SCOTUS: counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm

1,763 Views | 5 Replies | Last: 5 yr ago by BadMoonRisin
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

In a per curiam decision, the Court first ruled 72 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (The case had also been argued on the basis of Article II jurisdictional grounds, which found favor with only Justices Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and William Rehnquist.) Second, the Court ruled 54 against the remedy, proposed by Justices Stephen Breyer and David Souter, of sending the case back to Florida to complete the recount using a uniform statewide standard before the scheduled December 18 meeting of Florida's electors in Tallahassee.[1] The majority held that no alternative method could be established within the discretionary December 12 "safe harbor" deadline set by Title 3 of the United States Code (3 U.S.C.), 5, which the Florida Supreme Court had stated that the Florida Legislature intended to meet.[2] That deadline arrived two hours after the release of the Court's decision. The Court, stating that not meeting the "safe harbor" deadline would therefore violate the Florida Election Code, rejected an extension of the deadline.

In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm."[1] Oral arguments were scheduled for December 11.

TDS will tell you that Trump is not smart, but he is. And he is going to win. Bigly. There is a reason that Trump team has used the term "legally cast vote".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
Mando, let me know what the play
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Quote:

Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida's counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately.[1] On December 9, the five conservative justices on the Court granted the stay for Bush, with Scalia citing "irreparable harm" that could befall Bush, as the recounts would cast "a needless and unjustified cloud" over Bush's legitimacy. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that "counting every legally cast vote cannot constitute irreparable harm."[1] Oral arguments were scheduled for December 11.
Mando, let me know what the play
Reservoir Dog
How long do you want to ignore this user?
This along with some of the information Sydney discussed earlier... I am hopeful!

General McInerny (spelling???) stated on Charlie Kirks show that he believe Trump has a 90% chance of winning a second term.

In Hope!!!
bmks270
How long do you want to ignore this user?
So 61,000 votes were not counted?

What exactly is the implication for the 2020 results?
AGHouston11
How long do you want to ignore this user?
combat wombat™
How long do you want to ignore this user?
In English, for those of us who don't speak lawyer?
BadMoonRisin
How long do you want to ignore this user?
combat wombat said:

In English, for those of us who don't speak lawyer?
If this goes to SCOTUS, they are going to Pink Sock creepy Joe Biden and give Trump the win. Biden is as unprepared for this turn as he was to becoming the POTUS.
Mando, let me know what the play
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.