[Continuation] 2020 Presidential Election part 3 - Page 80

Solitaire · 27th November 2020, 10:15 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Biden: 80,257,014

Trump: 73,965,222

Margin: 6,291,792

I'll go with final totals of 81.2 million Biden votes, 75.0 million Trump votes, and
2.9 million Other votes.

PhantomWolf · 27th November 2020, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss

If Biden wants to get into the White House, he will need to bring...

a shrubbery!

Oh, what sad times are these when passing Democrats can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a china-virus upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period of historical lockdown.

dudalb · 27th November 2020, 10:27 PM

Originally Posted by surrogate

A great businessman like Schilling would naturally support Trump.

Yeah Schillings attempts to be the new Blizzard when it comes to computer games miserably failed.

Mojo · 27th November 2020, 10:40 PM

Originally Posted by Paul2

This is a glaring misunderstanding of what freedom of the press is.

The freedom to do what we’re told has always been regarded by the Right as the most important freedom. It goes all the way back to that there Magna Charter.

DevilsAdvocate · 27th November 2020, 11:03 PM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

Biden:80,257,014

Trump: 73,965,222

Margin: 6,291,792

Total fraud!!! Biden actually won by MILLIONS of votes!!!!!

Captain_Swoop · 28th November 2020, 05:07 AM

Trump Tweets

The 1,126,940 votes were created out of thin air. I won Pennsylvania by a lot, perhaps more than anyone will ever know. The Pennsylvania votes were RIGGED. All other swing states also. The world is watching!
Quote Tweet

Senator Doug Mastriano
@SenMastriano
This was posted on our Department of State dashboard but had since been deleted.

(Image in link)

https://twitter.com/SenMastriano/sta...98733401591808

Captain_Swoop · 28th November 2020, 05:12 AM

Mastriano’s numbers appear to be from the primary election on June 2.
Trump actually got 3,378,263 votes in the general election.

He offers no source for his image.

The Don · 28th November 2020, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Mastriano’s numbers appear to be from the primary election on June 2.
Trump actually got 3,378,263 votes in the general election.

He offers no source for his image.

...and still the GOP leadership continue to back President Trump 100%.

I'm still not convinced that they won't succeed in overturning the election results.

newyorkguy · 28th November 2020, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by The Don

...and still the GOP leadership continue to back President Trump 100%.

I'm still not convinced that they won't succeed in overturning the election results.

I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this.

What has happened to us?

I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then...

jeremyp · 28th November 2020, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Gives me hope the Trump supporters will grow quiet when Trump leaves office. As a matter of fact, judging from the comments threads I frequent, they've gone more quiet already.

That article says he has lost 46,000 followers since the 22nd. He still has 88 million, so he's "haemorrhaged" about 0.05% of his followers.

Dave Rogers · 28th November 2020, 07:22 AM

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop

Mastriano’s numbers appear to be from the primary election on June 2.
Trump actually got 3,378,263 votes in the general election.

He offers no source for his image.

At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Trump posted numbers from last year's America's Got Talent and demanded to know where Biden got the extra votes.

Dave

The Don · 28th November 2020, 07:28 AM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this.

What has happened to us?

I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then...

Some of the GOP leadership ?

More like almost all, and many of them are actively contributing, not just failing to condemn President Trump's actions.

Solitaire · 28th November 2020, 07:37 AM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never,
ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in
the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some
of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this.

What has happened to us?

I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden
the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then...

I'm not sure it's us, alone. Autocratization Surges — Resistance Grows

Captain_Swoop · 28th November 2020, 08:44 AM

Trump Tweets

So much credit to all of the brave men and women in state houses who are defending our great Constitution. Thank you!

Paul2 · 28th November 2020, 08:51 AM

Originally Posted by Mojo

The freedom to do what we’re told has always been regarded by the Right as the most important freedom. It goes all the way back to that there Magna Charter.

I guess so. You can have any color Model-T as long as its black.

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 09:07 AM

Originally Posted by Solitaire

I'll go with final totals of 81.2 million Biden votes, 75.0 million Trump votes, and
2.9 million Other votes.

Nope, no way does Trump cross the 75 million vote threshold. The Biden estimate may be about right. Almost all the ballots left to be counted are in NY.

Latest batch from Westchester County NY

Biden. 42,859 (83%)

Trump. 8,480 (16%)

Paul2 · 28th November 2020, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by newyorkguy

I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this.

What has happened to us?

I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then...

Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well.

Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case?

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well.

Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case?

I doubt SCOTUS will even hear arguments in the PA case. Rudy's case is awful.
The Third Circuit's ruling was legally perfect and made by three Republicans judges. There is nothing about this appeal that has any legal merit.

Alito should reject it out of hand. The only reason Alito might bring the case to the full court is simply for cover. He might not want to be the one judge that quashed a sitting Republican president's hopes.

Certiorari won't be issued.

pgwenthold · 28th November 2020, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well.

Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case?

Is there any reason to think the conservative members of the SCOTUS are any more extreme than the panel of the 3rd circuit, that hammered the campaign with things like, "Lawsuits usually have serious allegations and evidence. This case has neither."

That was written by a Trump-appointed judge. The other two judges were Bush appointees.

This has already been heard by a conservative court. It got destroyed.

Meadmaker · 28th November 2020, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I doubt SCOTUS will even hear arguments in the PA case. Rudy's case is awful.
The Third Circuit's ruling was legally perfect and made by three Republicans judges. There is nothing about this appeal that has any legal merit.

Alito should reject it out of hand. The only reason Alito might bring the case to the full court is simply for cover. He might not want to be the one judge that quashed a sitting Republican president's hopes.

Certiorari won't be issued.

I'm pretty sure you are right, but a thought occurred to me about a reason certiorari might be granted.

Sometimes, the Supreme Court takes a case, and then issues a 9-0 opinion. I wouldn't swear that I've ever seen that where they take a case and issue a 9-0 or other lopsided, let's say 7-2, opinion that upholds a lower court ruling, but I'm guessing it has happened.

Their purpose in doing so, I am told, is that sometimes there is no clear court precedent, and they want to establish one. There has been a lot of nonsense spouted in this post-election time about how the legislature can step in and disregard the will of the people. It is conceivable that they might take the case just for the purpose of making sure they can establish a precedent that this case, and any other like it, is nuts. If they want to squash this one like a bug, and make sure that any other fantasy of ignoring elections does not darken their doorstep in the future, they might take the case.

I doubt it, but I don't know enough to say the scenario is absolutely impossible.

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Is there any reason to think the conservative members of the SCOTUS are any more extreme than the panel of the 3rd circuit, that hammered the campaign with things like, "Lawsuits usually have serious allegations and evidence. This case has neither."

That was written by a Trump-appointed judge. The other two judges were Bush appointees.

This has already been heard by a conservative court. It got destroyed.

I can't think of a single reason why SCOTUS would want to hear this case. There is no upside in them hearing it.

Darat · 28th November 2020, 09:52 AM

Originally Posted by Paul2

Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well.

Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case?

Which one is this? Hard to keep track.

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I'm pretty sure you are right, but a thought occurred to me about a reason certiorari might be granted.

Sometimes, the Supreme Court takes a case, and then issues a 9-0 opinion. I wouldn't swear that I've ever seen that where they take a case and issue a 9-0 or other lopsided, let's say 7-2, opinion that upholds a lower court ruling, but I'm guessing it has happened.

Their purpose in doing so, I am told, is that sometimes there is no clear court precedent, and they want to establish one. There has been a lot of nonsense spouted in this post-election time about how the legislature can step in and disregard the will of the people. It is conceivable that they might take the case just for the purpose of making sure they can establish a precedent that this case, and any other like it, is nuts. If they want to squash this one like a bug, and make sure that any other fantasy of ignoring elections does not darken their doorstep in the future, they might take the case.

I doubt it, but I don't know enough to say the scenario is absolutely impossible.

The thing is they don't need to create new precedence. This isn't Nixon v US where the court ruled 8 to 0 with Rhenquist absteining.

Better to reject it outright than to keep this farce going a minute longer. Don't let the court be the focus of attention.

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Which one is this? Hard to keep track.

The only case possible to appeal to SCOTUS at the moment is the appeal unanimously rejected by the Third Circuit.

Horatius · 28th November 2020, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

I can't think of a single reason why SCOTUS would want to hear this case. There is no upside in them hearing it.

What is the down side? They're all appointed for life, so even if Trump decides to trash them, there's essentially nothing he can actually do to them.

Plus, there is an upside, at least for the three judges Trump appointed: Being part of a 9-0 smackdown of Trump himself is just about the only thing that would convince a lot of people that they won't just be toadies to Trump.

Darat · 28th November 2020, 10:02 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The only case possible to appeal to SCOTUS at the moment is the appeal unanimously rejected by the Third Circuit.

Where are the documents, can't find a link.

Meadmaker · 28th November 2020, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The thing is they don't need to create new precedence. This isn't Nixon v US where the court ruled 8 to 0 with Rhenquist absteining.

Better to reject it outright than to keep this farce going a minute longer. Don't let the court be the focus of attention.

I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 10:11 AM

Originally Posted by Horatius

What is the down side? They're all appointed for life, so even if Trump decides to trash them, there's essentially nothing he can actually do to them.

Plus, there is an upside, at least for the three judges Trump appointed: Being part of a 9-0 smackdown of Trump himself is just about the only thing that would convince a lot of people that they won't just be toadies to Trump.

While a 9-0 slap down might be fun, there is no question of law that needs to be settled. Their ruling would be redundant to the slapdown Trump got with the Third Circuit. Simply not issuing Certiorari would also send the message that the court is not a political instrument.

Babbylonian · 28th November 2020, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.

I think you might be mistaken in your assumption that such a decision would be correct in a broad sense. Even a liberal judge might look at this and want to stay far away from making a broad decision since states are permitted a great deal of freedom in how they conduct their elections and assign their electors in the presidential election. In this situation, it seems likely that a smart Supreme Court Justice would look at this, decide that the lower court was correct, and leave it at that.

Besides, at the end of the day, the Supremes didn't look good at all when they let themselves be dragged into the 2000 election and then decided it. I doubt any of the current justices are particularly interested in getting pulled into this mess where the outcome isn't even truly in question.

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Where are the documents, can't find a link.

The Trump campaign hasn't filed an appeal to SCOTUS that I'm aware of. But here's a link to the 27 page Third Circuit ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/document/486077037/CA3-20-3371

Here is one of many articles that summarises it

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/27/...tion-case.html

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 10:20 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.

I understand that. But this isn't the case to do that with. But I hope we never see that case because that would mean some state tried to do it.

Paul2 · 28th November 2020, 10:26 AM

Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the insights about the 3rd Circuit case going to SCOTUS.

Darat · 28th November 2020, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

The Trump campaign hasn't filed an appeal to SCOTUS that I'm aware of. But here's a link to the 27 page Third Circuit ruling.

https://www.scribd.com/document/486077037/CA3-20-3371

Here is one of many articles that summarises it

https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/27/...tion-case.html

Ah right. I read that yesterday. From how people people were posting I thought they had started their appeal.

Don't forget any appeal to the SCOTUS would have to be about the original decision to not allow the second amendment.

Can't see why the SCOTUS would get involved in such a decision, especially given the appeal court not only affirmed the original decision to not allow the second amendment based on due delay but considered other possible legal arguments.

Remember appeals are not for another bite of the cherry.

gnome · 28th November 2020, 10:45 AM

"A court ruled against the Second Amendment! It's time, folks, get your rifles!"

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 10:48 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Ah right. I read that yesterday. From how people people were posting I thought they had started their appeal.

Don't forget any appeal to the SCOTUS would have to be about the original decision to not allow the second amendment.

Can't see why the SCOTUS would get involved in such a decision, especially given the appeal court not only affirmed the original decision to not allow the second amendment based on due delay but considered other possible legal arguments.

Remember appeals are not for another bite of the cherry.

That's pretty much how I see it. SCOTUS doesn't rule on questions of fact, only on questions of law. There is no legal justification to allow Trump to amend his case twice.

Babbylonian · 28th November 2020, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by acbytesla

That's pretty much how I see it. SCOTUS doesn't rule on questions of fact, only on questions of law. There is no legal justification to allow Trump to amend his case twice.

AFAIK, IANAL, LOL... there is no constitutional reason a judge has to allow someone to amend their case even once.

gnome · 28th November 2020, 11:30 AM

Double post

acbytesla · 28th November 2020, 11:31 AM

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

AFAIK, IANAL, LOL... there is no constitutional reason a judge has to allow someone to amend their case even once.

Exactly. This is also a case where the plaintiffs emphasized the need for speed.

I guess Judge Brann was just a little too fast for them.

Delphic Oracle · 28th November 2020, 11:44 AM

https://twitter.com/JennaEllisEsq/st...003581954?s=19

There's an eventbrite link to the "public hearing" being held at a Hyatt Regency by "select members" of the AZ legislature.

Other members have noted the way they've set this up (only one party's members, held outside of the capitol without any notice) make their use of the term "public hearing" very suspect. It's a stunt for cameras.

Paul2 · 28th November 2020, 12:11 PM

Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the insights about the 3rd Circuit case going to SCOTUS.

27th November 2020, 10:15 PM	#3161
Solitaire Neoclinus blanchardi Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,479	Originally Posted by acbytesla Biden: 80,257,014 Trump: 73,965,222 Margin: 6,291,792 I'll go with final totals of 81.2 million Biden votes, 75.0 million Trump votes, and 2.9 million Other votes.
	__________________ Be very careful what you put in your head, because you will never get it out again. — Phineas Gage

27th November 2020, 10:27 PM	#3162
PhantomWolf Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2007 Posts: 20,109	Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss If Biden wants to get into the White House, he will need to bring... a shrubbery! Oh, what sad times are these when passing Democrats can say Ni at will to old ladies. There is a china-virus upon this land, nothing is sacred. Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress in this period of historical lockdown.
	__________________ It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

27th November 2020, 10:27 PM	#3163
dudalb Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Sacramento Posts: 49,926	Originally Posted by surrogate A great businessman like Schilling would naturally support Trump. Yeah Schillings attempts to be the new Blizzard when it comes to computer games miserably failed.
	__________________ Pacifism is a shifty doctrine under which a man accepts the benefits of the social group without being willing to pay - and claims a halo for his dishonesty. Robert Heinlein.

27th November 2020, 10:40 PM	#3164
Mojo Mostly harmless Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Nor Flanden Posts: 33,571	Originally Posted by Paul2 This is a glaring misunderstanding of what freedom of the press is. The freedom to do what we’re told has always been regarded by the Right as the most important freedom. It goes all the way back to that there Magna Charter.
	__________________ "You got to use your brain." - McKinley Morganfield "The poor mystic homeopaths feel like petted house-cats thrown at high flood on the breaking ice." - Leon Trotsky

27th November 2020, 11:03 PM	#3165
DevilsAdvocate Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,288	Originally Posted by acbytesla Biden:80,257,014 Trump: 73,965,222 Margin: 6,291,792 Total fraud!!! Biden actually won by MILLIONS of votes!!!!!
	__________________ I don't need to fight to prove I'm right. - Baba O'Riley

28th November 2020, 05:07 AM	#3166
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,366	Trump Tweets The 1,126,940 votes were created out of thin air. I won Pennsylvania by a lot, perhaps more than anyone will ever know. The Pennsylvania votes were RIGGED. All other swing states also. The world is watching! Quote Tweet Senator Doug Mastriano @SenMastriano This was posted on our Department of State dashboard but had since been deleted. (Image in link) https://twitter.com/SenMastriano/sta...98733401591808
	Last edited by Captain_Swoop; 28th November 2020 at 05:08 AM.

28th November 2020, 05:12 AM	#3167
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,366	Mastriano’s numbers appear to be from the primary election on June 2. Trump actually got 3,378,263 votes in the general election. He offers no source for his image.

28th November 2020, 05:44 AM	#3168
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,020	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Mastriano’s numbers appear to be from the primary election on June 2. Trump actually got 3,378,263 votes in the general election. He offers no source for his image. ...and still the GOP leadership continue to back President Trump 100%. I'm still not convinced that they won't succeed in overturning the election results.

28th November 2020, 06:00 AM	#3169
newyorkguy Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Mar 2013 Location: NY Posts: 11,423	Originally Posted by The Don ...and still the GOP leadership continue to back President Trump 100%. I'm still not convinced that they won't succeed in overturning the election results. I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this. What has happened to us? I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then...

28th November 2020, 06:26 AM	#3170
jeremyp Graduate Poster Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha Posts: 1,267	Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper Gives me hope the Trump supporters will grow quiet when Trump leaves office. As a matter of fact, judging from the comments threads I frequent, they've gone more quiet already. That article says he has lost 46,000 followers since the 22nd. He still has 88 million, so he's "haemorrhaged" about 0.05% of his followers.

28th November 2020, 07:22 AM	#3171
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 32,218	Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop Mastriano’s numbers appear to be from the primary election on June 2. Trump actually got 3,378,263 votes in the general election. He offers no source for his image. At this point it wouldn't surprise me if Trump posted numbers from last year's America's Got Talent and demanded to know where Biden got the extra votes. Dave
	__________________ Inspiring discussion of Sharknado is not a good sign for the audience expectations of your new high-concept SF movie sequel. - Myriad

28th November 2020, 07:28 AM	#3172
The Don Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Sir Fynwy Posts: 31,020	Originally Posted by newyorkguy I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this. What has happened to us? I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then... Some of the GOP leadership ? More like almost all, and many of them are actively contributing, not just failing to condemn President Trump's actions.

28th November 2020, 07:37 AM	#3173
Solitaire Neoclinus blanchardi Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 2,479	Originally Posted by newyorkguy I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this. What has happened to us? I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then... I'm not sure it's us, alone. Autocratization Surges — Resistance Grows
	__________________ Be very careful what you put in your head, because you will never get it out again. — Phineas Gage

28th November 2020, 08:44 AM	#3174
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 31,366	Trump Tweets So much credit to all of the brave men and women in state houses who are defending our great Constitution. Thank you!

28th November 2020, 08:51 AM	#3175
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,473	Originally Posted by Mojo The freedom to do what we’re told has always been regarded by the Right as the most important freedom. It goes all the way back to that there Magna Charter. I guess so. You can have any color Model-T as long as its black.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,473	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

28th November 2020, 09:07 AM	#3176
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Solitaire I'll go with final totals of 81.2 million Biden votes, 75.0 million Trump votes, and 2.9 million Other votes. Nope, no way does Trump cross the 75 million vote threshold. The Biden estimate may be about right. Almost all the ballots left to be counted are in NY. Latest batch from Westchester County NY Biden. 42,859 (83%) Trump. 8,480 (16%)
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 09:11 AM	#3177
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,473	Originally Posted by newyorkguy I don't expect they will be able to overturn the election results but then I never, ever expected to even have to consider something like that happening in the United States. But here we are. It's very scary. It's very troubling that some of the GOP leadership even tolerate something like this. What has happened to us? I'm waiting for the electoral college to meet and vote. If they give Biden the votes he's entitled to THEN I will exhale. Until then... Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well. Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case?
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,473	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

28th November 2020, 09:32 AM	#3178
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Paul2 Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well. Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case? I doubt SCOTUS will even hear arguments in the PA case. Rudy's case is awful. The Third Circuit's ruling was legally perfect and made by three Republicans judges. There is nothing about this appeal that has any legal merit. Alito should reject it out of hand. The only reason Alito might bring the case to the full court is simply for cover. He might not want to be the one judge that quashed a sitting Republican president's hopes. Certiorari won't be issued.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. . Last edited by acbytesla; 28th November 2020 at 09:33 AM.

28th November 2020, 09:35 AM	#3179
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,056	Originally Posted by Paul2 Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well. Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case? Is there any reason to think the conservative members of the SCOTUS are any more extreme than the panel of the 3rd circuit, that hammered the campaign with things like, "Lawsuits usually have serious allegations and evidence. This case has neither." That was written by a Trump-appointed judge. The other two judges were Bush appointees. This has already been heard by a conservative court. It got destroyed.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

28th November 2020, 09:42 AM	#3180
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,771	Originally Posted by acbytesla I doubt SCOTUS will even hear arguments in the PA case. Rudy's case is awful. The Third Circuit's ruling was legally perfect and made by three Republicans judges. There is nothing about this appeal that has any legal merit. Alito should reject it out of hand. The only reason Alito might bring the case to the full court is simply for cover. He might not want to be the one judge that quashed a sitting Republican president's hopes. Certiorari won't be issued. I'm pretty sure you are right, but a thought occurred to me about a reason certiorari might be granted. Sometimes, the Supreme Court takes a case, and then issues a 9-0 opinion. I wouldn't swear that I've ever seen that where they take a case and issue a 9-0 or other lopsided, let's say 7-2, opinion that upholds a lower court ruling, but I'm guessing it has happened. Their purpose in doing so, I am told, is that sometimes there is no clear court precedent, and they want to establish one. There has been a lot of nonsense spouted in this post-election time about how the legislature can step in and disregard the will of the people. It is conceivable that they might take the case just for the purpose of making sure they can establish a precedent that this case, and any other like it, is nuts. If they want to squash this one like a bug, and make sure that any other fantasy of ignoring elections does not darken their doorstep in the future, they might take the case. I doubt it, but I don't know enough to say the scenario is absolutely impossible.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

28th November 2020, 09:43 AM	#3181
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by pgwenthold Is there any reason to think the conservative members of the SCOTUS are any more extreme than the panel of the 3rd circuit, that hammered the campaign with things like, "Lawsuits usually have serious allegations and evidence. This case has neither." That was written by a Trump-appointed judge. The other two judges were Bush appointees. This has already been heard by a conservative court. It got destroyed. I can't think of a single reason why SCOTUS would want to hear this case. There is no upside in them hearing it.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 09:52 AM	#3182
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,061	Originally Posted by Paul2 Someone assure me that the PA case that is going to SCOTUS has no chance of SCOTUS ruling in its favor in any way, considering not only the merits (or lack thereof) of the case, but the nature of SCOTUS as well. Are we sure that Roberts and Gorsuch are very, very, very likely to rule properly on that case? Which one is this? Hard to keep track.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

28th November 2020, 09:53 AM	#3183
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I'm pretty sure you are right, but a thought occurred to me about a reason certiorari might be granted. Sometimes, the Supreme Court takes a case, and then issues a 9-0 opinion. I wouldn't swear that I've ever seen that where they take a case and issue a 9-0 or other lopsided, let's say 7-2, opinion that upholds a lower court ruling, but I'm guessing it has happened. Their purpose in doing so, I am told, is that sometimes there is no clear court precedent, and they want to establish one. There has been a lot of nonsense spouted in this post-election time about how the legislature can step in and disregard the will of the people. It is conceivable that they might take the case just for the purpose of making sure they can establish a precedent that this case, and any other like it, is nuts. If they want to squash this one like a bug, and make sure that any other fantasy of ignoring elections does not darken their doorstep in the future, they might take the case. I doubt it, but I don't know enough to say the scenario is absolutely impossible. The thing is they don't need to create new precedence. This isn't Nixon v US where the court ruled 8 to 0 with Rhenquist absteining. Better to reject it outright than to keep this farce going a minute longer. Don't let the court be the focus of attention.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 09:55 AM	#3184
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Darat Which one is this? Hard to keep track. The only case possible to appeal to SCOTUS at the moment is the appeal unanimously rejected by the Third Circuit.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 09:57 AM	#3185
Horatius NWO Kitty Wrangler Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 28,902	Originally Posted by acbytesla I can't think of a single reason why SCOTUS would want to hear this case. There is no upside in them hearing it. What is the down side? They're all appointed for life, so even if Trump decides to trash them, there's essentially nothing he can actually do to them. Plus, there is an upside, at least for the three judges Trump appointed: Being part of a 9-0 smackdown of Trump himself is just about the only thing that would convince a lot of people that they won't just be toadies to Trump.
	__________________ Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd

28th November 2020, 10:02 AM	#3186
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,061	Originally Posted by acbytesla The only case possible to appeal to SCOTUS at the moment is the appeal unanimously rejected by the Third Circuit. Where are the documents, can't find a link.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

28th November 2020, 10:04 AM	#3187
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 24,771	Originally Posted by acbytesla The thing is they don't need to create new precedence. This isn't Nixon v US where the court ruled 8 to 0 with Rhenquist absteining. Better to reject it outright than to keep this farce going a minute longer. Don't let the court be the focus of attention. I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

28th November 2020, 10:11 AM	#3188
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Horatius What is the down side? They're all appointed for life, so even if Trump decides to trash them, there's essentially nothing he can actually do to them. Plus, there is an upside, at least for the three judges Trump appointed: Being part of a 9-0 smackdown of Trump himself is just about the only thing that would convince a lot of people that they won't just be toadies to Trump. While a 9-0 slap down might be fun, there is no question of law that needs to be settled. Their ruling would be redundant to the slapdown Trump got with the Third Circuit. Simply not issuing Certiorari would also send the message that the court is not a political instrument.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 10:15 AM	#3189
Babbylonian Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 13,424	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true. I think you might be mistaken in your assumption that such a decision would be correct in a broad sense. Even a liberal judge might look at this and want to stay far away from making a broad decision since states are permitted a great deal of freedom in how they conduct their elections and assign their electors in the presidential election. In this situation, it seems likely that a smart Supreme Court Justice would look at this, decide that the lower court was correct, and leave it at that. Besides, at the end of the day, the Supremes didn't look good at all when they let themselves be dragged into the 2000 election and then decided it. I doubt any of the current justices are particularly interested in getting pulled into this mess where the outcome isn't even truly in question.

28th November 2020, 10:15 AM	#3190
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Darat Where are the documents, can't find a link. The Trump campaign hasn't filed an appeal to SCOTUS that I'm aware of. But here's a link to the 27 page Third Circuit ruling. https://www.scribd.com/document/486077037/CA3-20-3371 Here is one of many articles that summarises it https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/27/...tion-case.html
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 10:20 AM	#3191
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Meadmaker I think you are probably right, but I would like to see a definitive statement that the legislature can't intervene in the manner that a lot of right wingers are saying they can. I doubt that the nine individuals who make up the court will decide that's enough reason to make themselves targets by stating it, especially since there are enough crazies out there that "targets" might be literally true. I understand that. But this isn't the case to do that with. But I hope we never see that case because that would mean some state tried to do it.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .

28th November 2020, 10:26 AM	#3192
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,473	Thanks, everyone, I appreciate the insights about the 3rd Circuit case going to SCOTUS.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,473	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

28th November 2020, 10:34 AM	#3193
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,061	Originally Posted by acbytesla The Trump campaign hasn't filed an appeal to SCOTUS that I'm aware of. But here's a link to the 27 page Third Circuit ruling. https://www.scribd.com/document/486077037/CA3-20-3371 Here is one of many articles that summarises it https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/11/27/...tion-case.html Ah right. I read that yesterday. From how people people were posting I thought they had started their appeal. Don't forget any appeal to the SCOTUS would have to be about the original decision to not allow the second amendment. Can't see why the SCOTUS would get involved in such a decision, especially given the appeal court not only affirmed the original decision to not allow the second amendment based on due delay but considered other possible legal arguments. Remember appeals are not for another bite of the cherry.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

28th November 2020, 10:45 AM	#3194
gnome Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 10,824	"A court ruled against the Second Amendment! It's time, folks, get your rifles!"
	__________________

28th November 2020, 10:48 AM	#3195
acbytesla Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2012 Posts: 27,941	Originally Posted by Darat Ah right. I read that yesterday. From how people people were posting I thought they had started their appeal. Don't forget any appeal to the SCOTUS would have to be about the original decision to not allow the second amendment. Can't see why the SCOTUS would get involved in such a decision, especially given the appeal court not only affirmed the original decision to not allow the second amendment based on due delay but considered other possible legal arguments. Remember appeals are not for another bite of the cherry. That's pretty much how I see it. SCOTUS doesn't rule on questions of fact, only on questions of law. There is no legal justification to allow Trump to amend his case twice.
	__________________ Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me. .