It appears that Rep. Bill Pascrell (D., NJ) has a serious problem with Republicans going to court. We recently discussed Pascrell’s absurd effort to disbar roughly two dozen Republican lawyers for challenging the results of the 2020 election. Now Pascrell is declaring that 120 House Republicans signing a “Friend of the Court brief” (or amicus brief) is tantamount to supporting a rebellion against the United States and that they should be blocked from taking their seats in Congress. I previously denounced Pascrell for his “dangerous form of demagoguery.” This latest call shows the demagoguery has reached a level of utter delusion.
From the outset of the Texas lawsuit, I stated that it was virtually guaranteed to fail on standing. It did fail last night. However, courts are where we take cases alleging such injuries. Tens of millions of American believe that the election was not fair, including many Democratic voters. Roughly 70 percent of Republican voters believe the election was stolen. Such challenges and concerns are brought to the courts where we can have disputes resolved without violence in a constitutional system.
Pascrell has long denounced political critics of destroying the Constitution based on his disagreement with their views. In the case of President Trump, he called for impeachment in 2019 on such undefined grounds as “disgrac[ing] his office and our nation beyond measure.”
Rather than welcome such review, Democrats have launched a scorched earth campaign, including an abusive campaign of harassment and abuse by the Lincoln Project. These efforts notably began shortly after Biden was declared the presumptive winner of the election and before any challenges were actually ruled upon by the courts.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has also fueled such reckless rhetoric, declaring that the Republicans are “subverting the Constitution by their reckless and fruitless assault on our democracy which threatens to seriously erode public trust in our most sacred democratic institutions, and to set back our progress on the urgent challenges ahead.”
Pascrell’s move against his colleagues mirrors language in the response of Pennsylvania’s Attorney General Josh Shapiro calling the Texas lawsuit “seditious.” Seeking judicial review is the antithesis of sedition or rebellion. It is working within our constitutional system for a legal opinion on the merits of a challenge. These litigants have complied with court orders, as has President Trump.
On Twitter, Pascrell declared
“Stated simply, the men and women who would act to tear the United States Government apart cannot serve as Members of the Congress. These lawsuits seeking to obliterate public confidence in our democratic system by invalidating the clear results of the 2020 presidential election undoubtedly attack the text and the spirit of the Constitution, which each Member swears to support and defend.”
Pascrell cites the 14th Amendment to argue that filing with a federal court is an act of rebellion and “trying to overturn a democratic election and install a dictator seems like a pretty clear example of that.”
Pascrell’s call is utterly unhinged from any logical or constitutional foundation. Rebels do not storm the courts with legal filings. They overthrow courts with the rest of the constitutional system. Those who lack faith or fealty in our constitutional system are those who label litigants “rebels” and legal filings as forms of “rebellion” and “sedition.”
This is what Turley chooses to write about today?
Should have been:
GOP No Friend of Americans”
Dude, Clarence Thomas wouldn’t go along with this BS and you’re still talking about Biden needing to support “investigations” and these guys tried to disenfranchise millions of American voters. The Chinese, Iranians, and Russians don’t do that. F these guys and Americans shouldn’t forget.it.
1-56 in court cases Loser, that’s the “investigation” you’ve been hawking like Hannity’s sidekick.
JT is a partisan hack. He denounced Pelosi for “reckless rhetoric” for criticizing the attempted coup, but supports those who actualy attempted the coup. Trump and his allies have been engaging in actual reckless rhetoric for a long time and JT is quiet.
MollyG
“JT is a partisan hack”
Why do you read Turley?
Do you really think that by starting your conversation with that line, you will convince people?
Your posts are just you venting your spleen in public.
Might make you feel important, but all you have done is show the world that you have poor manners.
I am simply trying to provide a service to new readers where I help to put JT’s posts in context. They may be confused and mistake this for an honest blog. By informing them that JT is a partisan hack, I am helping them understand this blog.
MollyG
My apologies.
I did not realize that you were being bad mannered as a public service.
Dirty job, but somebody has to do it.
I would like to point out that monumentcolorado is being stupid, but I’m sure he already knows that. Turley goes on and on about free speech, and like Turley, he just don’t like what they don’t want to hear.
Whats your problem JT? That this would subvert the will of the voters? That the election was clean and these Reps have a legal right to be seated? Since when has any of that mattered to you?
+10 MollyG
Elections and court cases have consequences.
Alternatively, in the realm of taking repub lawyer opinion to heart, I’ll take this:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/12/11/ginsberg-supreme-court-rejects-bid-overturn-election-reaction-vpx.cnn
I am 73 year old college degreed female that will go to war for our constitution and if it means moving to Texas and seceding from good old USA that we don’t recognize . I was raised during Vietnam war and never protested because I had people that I went to school with dying over there whether it was a righteous war or not. We had bombings and everything but never felt like this. This is Marxism clear and simple being cancelled when I get a conservative email. There very well could be civil war and people the New Jersey Senator or congressman better be watched what he is doing because I feel it is coming.
So you’re willing to pick up a gun and march into the South Bronx on this one, Sandra?
You can have the south Bronx.
Feel free to move there, and good luck finding clean water and something to eat past a few months.
Having been to New Jersey and Vietnam…..both being war zones….I would suggest avoiding New Jersey just out of risk of contracting some pollution caused illness.
Listening to your Congressman rant…..I fear he has a double dose of whatever it is in the water that affects ya’ll up there.
As much as ya’ll like the sound of your own voices….you might have noticed it don’t translate well down in Texas and so many other places outside your own small pine barren Liberal Utopia.
And if I did notice it, i decidedly didn’t GAF.
There is a lot of braggadocio from democrat politicians Who are totally out of control during the Trump Administration and will remain most likely in that state of pompous self-congratulation where the near future. The perfect example of this is the addendum to the defense Bill to remove the names of all bases named after Confederate soldiers. this even though 60% of the black population has said They Don’t Really Care. on top of that 90% of the people don’t know who the soldiers were since this country is full of historical lIgnoramus’s
There’s nothing new about rigged elections Jack Kennedy use the mafia to defeat Nixon, next midterm you similar people to defeat Humphrey and so on.
in my little suburb of San Diego we have already had antifa and black lives matter hey it’s a visit burning down three Banks and Robbing them and is burning down the shopping center and assaulting various people. the response was within a matter of weeks an organization was put together to defend East County from these raids, it has over 20,000 members.
Being a Jeffersonian Democrat I fully accept the principle of secession. as for the old Hocum about taking and violating an oath that oath only applies to the position you have in the country that you exist in. I had four direct ancestors who fought on the Continental line in Virginia, Maryland, in Pennsylvania in North Carolina. Subsequently at the time of the revolution as revolutionary officers they haven’t took an oath of allegiance to their state .County.
Oath that was taken for my ancestors in Orth Carolina in the Kings Army
I A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will bear true allegiance to His Majesty King George the Third.—So help me God.,
I, A. B., do sincerely and faithfully promise and swear that I will with Heart & Hands, Life and Goods, maintain and defend His Majesty’s Government and the Laws and Constitution of the Province of North Carolina, against all persons whatsoever who shall attempt to alter, obstruct or prevent the due administration of the Laws & the Public Peace and Tranquility of the said Province. So help me God.
Oath then taken for the continental Army
1789
, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States.”
The second part read:
“I, A.B., do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me.” The next section of that chapter specified that “the said troops shall be governed by the rules and articles of war, which have been established by the United States in Congress assembled, or by such rules and articles of war as may hereafter by law be established.”
As for secession 1848 Lincoln said this. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people, that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movements.” ~ Lincoln January 12 1848,
What a friggin moron this excuse for a human being is.
Bet you he doesn’t ask those dem’s who take an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of the U.S. to take an oath, hmmmm? I wish some medical person can explain just how a brain can become so cross-wired and confused. Lets hope he is voted out soon.
I’m personally not entirely convinced voting someone out will remain an option in the future if we just sit on our thumbs, though I hope I’m wrong. That doesn’t automatically mean violence, but the days of reticence are done. Kaput.
The dems have no compunction about ignoring the Constitution, and next time they will have learned from their ‘mistakes’, as they did in 2018 vs 2016. None of this is going to stop simply because they pushed Trump out. It alternately cracks me up/makes me hurl to hear a clown like this cite the Constitution, now THAT is rich. The DNC is a disgrace. So is the weak generation kissing it and China’s feet.
Taking a moment tio give you space for snowflake time, Jon.
By this: “Rather than welcome such review, Democrats have launched a scorched earth campaign, including an abusive campaign of harassment and abuse by the Lincoln Project. These efforts notably began shortly after Biden was declared the presumptive winner of the election and before any challenges were actually ruled upon by the courts.”…did you mean they actively campaigned to win the office of the president???
Thing is, i’m not sure I agree with Pascrell in not seating these congresspeople, but I do think they have some explaining to do and would be served well by some sort of probation. They’ve proved they’re not down entirely with democratic representation unless elections turn out their way. They seem to be missing the boat in what elections mean. Now one could say the political cauculation they’ve made is that the Texas suit was so bats&*t crazy they knew it had no chance for success so repubs jumped on the chance to rail on without it having any consequence and that would be accurate. But why no consequence? They’ve stepped really close to sedition on this one.
Ultimately the time to settle this dispute is not now. It’s in having full review of everything electoral in between elections — the kind of review Mitch McConnell has been actively squashing since 2015. Everything up for review: foreign interference, paper trails of votes, voter suppression, the renewal of the Voting Rights Act, dark money, term limits, etc….
Cherry picking rather extreme dem responses to absurd and extreme repub actions will get us almost nowhere. More than a bit disingenuous to jump in that pool, Jon. Not that I’m not mindful that is your social media influencer purpose of this blog itself, but maybe reel it in on this one? It doesn’t even look near centrist to say what you’re saying here — and yes I know you’re not centrist. But I do know you make efforts to come across as such, so it with this in mind i provide this criticism just in case you get lost in your own self justification, because for all I know you’re actively advising the repubs behind the scenes on this one. Just letting you know it’s a bad look even for those willing to listen to what you have to say.
Elvis Bug
Mr. Prascrell certainly has the right to make stupid statements (and he exercises that right frequently).
But all of us need to understand the consequences of these public utterances.
The first consequence is that he has shown the world that he is an idiot (and Mr. Prascrell used his real name!!!).
More importantly, by displaying his animus so publicly, he feeds the national anger.
Hate breeds hate.
For that alone, Mr. Prascrell deserves our contempt.
Cleaning it up for you monument, but you know what I’m thinking:
GTH monument and on the horse you rode in you hateful bad man.
Your cult leader has been pumping hate from the WH for 4 years and we are finally getting him out.
Buh bye.
friday
“…you hateful bad man…”
Oooh!! You have crushed me.
When I read your post, I realized that you are a sissyboy.
Rebellion? Maybe. Trump’s political friends worried about how it will look when the various NY State and federal felony indictments come down? Definitely.
Those who lack faith or fealty in our constitutional system are those who label litigants “rebels” and legal filings as forms of “rebellion” and “sedition.”
There is no faith in anything because Americans supplanted natural law with their own utterances, whims and appetites. There has literally been no structure, no common fabric, no American consensus for decades.
Again, Fr John Courtney Murray, SJ warned us in 1960
https://www.library.georgetown.edu/woodstock/murray/whtt_c13_1950a
We Hold These Truths: Catholic Reflections on the American Proposition
NATURAL LAW AND POLITICS
Natural law… is perhaps the skeleton that we mostly need, since it is precisely the structural foundations of the political, social, and economic orders that are being most anxiously questioned. In this situation the doctrine of natural law can claim to offer all that is good and valid in competing systems, at the same time that it avoids all that is weak and false in them. Its concern for the rights of the individual human person is no less than that shown in the school of individualist Liberalism with its “law of nature” theory of rights, at the same time that its sense of the organic character of the community, as the flowering in ascending forms of sociality of the social nature of man, is far greater and more realistic. It can match Marxism in its concern for man as worker and for the just organization of economic society, at the same time that it forbids the absorption of man in matter and its determinisms. Finally, it does not bow to the new rationalism in regard of a sense of history and progress, the emerging potentialities of human nature, the value of experience in settling the forms of social life, the relative primacy in certain respects of the empirical fact over the preconceived theory; at the same time it does not succumb to the doctrinaire relativism, or to the narrowing of the object of human intelligence, that cripple at their root the high aspirations of evolutionary scientific humanism. In a word, the doctrine of natural law offers a more profound metaphysic, a more integral humanism, a fuller rationality, a more complete philosophy of man in his nature and history.
I might say, too, that it furnishes the basis for a firmer faith and a more tranquil, because more reasoned, hope in the future. If there is a law immanent in man—a dynamic, constructive force for rationality in human affairs, that works itself out, because it is a natural law, in spite of contravention by passion and evil and all the corruptions of power—one may with sober reason believe in, and hope for, a future of rational progress. And this belief and hope is strengthened when one considers that this dynamic order of reason in man, that clamors for expression with all the imperiousness of law, has its origin and sanction in an eternal order of reason whose fulfillment is the object of God’s majestic will.
When did “American consensus” exist, Estovir? Did it exist during the period when slavery was legal? during the Jim Crow era? when women couldn’t vote? …
People believe in diverse gods. Which gods’ will should we follow?
The Founding Fathers appeared to have reached it, and Abraham Lincoln, the Republicans and many Democrats appealed to natural law to end slavery, the Civil War, etc. There were / are injustices (e.g. slavery, women’s suffrage, child labor, abortion, death penalty, rich vs poor, discrimination, poverty) in life but not because of the natural order but precisely because of the tendency of the universe, including man, to disorder.
Id be happy with any religion (e.g. Judaism, Christianity, Islam) or philosophy (e.g. Confucianism, Buddhism, Taoism) as the foundational guide to our country. However the Founding Fathers chose Christianity so it is more practical to stick with that
I didn’t ask about natural law. I asked about your claim “There has literally been … no American consensus for decades,” and when you think “American consensus” existed.
You think there was “American consensus” in the US when the Constitution was adopted? I think you’re simply ignoring the vast majority of Americans at the time, who had no voting rights and did not get to accept or reject the Constitution.
As for “the Founding Fathers chose Christianity,” they expressly agreed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
denounced Parcrell for his “dangerous form of demagoguery.”
On the other hand Biden is asking for unity. What a farce. The Republicans haven’t burned down neighborhoods, but Democrats have.
Does it serve to demonstrate ignorance?
Republicans have made a mockery of the courts with baseless claims. It is why their cases were thrown out. The demagoguery occurred from them. As you said, JT, you knew their brief had no standing. Are you defending using our courts in such a way as to delegitimize our elections in the minds of the people? If so many Americans believe it was stolen, is it not because of the way Mr. Giuliani and the president abused the system with frivolous cases? All they have done is create in the minds of their worshipful followers an expansion of the deep state conspiracies promulgated by Q_Anon. They abused the court system to promote the lies the President laid the foundation for disbelief before any ballots were cast. Your constant defense of this abusive litigiousness is nothing more than, as the creators of South Park might put it, a smelling of your own farts. You’ve gone dangerously mad JT.
Would the Democrats wish us to use a different venue of our own choosing to challenge the conduct of this election?
The same Constitution that came to being following the Declaration of Independence is founded upon the principles voiced in that Declaration.
When the Courts reject the pleas without taking up the cases and without requiring proper investigation and hearing of the complaints…..where do we take our concerns for resolution?
To be called Traitors, seditious, and other foul names for the mere seeking of legal redress of grievances about a matter as important as wanting safe and secure elections….that in itself serves as a warning to us that the situation is worthy of indictment.
I am old, and have watched my Country decline over my lifetime due to changes that I just never would have imagined possible.
I, like so. many others am troubled by what I see.
Where do the Left wish us to go to have those concerns examined?
What process do they accept as being wholesome and good for all concerned….for both sides….for today and our future?
From that Declaration…..and for government that stemmed from it and the one coming beginning January 20th. Be careful where you tread.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,–That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
As a Democrat, I don’t object to using the courts. But you have to use the correct court (in this case, state courts, not federal courts), you have to bring suit in a timely way, you have to have standing to file suit, … Texas et al.’s suit fails on all of these grounds.
Dozens of suits have been filed, mostly in state courts. According to Marc Elias, who has been tracking the suits and participating in many, Trump and his allies are now 1-57 (wins-losses). They’re losing their suits because the suits are not well-founded. They’re publicity stunts. They’ve been rejected by both conservative and liberal judges, including several judges appointed by Trump.
“Where do the Left wish us to go to have those concerns examined?”
If you think you have evidence of fraud, turn it over to law enforcement so they can investigate. If the results of the investigation show that you’ve misinterpreted the evidence, either accept those results even though you don’t like them or make a detailed case about what the errors in the investigation were. If you have a good legal foundation for a suit, have standing, can bring the suit in a timely way, …, then use the courts too if you want.
I agree with the need for “evidence”….completely.
I did as well all during the Russia Collusion and Impeachment debacle that was utterly devoid of evidence.
I ask you this question…..as I think we call can agree fair and secure Elections are one of the cornerstones of our system of government….and Elections are not Courts….thus Judicial Standards do not apply….why are not the various Boards of Elections required to prove themselves to be fair and secure in the conduct of elections?
How does one provide that evidence you demand if access to the very systems, procedures, and conduct of those Elections denied to those challenging the conduct of those elections?
Prosecutors have access to Investigations, Grand Jurys, Warrants, Subpoenas, and audits…..not so the Candidate who thinks himself harmed.
The Boards look him in the eye and say….in so many words….”We are fair and honest….trust us.”….despite all sorts of indicators of poblems.
The states did alter procedures without the Legislature amending the State Law….Courts, Elected Officials, and Boards did alter procedures and policies without the benefit of Legislature approvals or action, and yes Voters within those States got different standards of treatment…..we all saw that happen.
When do those Officials, Courts, Boards, and Legislatures get held accountable for that and how?
Our Election system is shambles that should embarrass all involved.
We know the Dead vote, that people with no valid eligibility vote, we know more people vote than are registered….that is not subject to dispute.
We should be tightening the rules to eliminate those kinds of failures….not slacking off on them and allowing more of it. That benefits no one except those among us that seek to steal an election.
How many prosecutions occur for violation of voting laws? Care to run those Statistics out for us?
Re: “why are not the various Boards of Elections required to prove themselves to be fair and secure in the conduct of elections?,” what would constitute proof for you?
Seems to me that if you require some kind of proof that doesn’t currently exist, then the first step is for states to debate and pass laws requiring some additional proof and also provide funding to make sure it’s feasible for the new requirements to be met.
“How does one provide that evidence you demand if access to the very systems, procedures, and conduct of those Elections denied to those challenging the conduct of those elections?”
Can you give an example of access being denied? (Yes, I know that people have made allegations that observers weren’t allowed to observe. I also know that others have said that those allegations aren’t true, and in some cases, courts have ruled about it.)
Do you have any examples where an allegation was presented to the state but not investigated? For example, I know that in GA, the GA Bureau of Investigations is helping to investigation allegations of election fraud: https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/gbi-to-assist-georgia-secretary-of-states-office-with-election-fraud-cases
“We know the Dead vote, that people with no valid eligibility vote, we know more people vote than are registered….that is not subject to dispute.”
No, “we” don’t know that. You believe that. I’d be happy to be convinced with actual evidence. I know that there are small numbers of cases of where people attempt to vote fraudulently and are caught and prosecuted. An example: https://www.wnep.com/article/news/local/luzerne-county/man-arrested-for-voter-fraud-in-luzerne-county/523-7fc4fd2f-9105-47e7-a510-2b5ff176ab2c
“How many prosecutions occur for violation of voting laws?”
I don’t know. Have you tried looking it up for yourself? Do you need help figuring out how to look it up?
Texas’s suit would fail on the merits too, and if Texas et al. were allowed to file a suit about issues totally internal to another state, it would open the floodgates of other states doing the same on diverse issues. Unfortunately, it’s not surprising that Turley avoids dealing with the substance of Texas et al’s suit.
“It appears that Rep. Bill Pascrell (D., NJ) has a serious problem with Republicans going to court.”
What ridiculous hyperbole. The vast majority of times that Republicans go to court, Pascrell does not object. He’s objecting to *this* suit which attempts to disenfranchise millions of voters and overturn the will of the people that Biden be the next President.
I don’t know that I agree with Pascrell’s argument about the Representatives not being seated, but it deserves a serious discussion, not this kind of flip dismissal. Not once in his column does Pascrell attempt to discuss the attempt to disenfranchise huge numbers of voters and to flip the results of the election.
The chairman of the Texas GOP, Allen West, now appears to be calling for secession:
“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.” (https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2020/12/11/texas-gop-chair-allen-west-suggests-law-abiding-states-form-union-supreme-court-rejects-lawsuit-election-results/)
Did the Supreme Court dodge, or did it prove its neutrality to a new administration and to the American people?
Trump retweets: “Kayleigh on Supreme Court: Yeah there’s no way to say it other than they dodged. They dodged. They hid behind procedure and they refused to use their authority to enforce the Constitution.”
Turley tweets: “As with the absurd ACA conspiracy theory raised by the Democrats in the Barrett hearing, an apology might be order after Democrats claimed that she would join the other conservatives in overturning the election.”
“an apology might be order after Democrats claimed that she would join the other conservatives in overturning the election”
It’ll be a cold day in Hell before politicians issue a truly honest apology for anything they say or do.
Not taking shit on the constitution and disenfranchising tens of millions of voters in not way shows that Trumps picks are not partisan hacks. Only time and many opinions will tell. The census case is a better test.
Prascrell, Pascrell, Parcrell. JT needs a copy editor.
Thank you for another excellent post, Professor Turley.
You write: “From the outset of the Texas lawsuit, I stated that it was virtually guaranteed to fail on standing. It did fail last night.”
Would you please consider a post explaining to the general reader why the Texas lawsuit failed on standing? I am aware of Pennsylvania’s opposition to the Texas Bill of Complaint, and of Texas’ response to the Pennsylvania opposition:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163367/20201210142206254_Pennsylvania%20Opp%20to%20Bill%20of%20Complaint%20v.FINAL.pdf
Pg. 13-16: “II. Texas Does Not Present a Viable Case and Controversy; A. Texas lacks standing to bring this action; First, Texas cannot establish it suffered an injury in fact; Second, Texas’s claimed injury is not fairly traceable to a violation of the Electors Clause; Third, Texas fares no better in relying on parens patriae for standing; B. This untimely action is moot; In a nutshell, it is too late to reverse or enjoin the results of the election, including the actions of the Secretary and Pennsylvania’s 67 county boards of elections. As a consequence, Texas’s claims are moot.”
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163498/20201211111125165_TX-v-State-MPI-Reply-2020-12-11.pdf
Pg. 7: “D. Texas has standing to sue. Voting rights are fundamental…and the Senate is a body in which Defendant States’ actions threaten Texas’s voting rights…With that standing in its own right, Texas can assert parens patriae standing for its citizens.”
“Whatever Pennsylvania’s definition of sedition, moving this Court to cure grave threats to Texas’s right of suffrage in the Senate and its citizens’ rights of suffrage in presidential elections upholds the Constitution, which is the very opposite of sedition. The potential loss of suffrage rights meets the serious-magnitude test that Pennsylvania poses, Penn. Br. 13, and the purely legal nature of Defendant States’ violations meets its clear-and-convincing test.”
Pg. 9: “E. Neither laches nor mootness bar injunctive relief. Texas’s action is timely. Under Article III ripeness and standing requirements, Texas could not sue until after the election and, arguably, even after Defendant States certified their obviously flawed election results. Whereas Defendant States had months to plan, Texas had less than four weeks to detect violations, find witnesses willing to testify—notwithstanding threats—and develop evidence and build a case.”
“This action would be moot only if it were “impossible for a court to grant” relief…The electors have not yet voted, and the statutory deadlines may be amended or stayed. Indeed, Congress did so for a similarly flawed election in 1876-77…This action is not moot.”
I think these 126 or so legislators in the U.S. House should be held accountable by the public voters, vocal pundits, and individuals of our nation. As a voter who would have been disenfranchized, I am considering a lawsuit against them. I am hoping for some other organized campaigns against them for their embrace of an attempted fascist takeover of our election. These Republicans elected to serve our Constitution showed their willingness to throw it under the bus and support fascism, and if they’re not called out now, there’s nothing to stop them from taking this route as often as they can and perhaps, one time, succeeding in their coup. Calling for our fair, certified election results to be “thrown out” en masse is condoning tyranny, pure and simple. They need to pay and pay hard.
“their embrace of an attempted fascist takeover of our election”
Are you channeling Rip Van Winkle?
That already occurred the first week of November.
“They need to pay and pay hard”
Yes they do, and they will.
Newton’s third law: “For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction”.
AKA as Karma.
Had the SCOTUS heard the case…agreed with Texas and the other States and remanded the election of the individual State’s Electors to the Legislature….per the Constitution…..would you have been “disenfranchised”?
Lots of arm waving going on and usage of some pretty loose accusations all the way around here……stick to the law, the Constitution, and legal issues and the conversation shall have far more value.
By there Court’s lack of assumption of the Texas Suit….the Nation is still in crisis as there has been no significant finding of fact on the issues…..the People still question the validity of the election process, and the lack of “standing” given by Courts avoiding examination of the claims and evidence.
Cuin…..had the Court ordered the votes thrown out….who would have been to blame….those that caused the circumstances that led to that….or the parties that challenged those actions?
When you cite a “harm”….you also should cite who you think the cause of the “harm” is.
I suggest the culpable parties are those that undertook the actions the Courts applied a remedy towards…..and in the situation I just described it would have been the Democrats that got caught out….and your accusations of damage would accrue to them had the Court found as described.
Or….is it your position that it is the Whistleblower that causes the harm rather than the Perpetrator of the culpable act?
Turley wrote, “Pascrell’s call is utterly unhinged from any logical or constitutional foundation. Rebels do not storm the courts with legal filings. They overthrow courts with the rest of the constitutional system. Those who lack faith or fealty in our constitutional system are those who label litigants “rebels” and legal filings as forms of “rebellion” and “sedition.” “
Pascrell is simply voicing the kind of anti-Constitution anti-American thinking that is now engrained in the political left.
I have little hope for the future of the United States; the divisions that have been created over the last 12 years are too deep.
I fear the United States is irretrievably broken.
Yes I know that “ingrained” is spelled wrong, brain fart.
Liberty is Dying a Slow Death in the United States of America
Tell me again what party tried to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters and install an un-elected president? That sounds very anti-Constitution and anti-American.
I understand that you don’t want the bad orange man reelected but let me get this right; you don’t care if there are concerns that states have violated their own Constitutions – mine is one of them; don’t care if voting machines might be flawed; don’t care if dead people have voted; don’t care if some ballots have been counted illegally; don’t care if people vote multiple times; don’t care if our voting system is
b a s t a r d i z e d to the point of stripping it of integrity, etc, etc? What if some or all of these claims actually have some real basis for concern, wouldn’t you like to know? Yes I know that most of the cases have been tossed out of court for one reason or another but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a shred of truth to the accusations leveled.
I know that when Democrats make accusations towards Republicans that those accusations are instantly considered fact and that accusations are the only thing Democrats need to render a guilty verdict in the court of public opinion but shouldn’t Republicans get to use that same guilty until proven innocent ideology and make all kinds of accusations willy-nilly? I haven’t met one Democrats over the last four year that isn’t a bald-faced hypocrite when it comes to this kind of ideological differences. Democrats use the court of public opinion and the Republicans use the actual judicial system.
The Trump campaign and all the other PAC’s that filed suite have every right to legally challenge what’s happened in election based on the evidence that they think they have, this is how the United States of America works. If you don’t like our system then feel free to leave.
No. This is not how America is supposed to work. It is not the suits that is the biggest issue, it was the remedy that they wanted, which was to throw out tens of millions of legal votes from entire states. The accusations of fraud in the election were lies. It is un-American for our elected politicians to go out and blatantly lie about election fraud. My own Representative in the House signed on to a suit that would have thrown out my vote. That is unforgivable. If you don’t like the idea of the person who wins elections taking office then you can get out of my country. I am sure you would be happier in Russia or China or Saudi Arabia.
MollyG wrote, “No. This is not how America is supposed to work.”
Are you really that ignorant?
YES moron this is how the United States of America works and how it’s supposed to work, the Constitution says so! The United States judicial system is here for everyone in this country including President Trump, those you disagree with and even a civically ignorant moron like yourself.
I actually do want the person who wins the election to take office not a person that won by possible fraudulent, illegal or unconstitutional means. The legal system is there to protect elections when something goes wrong; let the system do its job unhindered by moronic fools spewing ignorant rhetoric that using the judicial system is somehow disenfranchising tens of millions of voters when in fact the judicial system is there to make sure that things are done legally. The end result will likely be Biden being our next president and regardless of some policy differences I have with Biden I have no problem with him legally winning the election. See Molly I actually resect our laws and expect them to be followed even the laws that one political party favors over the other. Personally I firmly believe that my state violated its’ constitution by changing election laws without going through the legislature and I think that may be the case for some other states; whether that should invalidate the election in those particular states, I’ll leave that legal interpretation up to the Supreme Court of the United States. I think some heads should roll due to 11th hour unconstitutional changes in the elections, this kind of thing cannot ever be tolerated if we want election integrity.
I swore an oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States of America from all threats whether those are foreign or domestic. You obviously don’t like the Constitution, you get out of my country.
Did you miss the part where they wanted to throw out tens of millions of votes? That is unAmarican by itself and anyone who supports that hates my country.
MollyG wrote, “Did you miss the part where they wanted to throw out tens of millions of votes?”
No I didn’t miss that. Do you understand that if there were lots of ballots that were illegally cast or illegally counted then it’s not inappropriate to ask that the election in that state be nullified and no one gets those Electoral College votes. Of course if the ends justify the means to you then nothing will change your mind, as long as it get’s that bad orange man out of the White House.
Here’s a point that far too people are completely ignoring; if their state violated their own Constitution and election laws and intermixed illegally cast or illegally counted ballots into the mix of legal ballots then that state is at fault not the Trump campaign for point it out. Illegal is illegal, unconstitutional is unconstitutional, pointing out that these illegal or unconstitutional things may have actually happened in these states is the duty of all elected officials and all citizens, ignoring these things is anti-Constitution and therefore anti-American.
MollyG wrote, “That is unAmarican by itself and anyone who supports that hates my country.”
No Molly, it’s not unAmerican to point out that which you believe to be illegal or unconstitutional, it’s the patriotic duty of all citizens to point out these things. Anyone making a ignorant claims like you’ve been making is a civically ignorant moron.
I did not vote illegally and you all want to throw out my vote.The Texas case wanted all the votes for four states thrown out. They are not making any distinction between those that were legally and those that were not. It is absolutely unAmerican do try to do that and it is true that those who support those efforts hate America.
The argument “We just want to count legal ballots and not count illegal ones” is a lie. The filings are like “We think that some ballots may be illegal so we want to throw out all the ballots.” It is a lie that I am just sick of hearing and those who spread it are scum.
They are not even arguing that the votes were ineligible, but that the process has problems, so they want all the votes thrown out in that state. They also only care about four states that would turn the results. They don’t care about any issues in any other state, and Texas did the same thing that they accuse the other states of doing. It is a dishonest partisan hack job at the foundation of our county.
Molly has sown us that she doesn’t care one bit if the election was b a s t a r d i z e d and conducted in an illegal or unconstitutional manner as long as her vote is counted and the end result is what she wants; that folks is the ends justifies the means in a nutshell, it’s unethical and it’s immoral.
There’s nothing that will change the mind of someone that believes that the ends justifies the means.
We’re done with this conversation.
The election was legal. All the court cases have failed. You don’t care about the basic concept of citizens voting.
“The election was legal. All the court cases have failed. You don’t care about the basic concept of citizens voting.”
Not even close Molly.
SCOTUS failed to take up the case on a standing issue – not on the merits. Read the Texas brief EVERY SINGLE CLAIM is true.
The TX lawsuit rested on the failure of several states to follow their own elections laws.
There is zero debate that is true.
There is no court that has found that those states followed their election laws – they could – it is obvious they did not.
It is not even debateable.
All losses are procedural – not based on the merits.
Even the most brash and pro-democrat decisions of the court rest on the thin reed that the misconduct did not proveably alter the outcome of the election.
But most of the decisions rested on stupidity – like the SCOTUS decision – either that a complaint was not timely or that it was not brought by the appropriate party. In most or all cases those procedural roadblocks could not possibly have been overcome.
Republicans in various states went to court BEFORE, DURING, and AFTER the election to protest lawlessness.
Before they were told – wait until after. During the courts dawdled – often giving republicans what they wanted – when it was too late to matter. And after the courts said “too late”.
This is not the conduct of moral and honest people.
You are stupid if you think this is over.
You are very very stupid if you think that denying legitimate legal redress is wiseless.
When government is lawless and there is no remedy from government – the remedy is that people take the law into their own hands.
That is extremely dangerous – but that is where YOU are taking us.
We are not there yet – mostly. I fully expect a significant increase in lawlessness from the right.
Afterall YOU modeled that lawlessness all summer.
What are you going to do about “mostly peaceful” protestors railing against your lawlessness ?
How is a lawless election any less consequential than the death in custody by drug overdose of some black man whose job was stolen by YOUR lockdowns ?
Regardless, why do you expect that Republicans will not employ the same tactics as you do ?
If Big cities are not going to verify the validity of ballots – flood them with ballots. If you are going to accept ballots late – flood them with late ballots. If you are going to protest the police – republicans can engage in “mostly peaceful” protests of the lawless elections.
And if those steps do not work – it can get worse. Much worse.
When government is lawless everything goes to hell.
John, again excellent. The only argument you will hear from them is a non argument based on circular reasoning and because…
I real large parts of the purported WI Federal judge “on the merits” decision.
It was not “on the merits”. The core of the decision was procedural due process – with a side helping of legislative delegation.
The judge decided that if WI followed the guidance of the WEC – then it was irrelevant whether that guidance might allow massive fraud.
And that the WEC could wipe out WI statutory law – because in his view the WI legislature had delegated sufficient authority to them to rewrite the law.
This is a pretty creative cop out from a judge unwilling to wipe out hundreds of thousands of votes because 10’s of thousands might be illegitimate.
I do actually understand the reluctance on the part of the courts – including SCOTUS. And again we can design election processes to minimize the role of the courts – and we should. We do not want to politicize our courts by making them decide elections. Even when they decide correctly there is damage to the courts. Further as here it is really really hard when because of prior failures the courts have all or nothing choices. These judges are probably smart enough to grasp that whatever lawlessness there was in 2020, their decisions open the floodgates. But tough choices in the future have little influence compared to tough choices NOW.
I beleive there is a saying – “hard cases make bad law” – this is the perfect example.
Insisting that EVERY SINGLE CLAIM in the Texas brief is true doesn’t make them all true. Lots of people have identified flaws in their claims. There isn’t zero debate.
Please share those flaws with readers here.
So tell us which claim is not true ?
I have not read ONE that was not OBVIOUSLY true.
All the claims in the TX lawsuit are quite simple – that the 4 or 5 identified states did not follow their own laws and constitutions and that doing so was an equal rights violation against voters in all other states.
TX did not say that all states must have the same election laws – only that each state must be able to trust that other states will atleast attempt to abide by theirs – that is a valid 14th amendment claim.
SCOTUS’s dismissal has a fundimental legal problem – If TX can not raise the claim – who can ?
SCOTUS’s rejection of the TX claim means that NO ONE can require a state to follow its own laws.
Not the federal government, not other states, not individuals.
If there is no means to compel a state to follow its own laws – you are on the road to anarchy.
Regardless, SCOTUS could not take the case, because there is no question that these states acted outside their laws.
The only question is what is the remedy – and few people have the balls to go their.
Yet, we must if we are to preserve the rule of law.
You can start by reading the responses from the defendants and from amici who opposed Texas. You can find them here –
https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/
You can read the analyses on legal blogs, some of which are listed here –
https://electionlawblog.org/?s=texas+v.+pennsylvania&x=0&y=0
More here, mixed in with unrelated columns –
reason.com/volokh/
Someone else already linked to one of the Volokh columns, a critique of the errors in the ridiculous statistical claim.
Anonymous wrote, “You can start by reading the responses from the defendants and from amici who opposed Texas. You can find them here..”
Typical progressive hack.
Anonymous can’t outright support the claims that “he” makes with quoted statements instead he expects others to wade through outside links to find what he thinks supports “his” claims. It’s not unethical to provide those links as sources but Anonymous should actually be pulling quotes from those sources to present as evidence to support “his” claims. Anonymous’ method of rhetorical debate is unethical.
No Anonymous, we’re not going to do your homework for you.
Don’t make claims that you can’t properly support.
Steve, I said that “Lots of people have identified flaws in their claims,” and I gave you evidence of that by linking to pages with writings by lots of people identifying flaws in their claims.
You want me to digest those for you, and I’m not going to. It would take pages and pages to excerpt relevant quotes from all of those documents. LMAO that you think it’s “unethical” for me to expect you to read for yourself.
Consider a single document, the response from GA.
They start by pointing out factual flaws in Texas’s argument.
“Texas has sued Georgia anyway, asserting claims based on essentially four factual allegations—(1) Georgia’s State Election Board adopted State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15, which allowed county election officials before November 3 to begin processing (but not tabulating) the record-setting number of absentee ballots cast during the pandemic (Compl. ¶ 67); (2) Georgia’s Secretary of State, represented by the Georgia Attorney General’s office, entered into a settlement agreement providing that (i) the Secretary of State would send a communication to the counties that recommended best practices for reviewing ballots, which included a panel of three registrars or clerks (instead of only one) to review absentee ballots with questionable signatures, although only one member makes the final decision with agreement from at least one other member, (ii) state election officials should consider providing county officials with certain guidance and training materials (id. ¶¶ 70–71); and (3) Georgia would enforce its voluntarily promulgated State Election Board regulation requiring prompt notification of absentee ballot rejection, but also providing voters with telephonic notice of any deficiencies (id. ¶ 71).
“Those measures complied with Georgia law. Take the State Election Board’s processing rule first. Under Georgia law, the State Elections Board has authority “[t]o formulate, adopt, and promulgate such rules and regulations . . . as will be conducive to the fair, legal, and orderly conduct of primaries and elections” so long as those rules are “consistent with law.” O.C.G.A. 21-2-31(2). The State Elections Board exercised that statutory authority by adopting State Rule 183-1-14-0.9-.15. Indeed, a different statute—O.C.G.A. § 21-2-386—allows the State Elections Board to preliminarily review absentee ballots before Election Day, and expressly provides the county election superintendent with “discretion” to tabulate ballots prior to the close of the polls even in regular times. Id. at § 21-2-386(a)(1)(B), (a)(3) (allowing the registrar, “[u]pon receipt of each ballot” to begin steps that include certifying signatures, and that the “county election superintendent may . . . choose[] to open the inner envelopes and begin tabulating such ballots prior to the close of the polls on the day of the primary, election, or runoff”). In taking these actions, the State Elections 4 Board followed State law and enabled registrars to process efficiently and accurately a record-setting number of absentee ballots. As for the signature-verification guidance, neither communications with counties to recommend best practices on how to analyze absentee-ballot signatures, nor alerting a voter of ballot deficiencies by telephone and in writing presents any conflict with State law. Texas cites no Georgia law suggesting otherwise. Nor does Texas cite any Georgia law suggesting that an election official cannot even consider sending guidance and training materials to county officials.
“Texas suggests that those lawful implementation measures, and not the Georgia Legislature’s actions, resulted in election officials’ rejecting absentee ballots at a “seventeen times” lower rate in 2020 than in 2016. Compl. ¶ 75. But there is no basis for Texas’s speculation about the reasons for the alleged differences in rejection rates. Rejection rates for signatures on absentee ballots remained largely unchanged. See Wood v. Raffensperger, No. 1:20-cv-04651-SDG, 2020 WL 6817513, at *10 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 20, 2020). But overall rejection rates were influenced by many factors, including significant legislative action. In 2019, the Georgia Legislature eliminated certain information that voters had been required to provide on absentee ballots during the 2016 election cycle; for instance, because of the 2019 legislative changes, in 2020, voters casting mail-in ballots were not required to write their date of birth and address on the ballot before submitting it. H.B. 316, 236 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Ga. 2019). That same law adopted a cure process, giving absentee voters the opportunity to cure deficient or missing signatures on absentee 5 ballots. That process did not exist in Georgia law prior to 2019. Those changes by the Georgia Legislature in 2019—combined with the 2020 election’s record turnout and extensive public and private educational efforts regarding voting procedures—explain the allegedly lower rejection rates better than Texas’s fact-less speculation about the (lawful) steps taken to process absentee ballots. …”
Then they address legal flaws.
“Texas lacks standing. …” They discuss why.
“Texas’s claims do not meet the high standard for an original action against another state. …” They discuss why.
There are additional sections, but that should be sufficient for you to get the drift.
Each of the defendant states has provided this kind of analysis. Amici have as well. For example, several states submitted a brief discussing, among other things, why “The Electors Clause Provides No Basis To Second-Guess State Courts And Local Actors In Their Interpretation Of State Law.”
Or consider the analyses posted to legal blogs. For example, discussing the GA brief that I partially quoted from, Jonathan Adler, a law professor at Case Western says “Among other things, the Georgia brief highlights that if Texas’s arguments were accepted, it would mean that state legislatures lack the power to authorize state agencies, such as a state Secretary of State, to issue election regulations or decisions regarding election administration, and state legislatures could not authorize state courts to adjudicate election disputes. The Georgia brief also explains how some of the factual claims Texas and others make are simply wrong.
“Were the Texas theory to be accepted, any administrative or executive action taken to change election administration rules would render the state’s selection of electors unlawful, even if such actions were authorized under state law. Such a rule would not only invalidate Georgia’s selection of presidential electors. It would invalidate the selection of presidential electors in Texas too, given some of the actions Governor Abbott took this past fall. It is a radical argument that would make a mockery of Article II’s delegation of power to state legislatures and upend core elements of our federal system. It is simply remarkable that any state official who purports to be a constitutional conservative could embrace such a claim. …”
If you’re too lazy to even skim these documents for yourself, you’re not really interested in understanding the flaws in Texas’s argument.
“Texas lacks standing”
This is NOT on the merits.
I do not agree with SCOTUS or other courts, but my agreement is not what matters.
AS Volohk pointed out – a Standing issue merely means – Texas is not the appropriate party to make this claim, it does not mean the claim is not valid.
Ultimately when states do not follow their own laws – SOMEONE MUST have standing – the alternative is totalitarianism.
As Joshua Blackman on Volohk pointed out – forget the current election.
In a hypothetical election where the State administration failed to follow the laws of that state and the consequence unarguably altered the outcome – how do you correct that ?
If GA or PA, or MA election officials just make up elections results completely disregarding the election law – WHO has standing to challenge that ?
AS things stand right now – no one does. Which means that lawless conduct by state administrations can not be remedied.
The party with standing would be the candidate or a voter in that state, but those claims had already been decided.
“The party with standing would be the candidate or a voter in that state, but those claims had already been decided.”
Nope. TX made a claim that has not been made by anyone else.
There are several elements to the TX lawsuit:
The first is that these states failed to follow their own laws – BTW both WI and PA have actually found that, But the PA supreme court found that PA law and constitution had been violated – but still they were oK because …. Covid. Then PA ignored a siguestion by SCOTUS to separate late arriving ballots, then PA ignored an ORDER by Alito – who is the SC judge directing the 3rd Circuit.
Regardless, the point is that you have two states where it has already been determined that the state law and constitutions were violate by state officials. The other 3 states have essentially the same problem.
And the purported Trump Federal Judge you seem to like – essentially applied “Chevron Deference” which is not applicable to states, which SCOTUS is slowly dropping anyway, in a case where it would not apply even to a federal agency. Regardless, he has been corrected by the WI supreme court.
This is typical left wing rot.
“but those claims had already been decided.”
Because you say so ?
That would be like you said that Hunter Biden’s misconduct in Ukraine was a Right wing conspiracy – then it was Russian Disinformation.
That would be like the Obama administration did not spy on the Trump campaign ?
and on and on.
Well that explains the anonymous posting. No one would want to have even their dogs name associated with what you have posted.
This is not a question of “skimming” – it is an issue of agreeing.
The SCOTUS decision that Texas does not have standing – is not a decision on the merits.
Standing is not on the merits.
More important still it begs the question – who does have standing ?
It is in-arguable that the states TX sued did not follow their own election laws.
Who has standing ? And what is the remedy for that ?
Lets say that in 2024 Trump favoring Republican govenors have taken over these states and they all decide that they are not going to follow the election laws. That they are going to disallow all mailin and absentee ballots, that they are going to change all the standards for running the election to those they think favor Trump or whatever the next Republican is ?
How do you stop that ?
When you allow democrats running government to ignore the law – then republicans in power are similarly free to ignore the law.
Neither the left nor the courts – including the supreme court have acted wisely here.
Both have played ostrich sticking their heads in the sand hoping the problem will go away.
There was an easy remedy before the election – follow the law.
After the election it got much harder – probably there was no fix for a lawless election. but at the very least states could have properly investigated and determined the scope of the problem.
WE are still fighting over DVS voting systems. Sydney Powell’s claim that DVS systems – on their own flipped Trump votes to Biden on any significant scale is increasingly implausible.
Yet at the same time the evidence that has been discovered already makes it clear that there is a HUGE window doe fraud with DVS scanning and counting systems. We can debate whether the automatic error rate is 68% or 6.8% or 0,68% – all of which are far more than high enough to change the outcome of the election. What is crystal clear at this point is that DVS voting Systems provide myriads of ways by which fraudulent votes can be counted or legitimate votes altered and that there is no existing remedy for this.
The records kept by the software – of necescity do not provide an audit trail that would enable identifying those responsible for actual fraud in the unlikely event that fraud was caught.
Regardless, it should be clear to everyone that if we are going to use ballot scanning systems, that we MUST have better systems for ensuring the integretty of the system.
As with mailin elections – most everything that makes voting easier also makes fraud easier. And with DVS systems – fraud is very easy.
There is only one reliable way to detect fraud in those systems as they currently exists – that is FULL hand recounts.
We can use careful and small random recounts to validate that the voting software itself is not engaging in fraud, but we can not catch the fraudulent actions of individual election officials without a full hand recount.
Even that is not enough. without a process that uniquely identifies whatr election officials processed which ballots, there is no means to prevent, correct or punish actual fraud.
You complain about lazy – yet you are too lazy – or blinded by partisanship to grasp the obvious.
No election is legitmate unless nearly all the people accept it as such.
You, the left democrats, the media spent 4 years ranting about the collusion delusion.
You protested, you looted you rioted, you claimed the election was rigged.
All that was obviously false from the start and eventually fell apart – thought many of you still buy that nonsense.
Regardless, that did have an effect – it did de-legitimize the government.
Trust is government is at an all time low – Amen.
Why do you expect that the rest of us will get over your lawless handling of this election ?
The failure of states to follow their own laws is a fact. We are all aware of it.
Courts do not have the power to change reality – you do not seem to grasp that.
As Trump mostly loses in court several things are occuring.
First many are seeing the evidence of actual fraud and lawlessness.
The Biden administration is being delegitimized,
The courts are undermining their own credibility
And democrats continue to erode theirs.
Why is anyone to beleive you on this ?
Didn;t you rant at us for 4 years that Russia had fraudulently given the election to Trump ?
Didn;’t you tell us that Obama spying on Trump was a right wing conspiracy theory ?
Din;t you tell us that any claim that the Biden’s or democrats were up to their asses in shit in the Ukraine was another right wing conspiracy theory ?
How long is your nose ?
Why is anyone supposed to believe anything you, democrats, the courts, the left, the media say ?
Truth is not ideological. It is determined by reality.
It is not the product of words, or definitions or court decisions or media pontifications.
John, some people think it obvious that the world is flat. They aren’t correct. You consider the claims in the Texas suit to be obviously true. You aren’t correct either. I already gave some examples from GA’s response. Someone else already pointed out Texas’s laughably false quadrillion to 1 claim. You’re too lazy to read and think about what people have already written.
Is it false that the WI executive on its own told people that they need not abide by WI’s Voter ID law and then did not enforce the law?
There is no dispute that occured.
That is TX’s claim against WI.
The claim against PA and GA is essentially the same.
In each of the states that TX sued – joined by 27 other states, that states election laws were not followed by the executive branch of that states government.
The facts are NOT in question.
As noted WI’s supreme court just reuled that precisely what TX alleged did occur.
If course that is just the WI supreme court restating the obvious.
What is troubling is that this judge – and several others that you like could not see the obvious.
You appear to be too lazy to read the law.
In PA it is Act 77
That requires that VOTERS – all voters, are required to provide Voter ID – even mailin voters.
That is on the first page of Act 77, which was passed in 2019 and Signed by Gov. Wolf.
Elsewhere Act 77 provided that no ballots will be accepted after 8PM election day.
Not mailin, not absentee, not inperson.
That is the PA law.
There is no loopholes. There are no provisions for curing.
There is no place in the law that allows the govenor and his cronies to ignore those provisions of the law.
In PA Ballots were accepted and counted after 8pm on election day.
Further ballots were accepted and counted – without matching signatures, without matching Voter ID information,
Ballots were accepted that were mailed TO voters according to state records AFTER the ballot was postmarked.
A physical impossibility.
If all of this is acceptable to you – what is not acceptable ?
Toy constantly – as is typical of those on the left – fixate on what will give you the desired outcome – not what is lawful or what is the best process.
Do you agree that we must have actual laws, and that there must be consequences for failing to follow the law ?
That where lawlessness is tolerated – espeicially lawless government that we have anarchy ?
Lets skip the election laws that exist for the moment.
How would YOU legally structure elections ?
How do YOU assure that every citizen MAY vote, but only once, only living citizens, and that they must cast their own vote – no one may vote for them ?
How do YOU assure that no one can be induced – paid – to vote for a candidate, or coerced to vote for a candidate.
How do you assure that no one can after the fact be rewarded or harmed directly as a consequence of who they voted for ?
How do you assure that when cotes are counted – only those votes cast above are counted and that the actual votes of citizens are not changed or not counted ?
Elections are very serious business – in 2020 $15B was spent on the election – clearly far more money than that is at stake based on the outcome. Given these high stakes and enormous incentives to fraud – how do you assure that there will be no consequential fraud ?
And please no platitudes.
Come up with an arrangement that all of us can trust.
BTW this is not all that hard. All that is required is not turning a blind eye to the possibility of fraud and acting proactively to prevent it.
That and one other thing. A government that will actually follow the law- whatever law you come up with, rather than ignore it.
No means of voting – no matter how perfect can survive if those running the election ignore the law.
John, this is a major problem with the left. They criticize and tear down everything because everything has both upsides and downsides. They only look for the downside no matter what. Then they propose their dreams. One can’t criticize dreams for they don’t exist and the reason they remain dreams is they can’t exist in reality.
To create and build is difficult and left for the sensible people. To tear down and destroy is the major contribution of the left.
“Abusive campaign of harassment and abuse by the Lincoln Project”
They had as much right to speak their minds as anyone else. Get over it.
“speak their minds”
Do you actually think that all the Lincoln Project did was “speak their minds”?!
You’re either woefully uninformed, or you’re a liar.
Turley has covered the level of subterfuge engaged in by the Lincoln Project here. So you should try to catch up before you make a fool out of yourself….again.
Rhodesy: i know, right??? The Lincoln Project pointed out on a regular basis the complete hypocrisy of the republican party, didn’t they? It was awesome, effective and pretty brilliant.
Elvis Bug
You would think that the Democrats would welcome a full investigation into the election to prove that nothing was wrong.
Biden has now won GA four times….is that adequate?
Biden lost Georgia.
Just as Hillary did in 2016.
As was done in the other swing States on election night, the same tactics were employed.
Those included intimidating observers, newspapers taped over windows, non-existent “water main breaks” (Georgia), shutting down counting and then immediately reopening the counting after the observers were told to leave.
Then there is Dominion. Which is how Biden was able to somehow win the general election while only winning 16.7% of all the counties in the US. And thousands of sequential Biden votes that occurred with a quadrillion-to-1 improbability.
Now the Rubicon has been crossed, and this sh*t is not going to wash off.
Someone pays attention to Newsmax all day, doesn’t he?
Anonymous, someone’s on this blog all day… you.
Anonymous, someone’s on this blog all day… you. (Do you recognize what a stupid comment it is when it’s directed at you? It was stupid when you said it too.)
You’ve made erroneous claims.
An example: ” thousands of sequential Biden votes that occurred with a quadrillion-to-1 improbability.”
https://reason.com/volokh/2020/12/09/more-on-statistical-stupidity-at-scotus/
The people who believe this false claim about “a quadrillion-to-1 improbability” don’t understand statistics. It was shameful for Texas et al to present such nonsense in their suit.
“The people who believe this false claim about “a quadrillion-to-1 improbability” don’t understand statistics.”
Unlike you Committed to Dishonesty, I understand statistics and statistical data.
This is just one of a total of 15 statistical anomalies that occurred
“Statistical anomalies in the 2020 Presidential Election”
https://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2020/11/statistical_anomalies_in_the_2020_presidential_election.html
9 = Anomaly of hugely lopsided Biden votes added in minutes in the dead of night. This statistical anomaly was picked up in real time by an analyst awake in Switzerland at around 3am Central Standard Time (CST) of the morning of November 4th watching the results coming in for Wisconsin. He noticed Fox News’ election map of Wisconsin went from light red for Trump with a 77% likelihood for Trump to light blue for Biden with an 80% for Biden IN THE SPACE OF MERE MINUTES. He got suspicious of such a massive switch in such a short period of time and so he went to the New York Times minute by minute electronic update from the raw data feed supplied by Edmonds Polling of reported election results and observed this:
“For non-programmers, here is the translation:
At 3:37 AM CST, total votes were 3,018,212; Trump had 1,536,270 votes (50.9%); Biden 1,427,614 votes (47.3%); other candidates 54,328 votes (1.8%).
At 3:42 AM CST, total votes were 3,186,598; Trump had 1,561,433 votes (49.0%); Biden 1,570,993 votes (49.3%); other candidates 54,172 votes (1.7%).
Total increase in Trump votes in 5 minutes: 25,163 (1.64%).
Total increase in Biden votes in 5 minutes: 143,379 (10.04%).
Before the Biden vote dump, both candidates’ votes were increasing at about the same rate, 1.64% per 5 minutes. So, the “legitimate” Biden vote increase is likely around 23,400 votes. The remaining 119,979 votes are fake.
Here is his analysis of the same trend in Michigan
“At 5:32 AM CST on November 4, total votes were 4,574,555; Trump had 2,346,747 votes (51.3%); Biden 2,150,041 votes (47.0%); other candidates 77,767 votes (1.7%).
Then, still at 5:32 AM CST, only five seconds later than the prior reading, total votes were 4,724,327; Trump had 2,352,715 votes (49.8%); Biden 2,291,299 votes (48.5%); other candidates 80,313 votes (1.7%). In that brief five-second period, Trump’s vote total increased by 5,968 (0.25%) while Biden’s vote total increased by 141,258 (6.57%)! Folks, that is a clear, fraudulent electronic “ballot dump” for Biden. I calculate that this fraud created about 135,883 fake votes for Basement Joe.
The count kept uneventfully grinding on to 6 AM CST, where at 6:03 AM total votes were 4,752,966, Trump votes were 2,366,977 (49.8%), Biden votes were 2,309,941 (48.6%). Ballots (presumably real paper ballots) had been counted at the rate of about 1,000 ballots per minute for the preceding half-hour, with Trump votes having a slight edge over Biden votes during the counting.
Then between 6:03 and 6:14 AM CST, more than 113,000 “votes” were counted, at an average rate of 9,800 ballots per minute. Total votes increased sharply to 4,866,279. Trump votes were 2,403,942 (49.6%), an increase of 36,965 votes (8.16% increase). Biden votes were 2,379,610 (48.9%), an increase of 69,699 votes (30.17% increase). Unlike the previous half-hour of counting, this deluge produced almost two Biden votes for every Trump vote counted.
Of those 113K total votes, 40K showed up in the last two minutes – between 6:12 and 6:14 AM. In two minutes, Trump gained 5,665 votes; Biden gained 29,588 votes. That’s about 5.2 Biden votes for every Trump vote. Because paper ballots simply cannot be fed into the ballot boxes that quickly, I consider this interval to also be electronic vote fraud, adding about 24,037 fake votes to Biden.
Then the ballot-counting quieted down and returned to “normal,” with votes for Trump and Biden about equal, until just before 8 AM, when another sudden burst of 107,700 heavily-Biden votes – 41,914 for Trump, 65,786 for Biden – erased Trump’s lead and tied the candidates at 49.2% each of the total votes. My total count for electronic fraudulent Biden ballots from this 2-hour, 30-minute period is 159,920”
Biden had better odds of winning the Megamillions drawing that night, than winning the election.
You’re a partisan hack and a pathological liar, who cares nothing about the USA.
But you are very quick to sing the praises of China. No surprise there.
I’ve said nothing about China here, Rhodes, nor have you produced evidence of any lies from me.
And instead of acknowledging your false claim that ”thousands of sequential Biden votes … occurred with a quadrillion-to-1 improbability,” you simply introduce new claims. It’s pointless to take time discussing your new claims if you’re unwilling to deal honestly with your earlier one. I generally ignore you because I consider you a troll, but I decided to respond because that particular false claim is so easily disproved that you should be able to admit it. If you were committed to honest discussion, that is.
Probably not a good idea to legitimize this sort of horseplay in a democracy.
Oh that ship has sailed. The Rs champion horseplay in a democracy. Had it been just one state they may have pulled it off. The next time they will.