The fact is most voters know about fraud locally. And people are not mathematically challenged nor are they willing to believe that their little locals is any different than your little local.

That is not the way that it works. This is your claim, you are the one that needs to support it.

But your claim is very much like many court cases brought by Republicans. They make claims and provide no evidence. Guess what happens? The judge understands the burden of proof too and without any he does the correct thing and tosses the case out of court.