Scoop: Trump's plan to declare premature victory

Your position here seems absurd to me. For many decades now, the normal operation in our elections has been that the media, the winner, the loser, various interested observers, etc. all declare who the winner is well "BEFORE all of our votes have been counted" (I realize there are some exceptions in exceedingly close elections where this doesn't happen, but in 90%+, it's the norm). All of a sudden this year, dems are clutching their pearls and telling us we shouldn't do the thing we've always done (declare a winner once it's obvious, usually long before all of our votes have been counted).

 

How much of the details of the lawsuit in question do you understand?

 

@HurricaneDitka

https://www.businessinsider.com/tru...s-vote-counting-supreme-court-lawyers-2020-11

Predictably you'll shoot the messenger and call it propaganda or fake news, but do observe that it is TRUMP himself who is saying it, so I don't see how it would be fake news.

 

No court?
That's not what Justice Kavanaugh said in his Wisconsin opinion.
Just wait and see. They will try it.

 

Both sides are going to 'go in with their lawyers'. I'm not sure what the objection is here. Could you be more specific?

 

Enough to have read the SCOTUS decision keeping the Penn Supreme Court decision in place, to segregate, but count anything postmarked by election day but received by 5pm on Friday....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20-542_i3dj.pdf

LOL... Trump is on TV arguing against your point right now (taped from yesterday)

 

That sounds great, like a load of campaign promises, goals. But the question is, how will that be done?

 

They hate him. They don't know why they hate him. Often spewing hatred of Trump seems to be a form of virtue signaling.

 

hmmm...

 

Kavanaugh has said that votes should not be counted after election day because they'd risk "flipping" the election results. Kagan said, they wouldn't be flipping anything because there are no results until every valid vote is counted.

The attempt to stop the counting of VALID votes, correctly post-marked, is clear. And see, I don't even want to debate this point. Just wait and see. I am rather convinced that this is EXACTLY what Trump will try to do; all indications including his own words point to it. Once it happens you will recall this conversation and see that I am right. Now I have to go. Take care.

 

It will be a battle, for sure. But that's what they will try to do. Mark my words.

 

I posted a link yesterday about how the Democrats plan to sharply curtail single family homes via zoning changes promoting duplexes and high density housing in the suburbs. The modern day Democrat party is all about destroying suburban America which they believe is racist.

 

They will try to do it for states, like PA, that implemented the extra days to receive valid postmarked ballots due to the USPS **** up...

My state, Virginia, it's the state law that they have 3 days to receive valid postmarked ballots.

I see no way Trump could challenge those, but they will challenge PA... No question...

This is a good site to reference.. it's mostly about when absentee ballot counting starts, but also lists those that must be received by COB election day...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/counting-vote-know-won-election-192121128.html

 

"In a law called Act 77, the legislature permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day."

If state law says that a ballot has to be received by 8 p.m. on election day, then ballots received afterwards should not be counted. That seems like a perfectly reasonable position to me. What about you?

 

Voters should not be punished due to the failures of the postal system.

if they send their votes on time, they should be counted.

if Trump challenges this, and he wins due to this challenge, we dont have to accept his win.

Congress may agree.



ALL LEGAL AND RULE-ABIDING VOTES MUST BE COUNTED

 

I say if thats long-standing state law, it should be followed.

i dont agree with it, but law is the law

 

You didn't accept his win 4 years ago. If he again wins and you don't accept it so what?

 

I agree with you UNLESS the state supreme court made a reasonable exception for the pandemic and/or the USPS situation (or any reason frankly), which I don't believe the SCOTUS has a right to challenge.

Remember that Pennsylvania was directly told by the USPS there might be problems, which I think led to the 3 day extension.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...rns-pennsylvania-mail-ballots-may-be-n1236713

I generally prefer my state law and think it should be this way in all states.. postmarked by election day/received by COB Friday.

Although I myself have little respect for anybody who throws their ballot in the mail the day before the election.

 

Regardless of what you believe, I assure you SCOTUS does have the right to "challenge" (and overrule) that decision. Here's what they said on the matter:

"It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election. That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election. See Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. For these reasons, the question presented by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision calls out for review by this Court—as both the State Republican and Democratic Parties agreed when the former applied for a stay. But I reluctantly conclude that there is simply not enough time at this late date to decide the question before the election. That does not mean, however, that the state court decision must escape our review. Although the Court denies the motion to expedite, the petition for certiorari remains before us, and if it is granted, the case can then be decided under a shortened schedule."

 

FWIW, I think this is a fine rule, but I recognize Pennsylvania's ability to choose a different set of rules, and the Constitution entrusts the legislature, not the state courts, with that ability.

 

Totally.

They are going to turn us into Venezuela and kidnap our dogs and cats and cancel Xmas and close all of the churches.

Sure thing.

 

That's Alito.... no surprise whatsoever he feels that way.

I'm hopeful people got the word (nationwide) and ignored the mailbox beginning last Monday...

Whatever, it's fun to argue with somebody who can do it properly...





However, I don't know enough about the "state constitutional provision" he's referring to to make a claim on that.

 

I don't know who you are referring to. Our military, Secret Service, FBI, etc. will drag him out kicking and screaming if they have to.

 

Like Biden?