US Election
Re: US Election
I like the Trump team reply "Well actually this is good news because it's a step closer to getting the appeal to SCOTUS."
Any appeal is of course doomed. Anyway what they would appeal is the judge's dismissal, not the case itself. In other words, if the headline is ever "Trump wins victory in appeal of PA lolsuit" then all it would mean is the court deciding Judge Brann was wrong to dismiss and the lolsuit should instead go ahead to trial.
Any appeal is of course doomed. Anyway what they would appeal is the judge's dismissal, not the case itself. In other words, if the headline is ever "Trump wins victory in appeal of PA lolsuit" then all it would mean is the court deciding Judge Brann was wrong to dismiss and the lolsuit should instead go ahead to trial.
Awarded gold star 4 November 2021
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: US Election
Indeed. As I understand it, they need to start by finding Judge Brann ruled wrongly on standing, but standing rules are clearly spelled out in federal civil procedure and they fail to meet the requirements. Even if somehow they overcame that, the rest of the case is junk.lpm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:55 amI like the Trump team reply "Well actually this is good news because it's a step closer to getting the appeal to SCOTUS."
Any appeal is of course doomed. Anyway what they would appeal is the judge's dismissal, not the case itself. In other words, if the headline is ever "Trump wins victory in appeal of PA lolsuit" then all it would mean is the court deciding Judge Brann was wrong to dismiss and the lolsuit should instead go ahead to trial.
ETA: And SCOTUS haven't generally been ruling against state supreme courts on election cases, but sticking, for the most part, to a position that state legislatures and courts decide state electoral rules. They've been more willing to restrict voting rights if cases involved federal courts overriding state courts, but the Pennsylvania state supreme court has delivered a similarly damning ruling on a Trump campaign lawsuit covering the same grievances.
Also, this judge, though nominally an Obama appointment, is a Federalist society member likely actually picked by a Republican senator before his actual appointment. He isn't likely to be much less friendly to Trump's constitutionally, procedurely and just generally illiterate lolsuits than the most convervative circuit judges or even the conservative wing of SCOTUS.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: US Election
The despicable Kelly Loeghler, the Republican Georgia run-off candidate opposing the Rev Warnock - is now self isolating, but only after a positive and an inconclusive test result. For context, she lied to constituents that all was well even while she knew all was not well, using the priviliged information she made as a senator to dump stocks and also pick some up to profit from the pandemic, much like the other Republican candidate in the Georgia, David "Chicken" Perdue.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sat Nov 21, 2020 1:18 amTwo Covid cases related to different bits of Republican campaigning.
Rudy's son was at the utterly mad press conference some are calling the "Four Treasons" conference, unmasked in a confined space. He has now announced he has COVID. Some journalists wisely refused to go in, others wore N95s under their cloth masks.
Rick Scott (R), Florida Senator, was at a campaign meeting for the crooks Perdue and Loeghler in a low ceiling windowless room with mostly unmasked, undistanced attendees. Again, many journalists made the right decision not to cover. Florida Senator now has COVID.
Will any of these f.ckers actually self-isolate, or will they just keep spreading the plague?
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: US Election
And now Sidney Powell is saying she's going after Georgia. She promises a filing that will "be biblical", and appears to be alleging that the governor, Brian Kemp, a Republican, took bribes from a dodgy voting machine company to rig the election on behalf of Hugo Chavez, who remains as dead as he was last time he was discussed.
It's certainly not the first time Kemp has been accused of election rigging, but certainly the first time he's been accused of rigging an election for a Democrat. It's not exactly the most credible such accusation, either.
It's certainly not the first time Kemp has been accused of election rigging, but certainly the first time he's been accused of rigging an election for a Democrat. It's not exactly the most credible such accusation, either.
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: US Election
They could go and secretly record what Trump says. Trump is going to be a toxic brand and it would be very useful to have something to cut him off from the party.EACLucifer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 20, 2020 6:46 pmFURTHER to my comments regarding Michigan legislators flying to meet Trump at the White House, Politico covers it in some detail.
The two individuals - State Senator Mike Shirkey and State Rep Lee Chatfield - really want to strongly consider not doing this
Under Michigan law, any member of the Legislature who “corruptly” accepts a promise of some beneficial act in return for exercising his authority in a certain way is “forever disqualified to hold any public office” and “shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the state prison not more than 10 years[.]”
-
- After Pie
- Posts: 1621
- Joined: Mon Mar 16, 2020 4:02 am
Re: US Election
Predicting elections...
It is? Why? It seems to me that it's fairly pointless. Just have a bit of patience and look at the actual result. Candidates may want to know where to devote their efforts, but that's different to predicting the result.
Re: US Election
Is it possible to appeal a dismissal? And what does “with prejudice” mean?lpm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:55 amI like the Trump team reply "Well actually this is good news because it's a step closer to getting the appeal to SCOTUS."
Any appeal is of course doomed. Anyway what they would appeal is the judge's dismissal, not the case itself. In other words, if the headline is ever "Trump wins victory in appeal of PA lolsuit" then all it would mean is the court deciding Judge Brann was wrong to dismiss and the lolsuit should instead go ahead to trial.
where once I used to scintillate
now I sin till ten past three
now I sin till ten past three
- El Pollo Diablo
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 3577
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:41 pm
- Location: FBPE
Re: US Election
I just looked it up - "with prejudice" means that the judge saying as such intends the ruling to be applicable to all courts. A ruling without prejudice means the plaintiff is free to refile in a different court.
If truth is many-sided, mendacity is many-tongued
- Cardinal Fang
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 421
- Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 7:42 pm
Re: US Election
In Wisconsin, Trump observers are reported to be obstructing the recount
It's interesting isn't it. The Trump campaign keeps making claims of fraud without evidence. Meanwhile seemingly every provable act of election tampering, whether it's messing with the postal system to slow the sending of ballots papers, or hindering counts, are being conducted by Trumpists
CF
It's interesting isn't it. The Trump campaign keeps making claims of fraud without evidence. Meanwhile seemingly every provable act of election tampering, whether it's messing with the postal system to slow the sending of ballots papers, or hindering counts, are being conducted by Trumpists
CF
Re: US Election
But doesn’t count as fraud and interference when the republicans do it.Cardinal Fang wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:16 amIn Wisconsin, Trump observers are reported to be obstructing the recount
It's interesting isn't it. The Trump campaign keeps making claims of fraud without evidence. Meanwhile seemingly every provable act of election tampering, whether it's messing with the postal system to slow the sending of ballots papers, or hindering counts, are being conducted by Trumpists
CF
Re: US Election
A dismissal can be appealed. But the result of winning that appeal is you going back to the same court for the next step in the legal process.Grumble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:07 amIs it possible to appeal a dismissal? And what does “with prejudice” mean?lpm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:55 amI like the Trump team reply "Well actually this is good news because it's a step closer to getting the appeal to SCOTUS."
Any appeal is of course doomed. Anyway what they would appeal is the judge's dismissal, not the case itself. In other words, if the headline is ever "Trump wins victory in appeal of PA lolsuit" then all it would mean is the court deciding Judge Brann was wrong to dismiss and the lolsuit should instead go ahead to trial.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: US Election
This will all take a lot of time... can they not make an emergency application to the Supreme Court to suspend the inauguration, on the basis that the ongoing legal process might overturn the election result and so installing Biden would be prejudicial to them?
I'm afraid I can't get the idea out of my head that the SCOTUS are going to back Trump on this, simply because several of them seem to be utterly unscrupulous c.nts.
Something something hammer something something nail
Re: US Election
If they win an appeal on dismissal, then, as now, Pennsylvania is free to certify its votes, and send Biden's electors to the electoral college.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:57 pmThis will all take a lot of time... can they not make an emergency application to the Supreme Court to suspend the inauguration, on the basis that the ongoing legal process might overturn the election result and so installing Biden would be prejudicial to them?
I'm afraid I can't get the idea out of my head that the SCOTUS are going to back Trump on this, simply because several of them seem to be utterly unscrupulous c.nts.
Until the judge, or an appeal judge, issues a restraining order against Pennsylvania preventing it from certifying its results, then nothing at all happens as a result of this lawsuit.
And overturning the result in Pennsylvania does not change the result of the election. Trump needs three disputed states to be flipped completely, or at least five to be disqualified.
The end of Trump and Pence's term is set in stone, even if Biden's inauguration is delayed.
Re: US Election
Oh, and to get to SCOTUS, the lawsuits have to be thrown out/denied by tens of Trump/McConnell appointed judges in the Federal courts and appeals courts.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:57 pmI'm afraid I can't get the idea out of my head that the SCOTUS are going to back Trump on this, simply because several of them seem to be utterly unscrupulous c.nts.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: US Election
I guess I'm not seeing how that's a problem with my argument --- are you saying that these judges (who, let's assume for the sake of argument, are Republican lackeys) *will* throw out the cases, thus moving them towards SCOTUS, or that they will *not* throw them out, thus granting Trump wins at the lower level?dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:05 pmOh, and to get to SCOTUS, the lawsuits have to be thrown out/denied by tens of Trump/McConnell appointed judges in the Federal courts and appeals courts.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:57 pmI'm afraid I can't get the idea out of my head that the SCOTUS are going to back Trump on this, simply because several of them seem to be utterly unscrupulous c.nts.
Seriously, I'm struggling to see how one corrupt President, one corrupt lawyer, and five corrupt SCOTUS judges can't stage a coup, and there are definitely five judges who I wouldn't trust not to sit by while the US government stole hundreds of children from their parents, because that happened FFS.
I also wonder (cf. my post in the Existential Panic Thread) what happens if Trump wakes up one morning and tweets this:
"ELECTION TOTALLY STOLEN! SCOTUS MUST DECLARE ME THE WINNER! OTHERWISE I WILL ORDER THE LAUNCH OF A NUCULAR STRIKE AGAINST VENEZUELA, IRAN, AND NORTH KOREA!"
I should probably go and lie down, but it really feels like we are through the looking glass now.
Something something hammer something something nail
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: US Election
It basically means "and don't come back". Literally, it is pre-judged. They may thus not amend it a bit and submit it again.Grumble wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:07 amIs it possible to appeal a dismissal? And what does “with prejudice” mean?lpm wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 2:55 amI like the Trump team reply "Well actually this is good news because it's a step closer to getting the appeal to SCOTUS."
Any appeal is of course doomed. Anyway what they would appeal is the judge's dismissal, not the case itself. In other words, if the headline is ever "Trump wins victory in appeal of PA lolsuit" then all it would mean is the court deciding Judge Brann was wrong to dismiss and the lolsuit should instead go ahead to trial.
- EACLucifer
- Stummy Beige
- Posts: 4177
- Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2019 7:49 am
- Location: In Sumerian Haze
Re: Cancel culture
Trump's legal team now claiming that voter fraud lead to Loeghler being on the ballot for the Georgia runoff rather than Collins. While "would buy an election" is the world's most plausible criticism of Loeghler, the basis for the claim is the usual conspiracy theory nonsense that also lead them to claim that Brian f.cking Kemp was working with commies and the CIA against Trump.
I thought the Republicans wanted Loeghler to, you know, win? I mean, the senate does hang in the balance and these runoffs are what will decide it.
Mod note: moved this post and two replies from another thread, where it was posted in error, at the poster's request.
I thought the Republicans wanted Loeghler to, you know, win? I mean, the senate does hang in the balance and these runoffs are what will decide it.
Mod note: moved this post and two replies from another thread, where it was posted in error, at the poster's request.
Re: US Election
They have thrown them out. And there's no reason to suspect that they are more likely to throw them out than SCOTUS.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:26 pmI guess I'm not seeing how that's a problem with my argument --- are you saying that these judges (who, let's assume for the sake of argument, are Republican lackeys) *will* throw out the cases, thus moving them towards SCOTUS, or that they will *not* throw them out, thus granting Trump wins at the lower level?dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 3:05 pmOh, and to get to SCOTUS, the lawsuits have to be thrown out/denied by tens of Trump/McConnell appointed judges in the Federal courts and appeals courts.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 12:57 pmI'm afraid I can't get the idea out of my head that the SCOTUS are going to back Trump on this, simply because several of them seem to be utterly unscrupulous c.nts.
Remember that at least 5, if not 6 of the SCOTUS Justices are serious judges.
Re: US Election
The military would ignore such an illegal order (peemptive nuclear strike requires at least a senior cabinet member to concur), and the 25th Amendment would get invoked,sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 4:26 pmI also wonder (cf. my post in the Existential Panic Thread) what happens if Trump wakes up one morning and tweets this:
"ELECTION TOTALLY STOLEN! SCOTUS MUST DECLARE ME THE WINNER! OTHERWISE I WILL ORDER THE LAUNCH OF A NUCULAR STRIKE AGAINST VENEZUELA, IRAN, AND NORTH KOREA!"
I should probably go and lie down, but it really feels like we are through the looking glass now.
Re: Cancel culture
A) is this the right thread?EACLucifer wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 9:59 pmTrump's legal team now claiming that voter fraud lead to Loeghler being on the ballot for the Georgia runoff rather than Collins. While "would buy an election" is the world's most plausible criticism of Loeghler, the basis for the claim is the usual conspiracy theory nonsense that also lead them to claim that Brian f.cking Kemp was working with commies and the CIA against Trump.
I thought the Republicans wanted Loeghler to, you know, win? I mean, the senate does hang in the balance and these runoffs are what will decide it.
B) her surname is Loeffler.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: US Election
Do you have a reference for that? And in any case, how about the new acting Secretary of Defense, a Trump lackey appointed a couple of weeks ago?
(I'm sure I'm being totally paranoid here, but coming off 5 years of the c.nts seemingly winning every time, I need to see a solid sequence of wins for the good people. I don't like the fact that it apparently took COVID to start getting people in Europe to be a bit less keen on Nazis, cf. the recent Austrian election results, but I'll take that anyway.)
Something something hammer something something nail
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: Cancel culture
Something something hammer something something nail
Re: US Election
My reference is probably Tom Clancy, but that's one policy I'd suspect he got right.sTeamTraen wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 10:47 pmDo you have a reference for that? And in any case, how about the new acting Secretary of Defense, a Trump lackey appointed a couple of weeks ago?
Anyway, declaration of war does require Congress, and it's hard to see the military agreeing to a nuclear strike without a declaration of war (different to a drone strike or cruise missile attack).
- Vertigowooyay
- Snowbonk
- Posts: 423
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:25 pm
Re: US Election
14th Nov:
22nd Nov:
22nd Nov:
Calm yourself Doctor NotTheNineO’ClockNews. We’re men of science. We fear no worldly terrors.
- sTeamTraen
- After Pie
- Posts: 2572
- Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 4:24 pm
- Location: Palma de Mallorca, Spain
Re: US Election
My understanding is that the nuclear strike protocols are designed to deal with a situation where it's 3am and the President gets a call from NORAD saying multiple ICBMs are incoming. At that point he inserts the "biscuit" into the "football" (apparently that's the terminology) and off we go. The point is that there's only 20 minutes or so until the incoming ICBMs hit, so there is no time for calling Congress. I have seen suggestions that the Secretary of Defense has to sign off, but nothing else (and even that isn't clear).dyqik wrote: ↑Sun Nov 22, 2020 11:14 pmMy reference is probably Tom Clancy, but that's one policy I'd suspect he got right.
Anyway, declaration of war does require Congress, and it's hard to see the military agreeing to a nuclear strike without a declaration of war (different to a drone strike or cruise missile attack).
The story of Harold Hering is interesting in this regard, as are the reports of James Schlesinger, in the late stages of Nixon's presidency, having a quiet word with the generals to get them to check with him if a launch order appeared.
Something something hammer something something nail