ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Closed Thread
Old 21st November 2020, 10:41 PM   #2761
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,020
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
A guy walking down East Capitol Street is looking around like he is lost and walks up to a pedestrian.

Q: Hey, mister, how do I get to the Supreme Court of the United States?

A: Law practice, law practice, law practice.
Ouch. That was bad. A little pun twist to the Carnegie Hall joke. I like it.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 10:49 PM   #2762
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,900
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Ouch. That was bad. A little pun twist to the Carnegie Hall joke. I like it.
Nobody reacted to my King Caractacus parody, so I'm getting desperate and digging into the cheap laughs.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 10:54 PM   #2763
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 27,020
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Nobody reacted to my King Caractacus parody, so I'm getting desperate and digging into the cheap laughs.
A cheap laugh is better than no laugh eh?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 21st November 2020, 10:57 PM   #2764
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 13,672
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
Nobody reacted to my King Caractacus parody, so I'm getting desperate and digging into the cheap laughs.
just for the record, i loved it.
__________________
Ceterum autem censeo fox et amicis esse delendam.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 12:37 AM   #2765
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 26,018
Tweeted:

Quote:
Ben Collins
@oneunderscore__

The President just can't get enough of retweeting OAN segments where the expert on voting machines is Ron Watkins, a man from the Philippines who has no experience with voting machines and ran a website where white supremacists dumped manifestos before they committed mass murder.
Quote:
A sizable portion of this country is just gobbling up voter fraud conspiracies with big, inscrutable explanations. They have no idea that the guy who is pushing it is the 8Chan/QAnon guy, which is exactly what both Ron Watkins and the president's team are both banking on.
Quote:
f this sounds nuts, it is. Here's a whole story on the origins of this conspiracy theory and who's pushing it.

QAnon's Dominion voter fraud conspiracy theory reaches the president
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 12:55 AM   #2766
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15,798
Originally Posted by rdaneel View Post
Tv and movies really do give people a misconception about appeals don't they?
That a lawyer who loses a case can almost magically get an appeal to the next higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Not sure how your system works, but here, while you have a right to file an appeal, the appellate court is under no obligation to grant "leave to appeal" (meaning they believe you might have a valid case to argue). IIRC, in the US, the appellate court simply returns the case to the lower court.

If the case is clearly frivolous, the lower court judge is likely to word his decision in such a way that it would be very unlikely the appellate court would grant leave to appeal. He basically leaves no room in his written decision for an appeal to even be heard. If the appellate court declines to hear the case, its all over Rover, you cannot leapfrog to the next higher court.

Is this how it works in the US?
__________________
"Silence is Donald Trump's concession speech" - Lawrence O'Donnell.

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 22nd November 2020 at 12:57 AM.
smartcooky is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 01:09 AM   #2767
Elagabalus
Philosopher
 
Elagabalus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 6,733
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Mark my words, there is no way this is not going to the Supreme Court if the election can be overturned. If the election cannot be overturned then the cases will die in the lower courts.

I wouldn't worry as a Biden supporter until or unless the Trump lawsuits reach SCOTUS. At that point engage hand-wringing and possibly pearl-clutching.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 01:25 AM   #2768
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 16,719
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
These people are nutz.

Sidney Powell can't get her lies...er 'facts'... straight:

Quote:
POWELL: “The Dominion Voting Systems, the Smartmatic technology software, and the software that goes in other computerized voting systems here as well, not just Dominion, were created in Venezuela at the direction of Hugo Chavez to make sure he never lost an election after one constitutional referendum came out the way he did not want it to come out.”

POWELL: “Smartmatic has been associated with the Venezuelan government led by Hugo Chavez, which is openly hostile to the United States.”

THE FACTS: To be clear, Chavez is not leading the Venezuelan government because he is dead, He died in 2013.

As well, Dominion does not have any ties to Venezuela, according to Eddie Perez, a voting technology expert at the OSET Institute, a nonpartisan election technology research and development nonprofit. Dominion was founded in Canada. The company says it is a competitor with Smartmatic, not a partner.

Smartmatic is incorporated in Florida by Venezuelan founders. The company states on its website that it’s not associated with governments or political parties of any country.

Quote:
POWELL, on reports that a U.S. voting server is in Germany: “That is true, it’s somehow related to this but I do not know whether good guys got it or bad guys got it.”

THE FACTS: No, it’s not true. Powell is referring to a fictitious story that a server hosting evidence of voting irregularities in the Nov. 3 U.S. election was in Germany.

Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas this month circulated the rumor that “U.S. Army forces” seized a server from a Frankfurt office, though he acknowledged it was something he saw on Twitter and “I don’t know the truth.” The Army said the claim was false.

Still, Powell presented the bogus story as fact
Louie Gohmert is the stupidest man in Congress and that is saying something. He's the Bozo who thinks he caught Covid from his mask, who thinks gun control could lead to bestiality and polygamy, and suggested terrorists are sending pregnant women to have anchor babies in the US, then raising them in Islamic countries only to send them back as adults to commit terrorist crimes.
Stacyhs is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 01:45 AM   #2769
dirtywick
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,459
Originally Posted by Checkmite View Post
If you’re interested check out the episode of Reply-All podcast about Q Anon. Brennan outlines exactly how he knows Ron Watkins is Q. These people are all ******* crazy. It’s a really interesting story.

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/reply-all/llhe5nm
dirtywick is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 04:25 AM   #2770
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,900
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
Not sure how your system works, but here, while you have a right to file an appeal, the appellate court is under no obligation to grant "leave to appeal" (meaning they believe you might have a valid case to argue). IIRC, in the US, the appellate court simply returns the case to the lower court.

If the case is clearly frivolous, the lower court judge is likely to word his decision in such a way that it would be very unlikely the appellate court would grant leave to appeal. He basically leaves no room in his written decision for an appeal to even be heard. If the appellate court declines to hear the case, its all over Rover, you cannot leapfrog to the next higher court.

Is this how it works in the US?
It seems similar. Any case can be appealed. The appellate court will review the appeal. But it could be tossed out if there isn’t a valid case.

An appellate court is not a second chance to review a case. The district court makes the decision, and that is the decision. You can’t really ask an appellate court to review that decision.

You can appeal if there is a reason that the lower court did not handle the case properly. For example, if there is a criminal case and the judge does not allow the defense to enter certain evidence and the person is convicted, that could be appealed to argue that the judge erred and the evidence should have been admitted. The appellate court does not review the decision on the case. They just review on whether the judge made an error. If they sustain the appeal, they remand the case back to the lower court to try the case again with instructions to allow that evidence.

But that can get a bit confusing. The appellate court, in some circumstances, may make a final decision. That is especially true if the case is really about an interpretation of the law or the constitution. The appellate court determines the interpretation, which essentially decides the case, so the appellate court just issues a final ruling.

For cases that are clearly frivolous, the lower court will usually toss out the case base on the easiest first grounds. That is usually improper filing, jurisdiction, standing, failure to state a claim, etc. The court doesn’t go into all the other details of the case. That can be appealed, and the appellate court will review the appeal, but if you don’t have a real argument that the judge made an error in dismissing the case, the appeal gets denied.

The U.S. Supreme Court is a bit of an odd duck. Originally there was just the federal district courts and the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court justices would “ride the circuit” in their assigned district to hear appeals of the cases decided by the federal court judges. As more states were added to the union, that became impractical and the circuit court system (now called the court of appeals) was established.

That allowed the Supreme Court to only hear the really important cases. The Supreme Court only hears a tiny fraction of the cases presented to it. It really only deals with cases where there is a controversial issue among the appellant courts that has a national interest.

The Supreme Court has very limited original jurisdiction, meaning they rarely hear case for the first time. The mostly hear appeals. That almost always is an appeal to a decision by a federal appellate court or a sate supreme court. Many of the cases they review are matters of interpretation of the U.S. Constitution.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 04:51 AM   #2771
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I don't know why it took so long. I think the court had to give some time for Rudy to file yet another motion to amend. And then maybe allow the defense to file a motion to disallow or dismiss that amendment. I'm not sure. I recall that Rudy did file another motion to amend.



In the opinion the judge said that Rudy's complaint and arguments were so messed up that he had to try to piece together some reasonably coherent argument to address. He implies that he did that, in part, by reviewing all of the other recent lawsuits concerning the election.



The judge's opinion is rather lengthy and detailed. As I said in one of my posts speculating on why the case would be dismissed, the answer was basically "all of the above".



It is basically: You don't have standing, but if you did you don't have injury, but if you did the equal protections clause doesn't apply, but if it did you haven't shown how it affects the plaintiffs, but if you had you haven't shown why it would be reasonable to toss out all the votes instead of allowing the votes by voters (plaintiffs) were not allowed to be cured, and if you had throwing out all the votes for the state would be stupid and insane.



On appeal Rudy would have to jump back through all of those hoops.
Have you got a link, my Google fu is weak today.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 04:56 AM   #2772
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
"If" their strategy is to get to SCOTUS, they've been doing everything right.



"If" they are incompetent hacks, liars and frauds, the appearance would be the same.
No they haven't. The legal system doesn't work that way, the SC rules on matters of law.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 04:58 AM   #2773
Firestone
Proud Award Award recipient
 
Firestone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,617
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Have you got a link, my Google fu is weak today.
It's a beauty. One of many nice excerpts:
Quote:
In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise
almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which
a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms
of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when
seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with
compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this
Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief
despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.
That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained
legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative
complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this
cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its
sixth most populated state. Our people, laws, and institutions demand more.
At
bottom, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Therefore, I grant Defendants’ motions and dismiss
Plaintiffs’ action with prejudice.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

And while this judge was nominated by Obama, he is a conservative Republican, member of the Federalist Society.
__________________
The method of science is tried and true. It is not perfect, it's just the best we have. And to abandon it, with its skeptical protocols is the pathway to a dark age. -- Carl Sagan

Last edited by Firestone; 22nd November 2020 at 05:00 AM.
Firestone is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:02 AM   #2774
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by rdaneel View Post
Tv and movies really do give people a misconception about appeals don't they?
That a lawyer who loses a case can almost magically get an appeal to the next higher court all the way up to the Supreme Court.
Yep. It's like the bombshell evidence the prosecution or defence pull out with a minute to go that takes the other side by surprise. Makes good TV.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:11 AM   #2775
DevilsAdvocate
Philosopher
 
DevilsAdvocate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 5,900
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Have you got a link, my Google fu is weak today.
https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

If that doesn't work, the case number is 4:20-CV-02078.
__________________
I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

Last edited by DevilsAdvocate; 22nd November 2020 at 05:13 AM.
DevilsAdvocate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:11 AM   #2776
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 30,461
Originally Posted by DevilsAdvocate View Post
I can't see what criminal charges would apply.

Court could start issuing sanction for filing frivolous lawsuits. I wouldn't be surprised if that was one of the reasons behind recently dropping a number of lawsuits (but I doubt that is the only reason). That is also probably one of the reasons why the lawsuits are filed by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. instead of by Trump himself (which has caused him some problems with issues on standing). Trump doesn't want any personal liability if the courts decide they have had enough of this nonsense and start getting tough.

But I doubt that will happen. I think the courts are kind of wearing kid gloves here because they want to make sure their dismissals are rock solid and not give any reason for them to get overturned on appeal.
I think it all makes sense if you look at it not as an attempt to bring a serious legal case, but instead as a way to create a narrative in the eyes of the right section of the public. They're not going to pay attention to any details - including that the cases have been dropped. They're just going to know that Trump is "fighting" and being thwarted by the Deep State.

If you view it not through the lens of actually trying to accomplish anything legally or electorally, but instead of trying to get re-elected in 2024 and raise money to pay off campaign debt and create influence after the presidency, then it makes perfect sense. It doesn't even matter that Guiliani doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in court, because neither do the people his performance is aimed at.
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:46 AM   #2777
Tero
Master Poster
 
Tero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North American prairie
Posts: 2,053
Trump team paid 3 million for "recount" but is only there to slow the recount so the whole count can be thrown out and the decision would be thrown to state government. But election law in WI would not do that.
Quote:
At one recount table, a Trump observer objected to every ballot that tabulators pulled from a bag simply because they were folded, election officials told the panel.

Posnanski called it “prima facie evidence of bad faith by the Trump campaign.” He added later: “I want to know what is going on and why there continues to be obstruction.”

Joe Voiland, a lawyer speaking to commission members on behalf of the Trump campaign, denied his side was acting in bad faith.

“I want to get to the point of dialing everything down … and not yelling at each other,” Voiland said.

At least one Trump observer was escorted out of the building by sheriff’s deputies Saturday after pushing an election official who had lifted her coat from an observer chair. Another Trump observer was removed Friday for not wearing a face mask properly as required.

Trump paid $3 million, as required by state law, for the partial recount that began Friday and must conclude by Dec. 1.

His team is seeking to disqualify ballots where election clerks filled in missing address information on the certification envelope where the ballot is inserted, even though the practice has long been accepted in Wisconsin.
https://apnews.com/article/election-...22c6d372575a9b

Ink color on envelope and signature could mean something! Madison totals so far: 20 rejected ballots
Quote:
And Neil Albrecht from the City of Milwaukee said one Trump campaign observer was moving from table to table objecting to every ballot cast in the city.

Poll workers already have been instructed to set aside envelopes where the ink doesn't match on an envelope - for example, if the witness signature and address are filled out in a different color ink. They have also been instructed to set aside votes cast by "indefinitely confined" voters.

When Milwaukee County election officials questioned Trump campaign attorneys about the flurry of objections, Voiland said the campaign would not be arguing that every folded absentee ballot is invalid -- as every single absentee ballot is folded to be placed in its envelope.

But Trump attorneys said the issue indicates that election workers were overreaching by asking observers why they were objecting -- rather than simply setting aside ballots and envelopes after an objection was made.
https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/...es/6353846002/
Tero is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:52 AM   #2778
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi
Posts: 4,308
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
I think it all makes sense if you look at it not as an attempt to bring a serious legal case, but instead as a way to create a narrative in the eyes of the right section of the public. They're not going to pay attention to any details - including that the cases have been dropped. They're just going to know that Trump is "fighting" and being thwarted by the Deep State.

If you view it not through the lens of actually trying to accomplish anything legally or electorally, but instead of trying to get re-elected in 2024 and raise money to pay off campaign debt and create influence after the presidency, then it makes perfect sense. It doesn't even matter that Guiliani doesn't have a clue what he's talking about in court, because neither do the people his performance is aimed at.
This. The whole thing is an effort to get their case out of any venue where facts backed by evidence to show fraud in the process matter, and into one where the assumption of fraud is the only thing that does matter.

And for what? In four years, the GOP gets another bite at the big apple (and, in two years, a bite at a smaller one). In a free market of honestly-presented ideas, they could simply submit their product then in competition with Democrats in the same process that has served, with necessary refinements, for generations- the electoral machine, where the people do indeed get a voice in saying who has the best product. But instead, in short-sighted service of keeping Donald godamm Trump in the White House right now, they're selling a narrative, that that machine is entirely broken; and if they have to actually break the machine to sell the narrative, by god, that's what they'll do. The future cost doesn't matter, the nature of the present product doesn't count- what they're banking on is an absolute brand loyalty to ignore the future and to overlook the present.
__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

Last edited by turingtest; 22nd November 2020 at 06:57 AM. Reason: clarify and emphasis
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 05:52 AM   #2779
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by Firestone View Post
It's a beauty. One of many nice excerpts:


https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...57.202.0_1.pdf

And while this judge was nominated by Obama, he is a conservative Republican, member of the Federalist Society.
Thanks. There's one sentence that I know was used in a specific legal meaning sums it all up "redress,116 a court may not prescribe a remedy unhinged from the underlying right being asserted"

Unhinged sums it up so well.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 06:25 AM   #2780
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Related to PA shenanigans....


How the heck is act 77 Constitutional? Why is that republican incorrect that it is unconstitutional?

It seems like it clearly violates PA's constitution.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 06:59 AM   #2781
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,662
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so.
Consider this, however: Why would you need a case to be heard before the Supreme Court if it has merit and can be decided by a lower court? These cases are not being carefully considered and rejected on the balance of evidence, but thrown out because they are meritless and should never have been brought. There are only two possible scenarios in which this would make sense as a legal strategy: one if the entire legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy to steal the election, and the other if the SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket. Viewed, however, as a ploy to feed Trump's ego and extract money from his supporters, it makes a weird kind of sense.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:06 AM   #2782
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Consider this, however: Why would you need a case to be heard before the Supreme Court if it has merit and can be decided by a lower court? These cases are not being carefully considered and rejected on the balance of evidence, but thrown out because they are meritless and should never have been brought. There are only two possible scenarios in which this would make sense as a legal strategy: one if the entire legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy to steal the election, and the other if the SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket. Viewed, however, as a ploy to feed Trump's ego and extract money from his supporters, it makes a weird kind of sense.

Dave
Better argument: the cases hinge on a textualist read of the constitution that while correct, requires a precedence reversing decision by the toP court.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:11 AM   #2783
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,895
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Related to PA shenanigans....


How the heck is act 77 Constitutional? Why is that republican incorrect that it is unconstitutional?

It seems like it clearly violates PA's constitution.
The PA Supreme Court referenced the relevant section of the PA constitution during a case regarding act 77 earlier this year. They said nothing about the act being unconstitutional.

They obviously disagree with your assessment.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:16 AM   #2784
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
The PA Supreme Court referenced the relevant section of the PA constitution during a case regarding act 77 earlier this year. They said nothing about the act being unconstitutional.

They obviously disagree with your assessment.
Appeal to authority. You want to actually take a shot at justification?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:18 AM   #2785
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Appeal to authority. You want to actually take a shot at justification?
It begins!
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:19 AM   #2786
Craig4
Penultimate Amazing
 
Craig4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA Home to the Deep State.
Posts: 21,799
Originally Posted by ChrisBFRPKY View Post
That's an interesting way of looking at it. Though any case is up for an appeal if new evidence becomes available. It really doesn't matter if the judge made any mistakes or not.

Consider this: How do you get to the Supreme Court of the US? Do you get there by winning cases in lower courts? No.

There must be a strategy for making your case heard before the Supreme Court of the US. Losing cases in the lower courts would be the only path of doing so. While the media promotes the Trump election case losses of the lower courts as a victory for Biden every time, they fail to mention it would likely be the strategy of the Trump legal team to have those losses if SCOTUS was the end goal.
This is absurd. On the off chance that one of these lawsuits is successful, the state would surely appeal the decision. Do you really think the attorneys for the State of Pennsylvania would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Better luck next time" if seven million voters were disenfranchised? What makes it unlikely that any of these cases will get to the SCOTUS is their complete failure in multiple circuits. In fact, Trump's morons would have to be successful in one to create a conflict between circuit decisions which would require the Supremes to step in.
__________________
A MAGA hat = a Swastika arm band. A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.
Craig4 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:22 AM   #2787
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Better argument: the cases hinge on a textualist read of the constitution that while correct, requires a precedence reversing decision by the toP court.
Nope the meaning depends on what the people who can enforce their meaning mean.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:29 AM   #2788
Vixen
Penultimate Amazing
 
Vixen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Suomi
Posts: 19,623
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Yep. It's like the bombshell evidence the prosecution or defence pull out with a minute to go that takes the other side by surprise. Makes good TV.
I am quite sure Trump has one of those lined up. Pompeo bursting through the court doors breathless, I have some SENSATIONAL new evidence of fraud, Your Honor!'


<fx court murmurs>
__________________
Blott en dag, ett ögonblick i sänder,

vilken tröst, vad än som kommer på!
Vixen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:30 AM   #2789
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Consider this, however: Why would you need a case to be heard before the Supreme Court if it has merit and can be decided by a lower court? These cases are not being carefully considered and rejected on the balance of evidence, but thrown out because they are meritless and should never have been brought. There are only two possible scenarios in which this would make sense as a legal strategy: one if the entire legal system with the exception of the Supreme Court is part of the conspiracy to steal the election, and the other if the SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket. Viewed, however, as a ploy to feed Trump's ego and extract money from his supporters, it makes a weird kind of sense.

Dave
Mascara-man’s didn’t even make to the evidential stage!

In others the judges has not allowed the fill-in-an-open-to-everyone-in-the-world-web-form sorry affidavit to be even used as evidence. For some reason the judges considered “ fill-in-an-open-to-everyone-in-the-world-web-form” wasn’t a robust way to gather evidence. (But 68.9% of judges did say on our online poll that they found Judge Judy sexy!)
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:33 AM   #2790
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,895
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Appeal to authority. You want to actually take a shot at justification?
The Appeal to Authority fallacy is only relevant when the authority is not an authority in the subject they are opining upon. I.e. a formerly excellent football running back making political suggestions, or a famous author declaring simple camera tricks to be proof of ghosts or fairies.

Constitutional lawyers in the position of being PA Supreme Court justices are the proper authority in this matter. Certainly much more so than some rando on a backwater message board.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:36 AM   #2791
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 94,788
Originally Posted by Craig4 View Post
This is absurd. On the off chance that one of these lawsuits is successful, the state would surely appeal the decision. Do you really think the attorneys for the State of Pennsylvania would just shrug their shoulders and say, "Better luck next time" if seven million voters were disenfranchised? What makes it unlikely that any of these cases will get to the SCOTUS is their complete failure in multiple circuits. In fact, Trump's morons would have to be successful in one to create a conflict between circuit decisions which would require the Supremes to step in.
There’s already precedent from the SC that as long as a voter has followed the instructions the state gave the vote counts, even if later on the instructions are found to be legally invalid.

And since all these cases boil down to either claims of process fails or incorrect/unlawful processes and instructions even if one was to make it to the next stage the relief they are seeking i.e. disenfranchise 7 million people ain’t going to happen.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:41 AM   #2792
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
The Appeal to Authority fallacy is only relevant when the authority is not an authority in the subject they are opining upon. I.e. a formerly excellent football running back making political suggestions, or a famous author declaring simple camera tricks to be proof of ghosts or fairies.

Constitutional lawyers in the position of being PA Supreme Court justices are the proper authority in this matter. Certainly much more so than some rando on a backwater message board.
They are not the proper authority anymore than saying justice thomas said something about the US constitution.

Zilch.

ETA: or that Trump is an expert on the executive adminstration.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 22nd November 2020 at 07:47 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:54 AM   #2793
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,895
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
They are not the proper authority anymore than saying justice thomas said something about the US constitution.

Zilch.

ETA: or that Trump is an expert on the executive adminstration.
And yet they have previously ruled on the act.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 07:56 AM   #2794
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
And yet they have previously ruled on the act.
Just because they have the power to make decisions does not imply they are good at it.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:01 AM   #2795
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 6,710
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Just because they have the power to make decisions does not imply they are good at it.
Yet they are the ones that decide what the law is, not you.
__________________
We would be a lot safer if the Government would take its money out of science and put it into astrology and the reading of palms. Only in superstition is there hope. - Kurt Vonnegut Jr

And no, Cuba is not a brutal and corrupt dictatorship, and it's definitely less so than Sweden. - dann
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:05 AM   #2796
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,662
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Better argument: the cases hinge on a textualist read of the constitution that while correct, requires a precedence reversing decision by the toP court.
In which case the lower courts should find that the case has merits and refer it upwards. Bringing a plethora of cases that fail the initial sniff test won't achieve that. I honestly can't see any scenario in which bringing a series of pathetically inadequate cases is a sensible strategy if the system deals with them honestly.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:05 AM   #2797
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
Yet they are the ones that decide what the law is, not you.
Because they get to decide, doesn't mean they are an expert.

For example, a theocracy's power to declare scientific facts in their country doesn't mean their conclusions are scientific facts.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 22nd November 2020 at 08:06 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:06 AM   #2798
kookbreaker
Evil Fokker
 
kookbreaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 12,895
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Just because they have the power to make decisions does not imply they are good at it.
They are the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania. You are some rando on a message board. What they decide is what matters, not what you claim on this board.
__________________
www.spectrum-scientifics.com <- My store of science toys, instruments and general fun!

Thanks for helping me win Best Toys in Philly Voter in 2011,2012, and 2014! We won' be discussing the disappointment that was 2013.
kookbreaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:08 AM   #2799
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 19,948
Originally Posted by kookbreaker View Post
They are the Supreme Court of the state of Pennsylvania. You are some rando on a message board. What they decide is what matters, not what you claim on this board.
I don't argue that my position should matter, or that if some conclusion is reached here that the court should change course. I don't care about the argument beyond the argument itself. Therefore, the fact their position matters doesnt matter for debate.

Last edited by BobTheCoward; 22nd November 2020 at 08:10 AM.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 22nd November 2020, 08:10 AM   #2800
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 31,662
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Just because they have the power to make decisions does not imply they are good at it.
Irrelevant. The Supreme Court is a definitive authority, so if they make a ruling in law, that ruling defines the law. The appeal to the authority of a Supreme Court ruling on a point of law is therefore valid even in formal logic.

Dave
__________________
Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel.

- Myriad
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:09 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.