Nitro Power said:

---

With a conservative majority, two of which were trashed during confirmation, I cannot see SCOTUS kicking the can down the road, or throwing their hands up. I know they are supposed to be impartial, but how is that even possible in the cases of Thomas and Kav?

---

Because we are in uncharted legal waters here. Crafting a legal remedy with widespread fraudulent ballots when they cannot be identified and tossed, creates a situation where the best case scenario is valid votes being discarded and the right to vote being denied.

It is the lack of accountability in our election process that restricts remedies available.

aggiehawg said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

With a conservative majority, two of which were trashed during confirmation, I cannot see SCOTUS kicking the can down the road, or throwing their hands up. I know they are supposed to be impartial, but how is that even possible in the cases of Thomas and Kav?

---

Because we are in uncharted legal waters here. Crafting a legal remedy with widespread fraudulent ballots when they cannot be identified and tossed, creates a situation where the best case scenario is valid votes being discarded and the right to vote being denied.

It is the lack of accountability in our election process that restricts remedies available.

---

I am totally out of my realm here, but could a potential remedy be to order a revote?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

With a conservative majority, two of which were trashed during confirmation, I cannot see SCOTUS kicking the can down the road, or throwing their hands up. I know they are supposed to be impartial, but how is that even possible in the cases of Thomas and Kav?

---

Because we are in uncharted legal waters here. Crafting a legal remedy with widespread fraudulent ballots when they cannot be identified and tossed, creates a situation where the best case scenario is valid votes being discarded and the right to vote being denied.

It is the lack of accountability in our election process that restricts remedies available.

---

I am totally out of my realm here, but could a potential remedy be to order a revote?

---

No, because there's not enough time to prepare new ballots and conduct a new election prior to 1/20. The constitution requires the new president be seated by noon on 1/20. Check out the link below for the electoral college timeline. It's pretty informative.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/key-dates

FriscoKid said:

---

Quote:

---

They will absolutely rule any mail-in ballots received after 8 PM on Election Day are invalid and must be thrown out. That gives Pennsylvania to Trump. That puts Trump at 279.

---

This isn't true. I don't think there were that many ballots received late. They were already in the building and just not counted. Anyone have a link saying otherwise?

---

They may have been in the building, but being hidden behind secret wall and ceiling panels should disqualify them.

Quote:

---

I am totally out of my realm here, but could a potential remedy be to order a revote?

---

Never been done before in a Presidential election. And how long would that take to organize and get done? The deadlines when Trump and Pence are no longer POTUS and VEEP are set in the Constitution. We would have an Acting President for maybe months and months.

That's the concern with an ordered revote as opposed to letting the House and Senate do their thing in the remedy already in place.

And when does the legislative branch obtain jurisdiction to decide the matter? Again, thanks for the clarification.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

I am totally out of my realm here, but could a potential remedy be to order a revote?

---

Never been done before in a Presidential election. And how long would that take to organize and get done? The deadlines when Trump and Pence are no longer POTUS and VEEP are set in the Constitution. We would have an Acting President for maybe months and months.

That's the concern with an ordered revote as opposed to letting the House and Senate do their thing in the remedy already in place.

---

If Michigan co-mingled the ballots that Alito told them to segregate then Michigan can't certify the electors right?

Pinche Abogado said:

---

And when does the legislative branch obtain jurisdiction to decide the matter? Again, thanks for the clarification.

---

The Constitution mandates that Congress convene at noon on January 3, unless the preceding Congress by law designated a different day. P.L. 113-201 set January 6, 2015, as the convening date of the 114th Congress. The 115th Congress convened on January 3, 2017. Congressional leaders announced the 116th Congress would convene January 3, 2019.

They usually set a different date if the 3rd falls on. a Fri, Sat or Sun, but.....

I don't believe anything was done for the 117th Congress so it would be Sunday January 3rd.

Pinche Abogado said:

---

And when does the legislative branch obtain jurisdiction to decide the matter? Again, thanks for the clarification.

---

When the EC college meets and can't award 270 to somebody, I think. But note it will be the new House and Senate that will be sworn in in early January that decide not the Pelosi controlled one.

txags92 said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Just an Ag said:

---

SLAM said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

---

Whoa! States now picking sides.

---

A national revolt of the R state houses?? The Great Presidential Schism of 2020 is unfolding.

---

Pretty sure it will mean more than this. The 2nd American Civil War sounds more likely all of the time. This leftist appears to fully understand what is about to happen.

---

If by "more likely" you mean an increase from .05% to .1% chance, sure, it's more likely.

Hopefully you also realize that a real Civll War would be horrifically tragic and would also not be between different states but between different areas within states. And even in those areas, there are tons of supporters on both sides.

It's Election Day + 6. Time for grownups to tone down the rhetoric and start acting like grownups.

Doesn't mean you have to believe the election results. Doesn't mean you can't hold out hope for a legal miracle to change the outcome.

But the "Civil War" type crap needs to go away. Venting can only be used as an excuse for employing emotional over rational thinking for so long.

---

Have you been asleep for the last 4 years? Where were you in 2016?

---

For the Dims, it's Election Day + 1,462

aggiehawg said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

And when does the legislative branch obtain jurisdiction to decide the matter? Again, thanks for the clarification.

---

When the EC college meets and can't award 270 to somebody, I think. But note it will be the new House and Senate that will be sworn in in early January that decide not the Pelosi controlled one.

---

Yep.

If state legislatures do not validate their state results or decide to go against the popular vote winner in their state they can throw this into turmoil.

States can technically go against the result. So states where the Rs control both chambers of Congress and the Governorship might be potential opportunities.

More likely than going rogue though is simply not certifying their state meaning those EC gets tossed.

Say PA gets invalidated by the SC throwing those 20 out.... Arizona and Georgia are potential candidates as both have R trifectas at the state level. If they refuse to certify that leaves Biden at 259 and Trump at 232 with NC and AK.

Then it goes to the new House - with 1 vote per state and Rs control 30 states.

Anyone want to guess at what the odds are that Trump gets out of this thing? I'd put him at 100 to 1 to be re-elected.

aggiehawg said:

---

SLAM said:

---

BoerneAg11 said:

---

SLAM said:

---

Just an Ag said:

---

SLAM said:

---

ClutchCityAg said:

---

---

Whoa! States now picking sides.

---

A national revolt of the R state houses?? The Great Presidential Schism of 2020 is unfolding.

---

Pretty sure it will mean more than this. The 2nd American Civil War sounds more likely all of the time. This leftist appears to fully understand what is about to happen.

---

The concession is completely unrelated to anything - it's just tradition. The electoral college votes for biden regardless of Trump's feelings.

---

If the election is contested and remains contested, the EC is void.

---

Was just discussing this with The Hubs. In my view, due to comingling of ballots it is impossible to identify and throw out illegal and invalid ballots. If the fraud rate can be shown to be large enough to question the vote margins, federal court can issue an injunction preventing a state's or several states) Secretary of State from certifying the election. Having the state Secretary of State do the certification of the vote is the way the state legislatures follow Article II Section One.

But if that cog cannot happen, then when the EC meets does either candidate have 270? If not, then it goes to the new House and the new Senate when seated.

The above is the current remedy that is in place.

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't the state legislators hold the final say with the choosing of electors and those electors don't necessarily have to follow the state's popular vote? If there is enough doubt cast upon a state's popular vote (fraud, harvesting, etc.), couldn't these heavily R legislatures simply choose electors who will cast their votes for Trump? Or is this outside the realm of possibility? It seems the states have the most power here unless there is a tie (269 - 269).

aggiehawg said:

---

Nitro Power said:

---

With a conservative majority, two of which were trashed during confirmation, I cannot see SCOTUS kicking the can down the road, or throwing their hands up. I know they are supposed to be impartial, but how is that even possible in the cases of Thomas and Kav?

---

Because we are in uncharted legal waters here. Crafting a legal remedy with widespread fraudulent ballots when they cannot be identified and tossed, creates a situation where the best case scenario is valid votes being discarded and the right to vote being denied.

It is the lack of accountability in our election process that restricts remedies available.

---

If this were to happen, it should make for a very short road toward election reform. Though this would be a terrible turn of events, there could be some real positive change come from this debacle.

Quote:

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't the state legislators hold the final say with the choosing of electors and those electors don't necessarily have to follow the state's popular vote? If there is enough doubt cast upon a state's popular vote (fraud, harvesting, etc.), couldn't these heavily R legislatures simply choose electors who will cast their votes for Trump? Or is this outside the realm of possibility? It seems the states have the most power here unless there is a tie (269 - 269).

---

There is some confusion as to what it means for the legislature to "select electors," under the federal constitution. My take on that is that they pass the state election laws that determine how the vote occurs and then the Sec of State verifies it. There isn't a separate action by the legislature that officially selects the electors, just the process wherein the Sec of State verifies the results.

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

And when does the legislative branch obtain jurisdiction to decide the matter? Again, thanks for the clarification.

---

When the EC college meets and can't award 270 to somebody, I think. But note it will be the new House and Senate that will be sworn in in early January that decide not the Pelosi controlled one.

---

Yep.

If state legislatures do not validate their state results or decide to go against the popular vote winner in their state they can throw this into turmoil.

States can technically go against the result. So states where the Rs control both chambers of Congress and the Governorship might be potential opportunities.

More likely than going rogue though is simply not certifying their state meaning those EC gets tossed.

Say PA gets invalidated by the SC throwing those 20 out.... Arizona and Georgia are potential candidates as both have R trifectas at the state level. If they refuse to certify that leaves Biden at 259 and Trump at 232 with NC and AK.

Then it goes to the new House - with 1 vote per state and Rs control 30 states.

---

I really don't know, so asking for help here...

Say your scenario plays out, and there are several states that are unable to certify their elections. Could the race then be decided by the remaining states? So instead of needing 270, in your case Biden would win with 259? Or, if you can't get to 270, then it goes to Congress regardless?

txaggie_08 said:

---

Zombie Jon Snow said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Pinche Abogado said:

---

And when does the legislative branch obtain jurisdiction to decide the matter? Again, thanks for the clarification.

---

When the EC college meets and can't award 270 to somebody, I think. But note it will be the new House and Senate that will be sworn in in early January that decide not the Pelosi controlled one.

---

Yep.

If state legislatures do not validate their state results or decide to go against the popular vote winner in their state they can throw this into turmoil.

States can technically go against the result. So states where the Rs control both chambers of Congress and the Governorship might be potential opportunities.

More likely than going rogue though is simply not certifying their state meaning those EC gets tossed.

Say PA gets invalidated by the SC throwing those 20 out.... Arizona and Georgia are potential candidates as both have R trifectas at the state level. If they refuse to certify that leaves Biden at 259 and Trump at 232 with NC and AK.

Then it goes to the new House - with 1 vote per state and Rs control 30 states.

---

I really don't know, so asking for help here...

Say your scenario plays out, and there are several states that are unable to certify their elections. Could the race then be decided by the remaining states? So instead of needing 270, in your case Biden would win with 259? Or, if you can't get to 270, then it goes to Congress regardless?

---

No. If you cannot get to 270 it goes to the newly seated House. Period.


12th Amendment. And 20th.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contingent_election#:~:text=A%20candidate%20must%20receive%20an,established%20by%20the%2012th%20Amendment.

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Please correct me if I'm wrong. Don't the state legislators hold the final say with the choosing of electors and those electors don't necessarily have to follow the state's popular vote? If there is enough doubt cast upon a state's popular vote (fraud, harvesting, etc.), couldn't these heavily R legislatures simply choose electors who will cast their votes for Trump? Or is this outside the realm of possibility? It seems the states have the most power here unless there is a tie (269 - 269).

---

There is some confusion as to what it means for the legislature to "select electors," under the federal constitution. My take on that is that they pass the state election laws that determine how the vote occurs and then the Sec of State verifies it. There isn't a separate action by the legislature that officially selects the electors, just the process wherein the Sec of State verifies the results.

---

Quote:

---

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature's power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 2833. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 ("There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated") (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

---

I had a long debate with BMX on this subject because of something that Levin was suggesting. He (Levin) said the power still belonged to the legislatures. Doesn't this ruling from Bush v Gore seem to support that?

richardag said:

---

DTP02 said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

This is really simple so try to follow along.

• Conservatives want the constitution to be followed.
• The constitution is the law of the land.
• If the law of the land is not followed then there is no "America"

• Democrats don't want to follow the constitution
• They "REEEE" over any and all attempts to follow said constitution. See border wall, election law, 2nd Amendment, 1st Amendment, 9th & 10th Amendments
• They burn down cities when the law is followed

Now can you spot the differences there?

---

I'm conservative and pretty sure I know the constitution better than most.

The only thing touching on a constitutional violation here is the actions of the PA court, and it's going to be dang near impossible to prove whether the ballots which should have been segregated weren't segregated.

Hoping that the SCOTUS is going to weigh in after the fact and overturn the PA election, without hard evidence that the PA court's overreach directly impacted the outcome, is an incredible long shot.

Other than that, I have no idea why you're referencing the constitution.

---

If the outer and inner envelopes were kept, voter fraud can be proven, ineligible votes, just not tied to the actual vote. In that event all mail in votes should be disqualified.

---

The problem is that we've seen video from several precincts showing workers pulling votes out of the envelopes and sorting them into stacks...that separation of the envelope and the ballot is how lose the ability to know what should and shouldn't have been included.

ClutchCityAg said:

---

---

Wow doesn't even seem worried

I don't know what to think of these tweets. Everyone knows Trump is boisterous, over the top, and often talks in absolutes. However, he has said some outlandish things that turn out to be true. Is it arrogance or confidence we should believe in right now?

Trump flooding the zone with tweets. Probably setting a lot of hair on fire at Twitter.

The markets really starting to take a hit after these tweets. If related, means market is getting ready for a fight

Dan Scott said:

---

The markets really starting to take a hit after these tweets. If related, means market is getting ready for a fight

---

I don't see that. Up 1187 right now.

Probably an effort to try to offset the inexorable tide of media coverage that is saying the election is over.

Dan Scott said:

---

The markets really starting to take a hit after these tweets. If related, means market is getting ready for a fight

---

Or maybe the Market hit an all time high today and people are pulling back a little.

FriscoKid said:

---

I hope this is coordinated tweeting with the knowledge and approval of his lawyers.

---

I voted for him but I just don't think getting approval first is a thing for Trump.

Chase said:

---

FriscoKid said:

---

I hope this is coordinated tweeting with the knowledge and approval of his lawyers.

---

I voted for him but I just don't think getting approval first is a thing for Trump.

---

I've accused him of tweeting some pretty dumb crap before, but I also don't think he dumb enough to put anything potentially, legally damaging out there right now.

Nitro Power said:

---

+1215


I hope it continues to get pummeled

---

Yep. It's taking a huge beating today.