Cruz will argue the Kelly case if SCOTUS takes it up.
8,872 Views |
84 Replies |
Last: 4 yr ago by fooz
The issue I have with this (obviously biased) professor is that the PA Supreme Court didn't rule that Act 77 was not a violation of the state constitution. They used a legal principal, "laches" ("too late, so sorry"), to ignore reviewing the case on its merits. That action may (probably) have violated the US Constitution.
Agree. It has never been held someone was too late to assert an ongoing constitutional violation. State or federal.Cytexag98 said:
The issue I have with this (obviously biased) professor is that the PA Supreme Court didn't rule that Act 77 was not a violation of the state constitution. They used a legal principal, "laches" ("too late, so sorry"), to ignore reviewing the case on its merits. That action may (probably) have violated the US Constitution.
It's a majority of GeorgiansSexyAg said:
I would say that "39%" is a very underrepresented view of the election.
Wow, what an inane point of view!Tanya 93 said:my circle of friends pays attention2aggiesmom said:This is just a sad take. I do not know one single person who voted R that believes the election was not massively rigged. Just because a person does or doesn't post on social media , doesn't make them unaware or disinterested in the future of our country. Maybe your circle of friends do not care about the loss of freedoms, but my era has lost too many fighting for them to be that nonchalant.Tanya 93 said:I doubt itSexyAg said:
I would say that "39%" is a very underrepresented view of the election.
A lot of people are more worried about covid, paying their bills when barely working, and what to do for their kids between no school, no social life, and Christmas
The people who post on this board are very interested in politics
Most people aren't
They can probably tell you more about the latest Survivor show or what Kim Kardassian is doing than there are contest ballot races in multiple states
but there is a huge amount of people who really do not care much about it because they think they whole system is screwed and that no one really gives a damn about the poor.
Go volunteer to hand out stuff at your local food bank and see what it up.
It is sad, but keeping the power on is more important to them than any potential cheating in races they cannot vote in.
Nature of America
So did your circle of friends vote for Biden? Because if they did then they are equally foolhardy; the Trump economy was/is lifting plenty of the underclass boats in spite of what the leftists and the media tells you. All you had to do was open your eyes to see it for yourself through the smoke and silhouettes of the MSM and the Democrats; but I repeat myself.
Perhaps you think most POOR prefer handouts over the dignity of opportunity. But that would make sense to a liberal, not quite sure you are a leftist but I'll reserve my judgement for a bit, your posts don't generally pique my interest.
The only catch 22 is saying the state legislature can give the evs to whomever they want, but doesn't have the power to implement vote by mail.
Tanya 93 said:I doubt itSexyAg said:
I would say that "39%" is a very underrepresented view of the election.
A lot of people are more worried about covid, paying their bills when barely working, and what to do for their kids between no school, no social life, and Christmas
The people who post on this board are very interested in politics
Most people aren't
They can probably tell you more about the latest Survivor show or what Kim Kardassian is doing than there are contest ballot races in multiple states
If your take is correct, then 39% is a huge number. You are saying that the majority of people don't follow politics and therefore don't care. Then 39% would be a very large percentage of the few that do follow politics.
You really don't understand much about Con law, state or federal.AgBMF42 said:
The only catch 22 is saying the state legislature can give the evs to whomever they want, but doesn't have the power to implement vote by mail.
For the 100th time, the Pennsylvania voters were disenfranchised when they prevented from being allowed to vote on a change to their state constitution. None were allowed to vote for that change.
But you want that to stand because of the fake covid scare justifies the suspension of both the state and United States Constitution.
Ask yourself if you really want to do down that road?
When you have no right to practice your religion?
Own a gun?
Use wrongspeak? Then are arrested for it? First amendment right to free speech gone too.
How about suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War?
How about Japanese internment camps during WWII?
Read some of Justice Robert Jackson's quotes and think about them, Think about them very hard.
https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/6980-robert-h-jackson
I understand you are a reading way more into my posts than what I am saying because nuance is lost on you. (Much like several other self-proclaimed Dem lawyers on this board) but you miss the salient points.AgBMF42 said:
according to you the US Constitution says the state legislature can award the EVs however they want, you have been saying that for weeks.
So I'll type in capitals, bolded and italics so you can't miss it.
WHEN THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION IS IN SERIOUS DOUBT, STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE AN ON-GOING CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACT, EVEN AFTER THE ELECTION.
Until SCOTUS rules on that question, it is unsettled law.
But here's something for trying.
Enjoy.
so you want them to throw out an election that they set up the rules for, but not be able to enact new rules. those two things can't be in the same reality of the us constitution.
Can you explain what you mean by the bolded?
Couldn't (for example) Georgia legislature say "we agree there was widespread fraud, but we still want Biden electors chosen" and then vote to change law & vote for Biden electors?
Couldn't (for example) Georgia legislature say "we agree there was widespread fraud, but we still want Biden electors chosen" and then vote to change law & vote for Biden electors?
Someone doesn't understand the meaning of "plenary power."AgBMF42 said:
so you want them to throw out an election that they set up the rules for, but not be able to enact new rules. those two things can't be in the same reality of the us constitution.
I doubt that many of your circle of friends grew up with no indoor plumbing, no electricity. My mother cooked on a wood stove. I wore clothes and shoes with holes in them as my mom worked as a school lunch lady. I grew up below poverty level, but not once did we ask for government help. There are poor in this country now., but I know from experience that there is a way out of poverty without assistance if you are will to work hard. So please don't try to lecture me on the poor. You picked the wrong person.Tanya 93 said:my circle of friends pays attention2aggiesmom said:This is just a sad take. I do not know one single person who voted R that believes the election was not massively rigged. Just because a person does or doesn't post on social media , doesn't make them unaware or disinterested in the future of our country. Maybe your circle of friends do not care about the loss of freedoms, but my era has lost too many fighting for them to be that nonchalant.Tanya 93 said:I doubt itSexyAg said:
I would say that "39%" is a very underrepresented view of the election.
A lot of people are more worried about covid, paying their bills when barely working, and what to do for their kids between no school, no social life, and Christmas
The people who post on this board are very interested in politics
Most people aren't
They can probably tell you more about the latest Survivor show or what Kim Kardassian is doing than there are contest ballot races in multiple states
but there is a huge amount of people who really do not care much about it because they think they whole system is screwed and that no one really gives a damn about the poor.
Go volunteer to hand out stuff at your local food bank and see what it up.
It is sad, but keeping the power on is more important to them than any potential cheating in races they cannot vote in.
Nature of America
Yeah, you, since you think they have, but can't change the rules to accommodate mail in voting.
I can hear libs in 2024 now...agsfan said:
I can hear the 2024 campaign speeches now.
"I was ready to go in front of the highest court in the land to defend our elections! And our corrupt judicial system wouldn't even take the case, when they knew that election was rigged! Elect me and I'll fix it!"
You are looking for an argument that I am not making and a fight in which I am not going to participate.2aggiesmom said:I doubt that many of your circle of friends grew up with no indoor plumbing, no electricity. My mother cooked on a wood stove. I wore clothes and shoes with holes in them as my mom worked as a school lunch lady. I grew up below poverty level, but not once did we ask for government help. There are poor in this country now., but I know from experience that there is a way out of poverty without assistance if you are will to work hard. So please don't try to lecture me on the poor. You picked the wrong person.Tanya 93 said:my circle of friends pays attention2aggiesmom said:This is just a sad take. I do not know one single person who voted R that believes the election was not massively rigged. Just because a person does or doesn't post on social media , doesn't make them unaware or disinterested in the future of our country. Maybe your circle of friends do not care about the loss of freedoms, but my era has lost too many fighting for them to be that nonchalant.Tanya 93 said:I doubt itSexyAg said:
I would say that "39%" is a very underrepresented view of the election.
A lot of people are more worried about covid, paying their bills when barely working, and what to do for their kids between no school, no social life, and Christmas
The people who post on this board are very interested in politics
Most people aren't
They can probably tell you more about the latest Survivor show or what Kim Kardassian is doing than there are contest ballot races in multiple states
but there is a huge amount of people who really do not care much about it because they think they whole system is screwed and that no one really gives a damn about the poor.
Go volunteer to hand out stuff at your local food bank and see what it up.
It is sad, but keeping the power on is more important to them than any potential cheating in races they cannot vote in.
Nature of America
It does not matter what kind of poverty either you or I grew up in.
The statements I made have nothing to do with that but instead the people right now.
And a huge chunk of them do not care about the ballot issues because they do not believe in the government. To many, it is a corrupt organization that only serves certain races or corporate America and nothing else, especially the poor. You can say they are not poor because you grew up differently. Well, you were not poor compared to how others grew up before you. That is a good thing as a society.
My statement on go to a food bank and hand out stuff to see what they say was being honest. They do not think the government cares about the poor. Doesn't matter what you think poor is. Doesn't matter what your social circle and you think about mail in ballots or Dominion.
I made the argument that 39% of the population thinking the election was extremely underrepresented was doubtful. I don't think that is an underrepresentation. It may be 39%, but I have seen nothing that says the majority of Americans, or even close to that, believe the election was extremely rigged.
So please have fun finding someone else to argue with. I have not made any statements you seem to want to turn into a fight.
So if the legislatures of several swing states in 2016 had serious doubts about Trump's win, they would have been justified in discarding the results of the vote and selecting electors to vote for HIllary, and you would have no issue with that since they had "serious doubts"?aggiehawg said:I understand you are a reading way more into my posts than what I am saying because nuance is lost on you. (Much like several other self-proclaimed Dem lawyers on this board) but you miss the salient points.AgBMF42 said:
according to you the US Constitution says the state legislature can award the EVs however they want, you have been saying that for weeks.
So I'll type in capitals, bolded and italics so you can't miss it.
WHEN THE INTEGRITY OF THE ELECTION IS IN SERIOUS DOUBT, STATE LEGISLATURES HAVE AN ON-GOING CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY TO ACT, EVEN AFTER THE ELECTION.
Until SCOTUS rules on that question, it is unsettled law.
But here's something for trying.
Enjoy.
So the Pennsylvania Constitution explicitly lets their legislature determine their legal methods of voting, but when the legislature does so, then it is somehow unconstitutional?Cytexag98 said:
The issue I have with this (obviously biased) professor is that the PA Supreme Court didn't rule that Act 77 was not a violation of the state constitution. They used a legal principal, "laches" ("too late, so sorry"), to ignore reviewing the case on its merits. That action may (probably) have violated the US Constitution.
There is only one person in this discussion trying to argue, as you stated yourself. You have absolutely no idea if I have or have not given out food at a food bank, how much work I do in my community or elsewhere to help those in need. You do not know how I have raised my children , or how much they contribute to society. You assume since I voted differently than you, that I have no social conscience. Even when, I shared a small slice of my life experience, you chose to pretend that my comments were an " argument". I do not need to argue with you or anyone else. I am as entitled to my opinions and ideas as you are. The difference is that I am fine with that, but you are not.Tanya 93 said:You are looking for an argument that I am not making and a fight in which I am not going to participate.2aggiesmom said:I doubt that many of your circle of friends grew up with no indoor plumbing, no electricity. My mother cooked on a wood stove. I wore clothes and shoes with holes in them as my mom worked as a school lunch lady. I grew up below poverty level, but not once did we ask for government help. There are poor in this country now., but I know from experience that there is a way out of poverty without assistance if you are will to work hard. So please don't try to lecture me on the poor. You picked the wrong person.Tanya 93 said:my circle of friends pays attention2aggiesmom said:This is just a sad take. I do not know one single person who voted R that believes the election was not massively rigged. Just because a person does or doesn't post on social media , doesn't make them unaware or disinterested in the future of our country. Maybe your circle of friends do not care about the loss of freedoms, but my era has lost too many fighting for them to be that nonchalant.Tanya 93 said:I doubt itSexyAg said:
I would say that "39%" is a very underrepresented view of the election.
A lot of people are more worried about covid, paying their bills when barely working, and what to do for their kids between no school, no social life, and Christmas
The people who post on this board are very interested in politics
Most people aren't
They can probably tell you more about the latest Survivor show or what Kim Kardassian is doing than there are contest ballot races in multiple states
but there is a huge amount of people who really do not care much about it because they think they whole system is screwed and that no one really gives a damn about the poor.
Go volunteer to hand out stuff at your local food bank and see what it up.
It is sad, but keeping the power on is more important to them than any potential cheating in races they cannot vote in.
Nature of America
It does not matter what kind of poverty either you or I grew up in.
The statements I made have nothing to do with that but instead the people right now.
And a huge chunk of them do not care about the ballot issues because they do not believe in the government. To many, it is a corrupt organization that only serves certain races or corporate America and nothing else, especially the poor. You can say they are not poor because you grew up differently. Well, you were not poor compared to how others grew up before you. That is a good thing as a society.
My statement on go to a food bank and hand out stuff to see what they say was being honest. They do not think the government cares about the poor. Doesn't matter what you think poor is. Doesn't matter what your social circle and you think about mail in ballots or Dominion.
I made the argument that 39% of the population thinking the election was extremely underrepresented was doubtful. I don't think that is an underrepresentation. It may be 39%, but I have seen nothing that says the majority of Americans, or even close to that, believe the election was extremely rigged.
So please have fun finding someone else to argue with. I have not made any statements you seem to want to turn into a fight.
Yes. Works both ways.Quote:
So if the legislatures of several swing states in 2016 had serious doubts about Trump's win, they would have been justified in discarding the results of the vote and selecting electors to vote for HIllary, and you would have no issue with that since they had "serious doubts"?
Hillary campaign had zero doubts about the outcome, since they cancelled the fireworks the day before.
And just in case you have been brain dead for four years, she did try, along with fake news, try to say that Trump somehow wasn't a legit POTUS because of Russia! Russia! Russia! And spent 40 million dollars claiming that.
And they were completely wrong. You were completely wrong.
Time to own up on how wrong you were, are, have always been.
We will soon see who is wrong.aggiehawg said:Yes. Works both ways.Quote:
So if the legislatures of several swing states in 2016 had serious doubts about Trump's win, they would have been justified in discarding the results of the vote and selecting electors to vote for HIllary, and you would have no issue with that since they had "serious doubts"?
Hillary campaign had zero doubts about the outcome, since they cancelled the fireworks the day before.
And just in case you have been brain dead for four years, she did try, along with fake news, try to say that Trump somehow wasn't a legit POTUS because of Russia! Russia! Russia! And spent 40 million dollars claiming that.
And they were completely wrong. You were completely wrong.
Time to own up on how wrong you were, are, have always been.
Quote:
We will soon see who is wrong.
Well we've known for sometime who was wrong on Russia Russia Russia
Me too, was called four eyes growing up.aggiehawg said:Four eyes?BigRobSA said:Old McDonald said:
part of me does wish it would go to the supreme court. when they strike it down, hopefully it would convince some of those 39% that the ultimate result of the election was legitimate. i have a feeling it won't, but if SCOTUS can't convince them no one short of trump will.
Trump can say whatever the hell he wants. I have four eyes and a brain. Its obvious there was cheating going on. Why would Trump saying anything change reality?
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
When have I ever claimed that Trump was in collaboration with Russia?aggiehawg said:Yes. Works both ways.Quote:
So if the legislatures of several swing states in 2016 had serious doubts about Trump's win, they would have been justified in discarding the results of the vote and selecting electors to vote for HIllary, and you would have no issue with that since they had "serious doubts"?
Hillary campaign had zero doubts about the outcome, since they cancelled the fireworks the day before.
And just in case you have been brain dead for four years, she did try, along with fake news, try to say that Trump somehow wasn't a legit POTUS because of Russia! Russia! Russia! And spent 40 million dollars claiming that.
And they were completely wrong. You were completely wrong.
Time to own up on how wrong you were, are, have always been.
I very explicitly said on more than one occasion that I doubted that he was in collaboration.
What?? You really still believe that crap? ROTFLMAO!txagbear said:We will soon see who is wrong.aggiehawg said:Yes. Works both ways.Quote:
So if the legislatures of several swing states in 2016 had serious doubts about Trump's win, they would have been justified in discarding the results of the vote and selecting electors to vote for HIllary, and you would have no issue with that since they had "serious doubts"?
Hillary campaign had zero doubts about the outcome, since they cancelled the fireworks the day before.
And just in case you have been brain dead for four years, she did try, along with fake news, try to say that Trump somehow wasn't a legit POTUS because of Russia! Russia! Russia! And spent 40 million dollars claiming that.
And they were completely wrong. You were completely wrong.
Time to own up on how wrong you were, are, have always been.
40 million. How much more would you think needs to be wasted to "prove" Russia, Russia, Russia???txagbear said:Nice attempt at deflection. That's what you should try at this pointBMX Bandit said:Quote:
We will soon see who is wrong.
Well we've known for sometime who was wrong on Russia Russia Russia
At least they got convictions. How much was spent on Benghazi or fast and furious? You had no problems with that. What type of law did you practice? Starting to have my doubtsaggiehawg said:40 million. How much more would you think needs to be wasted to "prove" Russia, Russia, Russia???txagbear said:Nice attempt at deflection. That's what you should try at this pointBMX Bandit said:Quote:
We will soon see who is wrong.
Well we've known for sometime who was wrong on Russia Russia Russia
Well said, concise to the point and spot on.aggiehawg said:You really don't understand much about Con law, state or federal.AgBMF42 said:
The only catch 22 is saying the state legislature can give the evs to whomever they want, but doesn't have the power to implement vote by mail.
For the 100th time, the Pennsylvania voters were disenfranchised when they prevented from being allowed to vote on a change to their state constitution. None were allowed to vote for that change.
But you want that to stand because of the fake covid scare justifies the suspension of both the state and United States Constitution.
Ask yourself if you really want to do down that road?
When you have no right to practice your religion?
Own a gun?
Use wrongspeak? Then are arrested for it? First amendment right to free speech gone too.
How about suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War?
How about Japanese internment camps during WWII?
Read some of Justice Robert Jackson's quotes and think about them, Think about them very hard.
https://www.inspiringquotes.us/author/6980-robert-h-jackson
Among the latter, under pretence of governing they have divided their nations into two classes, wolves and sheep.”
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edward Carrington, January 16, 1787
Far more law than you pretend to have practiced. And the administration that caused Benghazi did not ever investigate it. Ever. But you are the one who was happy an American Ambassador was murdered and drug through the streets.txagbear said:At least they got convictions. How much was spent on Benghazi or fast and furious? You had no problems with that. What type of law did you practice? Starting to have my doubtsaggiehawg said:40 million. How much more would you think needs to be wasted to "prove" Russia, Russia, Russia???txagbear said:Nice attempt at deflection. That's what you should try at this pointBMX Bandit said:Quote:
We will soon see who is wrong.
Well we've known for sometime who was wrong on Russia Russia Russia
That is who you are.
Dang Eric, I felt that all the way up here in NoVa!aggiehawg said:Yes. Works both ways.Quote:
So if the legislatures of several swing states in 2016 had serious doubts about Trump's win, they would have been justified in discarding the results of the vote and selecting electors to vote for HIllary, and you would have no issue with that since they had "serious doubts"?
Hillary campaign had zero doubts about the outcome, since they cancelled the fireworks the day before.
And just in case you have been brain dead for four years, she did try, along with fake news, try to say that Trump somehow wasn't a legit POTUS because of Russia! Russia! Russia! And spent 40 million dollars claiming that.
And they were completely wrong. You were completely wrong.
Time to own up on how wrong you were, are, have always been.
aggiehawg said:Far more law than you pretend to have practiced. And the administration that caused Benghazi did not ever investigate it. Ever. But you are the one who was happy an American Ambassador was murdered and drug through the streets.txagbear said:At least they got convictions. How much was spent on Benghazi or fast and furious? You had no problems with that. What type of law did you practice? Starting to have my doubtsaggiehawg said:40 million. How much more would you think needs to be wasted to "prove" Russia, Russia, Russia???txagbear said:Nice attempt at deflection. That's what you should try at this pointBMX Bandit said:Quote:
We will soon see who is wrong.
Well we've known for sometime who was wrong on Russia Russia Russia
That is who you are.
Yeah saying someone is happy because an ambassador was drug through the streets is ****ing insane. TDS did a number on you.
Wow, Karen, You are a weird chick. If you retired before the age of 60 you clearly haven't handled more cases than me. What exactly did you do? You seem reluctant to answer that.aggiehawg said:Far more law than you pretend to have practiced. And the administration that caused Benghazi did not ever investigate it. Ever. But you are the one who was happy an American Ambassador was murdered and drug through the streets.txagbear said:At least they got convictions. How much was spent on Benghazi or fast and furious? You had no problems with that. What type of law did you practice? Starting to have my doubtsaggiehawg said:40 million. How much more would you think needs to be wasted to "prove" Russia, Russia, Russia???txagbear said:Nice attempt at deflection. That's what you should try at this pointBMX Bandit said:Quote:
We will soon see who is wrong.
Well we've known for sometime who was wrong on Russia Russia Russia
That is who you are.
*** Enough with the constant trolling and harassing other posters. Take a vacation and be more respectful when you come back -- Staff ***
Featured Stories
See All
38:51
21h ago
6.3k
77:19
16h ago
1.2k
Video Replay: Student Bonfire 2025
by TexAgs
5 Thoughts: Texas 70, No. 13 Texas A&M 69
by Luke Evangelist
1:29
3h ago
418
LIVE: Texas A&M at No. 5 LSU
by Kay Naegeli
Gigem314
Did Tom Hart really say we haven't won in Austin in X years?
in Billy Liucci's TexAgs Premium
28