2020 Presidential Race

#96,351
#96,351
Wafflestomper said:
Are you suggesting that, in a case where the plaintiff alleges the state has not followed its own rules in an election, that the court should similarly disregard its own rules and agree to hear his case?

The judge clearly stated that the federal court has limited jurisdiction and that Mr. Wood failed to show that his case was within its jurisdiction. He also stated that Mr. Wood could have filed in state court. So it seems like your complaint should be with Lin Wood, who continues to file federal cases where he lacks standing. I could speculate as to why he's doing that but it's clearly not someone else's fault.
Click to expand...
It's a ridiculous ruling. Saying that everyone has injury so there is no standing for equal protection is ridiculous. If he would have filed in a state court do you think the ruling would've been different?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,352
#96,352
Velo Vol said:
He seems like a top-notch lawyer.

Click to expand...


This dude is certifiably insane. I think a little visit from the Secret Service is in order, given his threat of bodily harm to the VP, alone.

As Trump presciently said, only the "best people" would be part of his team.

The only thing sadder are the imbeciles that still buy into one iota of what Donnie's selling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128, luthervol, USAFgolferVol and 1 other person
#96,354
#96,354
MontyPython said:
This dude is certifiably insane. I think a little visit from the Secret Service is in order, given his threat of bodily harm to the VP, alone.

As Trump presciently said, only the "best people" would be part of his team.

The only thing sadder are the imbeciles that still buy into one iota of what Donnie's selling.
Click to expand...
There have been reports for at least a year that Mr. Wood has some mental health issues. Google the lawsuit his former partners brought against him. He's not all there. Rittenhouse should really change counsel.
 
#96,356
#96,356
tnmarktx said:
It's a ridiculous ruling. Saying that everyone has injury so there is no standing for equal protection is ridiculous. If he would have filed in a state court do you think the ruling would've been different?
Click to expand...

The judge isn't saying that everyone has injury because Mr. Wood hasn't shown that anyone has injury. The judge is saying that what he's alleging can't be heard because he lacks standing in federal court, as we've previously discussed. What's ridiculous about that?

I don't know what the Georgia state laws are but I suspect he wouldn't have fared much better since his argument relies on speculation of injury and he hasn't done anything other than assert its truth. But we'll never know unless he tries. My guess is that he's accomplished his objective already.
 
#96,357
#96,357
Wafflestomper said:
The judge isn't saying that everyone has injury because Mr. Wood hasn't shown that anyone has injury. The judge is saying that what he's alleging can't be heard because he lacks standing in federal court, as we've previously discussed. What's ridiculous about that?

I don't know what the Georgia state laws are but I suspect he wouldn't have fared much better since his argument relies on speculation of injury and he hasn't done anything other than assert its truth. But we'll never know unless he tries. My guess is that he's accomplished his objective already.
Click to expand...
You didn't read the opinion. It was stated in both cases we've talked about that there was no standing for equal protection because Wood didn't have standing because his injury wasn't unique. It was stated that dilution of the vote would've effected all, thus it wouldn't have changed the election.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,358
#96,358
tnmarktx said:
You didn't read the opinion. It was stated in both cases we've talked about that there was no standing for equal protection because Wood didn't have standing because his injury wasn't unique. It was stated that dilution of the vote would've effected all, thus it wouldn't have changed the election.
Click to expand...

I did read that. But again, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited by the constitution and there are a set of criteria that are followed to establish standing. I understand your frustration but this is not an activist judge; he's following the rules.
 
#96,359
#96,359
Wafflestomper said:
I did read that. But again, the jurisdiction of federal courts is limited by the constitution and there are a set of criteria that are followed to establish standing. I understand your frustration but this is not an activist judge; he's following the rules.
Click to expand...
Then we agree no standing on procedural? Do you agree that there were stark differences in the way the election was ran depending on where it was held, thus equal protection was violated?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,360
#96,360
tnmarktx said:
Then we agree no standing on procedural? Do you agree that there were stark differences in the way the election was ran depending on where it was held, thus equal protection was violated?
Click to expand...

The determination of standing is procedural by its very nature, so if this is an objection it's not a very good one.

And I don't know enough about the voting procedures in different jurisdictions to say whether equal protection was violated anywhere. But the notion that differences in how the election was held between them itself constitutes malfeasance seems wrong at face. You have to prove you were injured rather than simply assume that and hope the court goes along with you.
 
#96,361
#96,361
Wafflestomper said:
The determination of standing is procedural by its very nature, so if this is an objection it's not a very good one.

And I don't know enough about the voting procedures in different jurisdictions to say whether equal protection was violated anywhere. But the notion that differences in how the election was held between them itself constitutes malfeasance seems wrong at face. You have to prove you were injured rather than simply assume that and hope the court goes along with you.
Click to expand...
If it's a fact that there were ballot drop boxes in and around Atlanta and there wasn't in rural areas of GA, it was a violation of equal protection for that alone. As meaningless as that may sound its plainly stated in the constitution.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,362
#96,362
evillawyer said:
There have been reports for at least a year that Mr. Wood has some mental health issues. Google the lawsuit his former partners brought against him. He's not all there. Rittenhouse should really change counsel.
Click to expand...
You have a link to those reports about Mr. Wood from at least a year ago?
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,364
#96,364
tnmarktx said:
If it's a fact that there were ballot drop boxes in and around Atlanta and there wasn't in rural areas of GA, it was a violation of equal protection for that alone. As meaningless as that may sound its plainly stated in the constitution.
Click to expand...

Were the rural jurisdictions prohibited from using the drop boxes or did they just not have any?
 
#96,365
#96,365
Wafflestomper said:
Were the rural jurisdictions prohibited from using the drop boxes or did they just not have any?
Click to expand...
You have specific areas where you vote, if you are 300 miles from Atlanta and you don't have ballot drop boxes like they do, then equal protection has been violated. You seem intelligent, you know you only vote where you live. I'd add that the ruling by the judge proves there are two tiers of justice in this country, that's a huge issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,366
#96,366
Wafflestomper said:
Were the rural jurisdictions prohibited from using the drop boxes or did they just not have any?
Click to expand...
Doing some research shows that in some areas there were ballot drop boxes open 24/7 and some not. That violates equal protection rights. If the government wants the things they implement to be valid they have to make it the same for all. Equal means equal, period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,367
#96,367
W.TN.Orange Blood said:
Harris is so uppity and so obnoxious being a snooty fake person thinking her sh!t doesn't stink to high heaven.
Democrats didn't even like her when she decided to run for president that they turned their noses up at her.
Some Democrats still think she's nothing but gutter trash now just like most republicans do. She's fake as hell.
Click to expand...
She's fixin' to be president
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#96,368
#96,368
tnmarktx said:
Doing some research shows that in some areas there were ballot drop boxes open 24/7 and some not. That violates equal protection rights. If the government wants the things they implement to be valid they have to make it the same for all. Equal means equal, period.
Click to expand...

The hours at my polling place were different than ones elsewhere in town. Should we invalidate the TN election results now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: zeppelin128 and ohhbother
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top