The (many) indictments of Donald Trump

#12,152
#12,152
Orangeslice13 said:
Dude,
Pennsylvania ignored their own constitution. The governor decided that mail in ballots were allowed because of Covid by executive order. Their constitution was clear that the governor didn’t have that authority.
SCOTUS refused to hear the case
Click to expand...
Q: how many posts of goalpost moving nonsense does it take to try to revive this 👆 from the grave of irrefutable proof 👇
RockyTop85 said:
Case 1

“In October 2019, the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania enacted Act 77 of 2019, which, inter alia, created for the first time in Pennsylvania the opportunity for all qualified electors to vote by mail, without requiring the electors to demonstrate their absence from the voting district on Election Day,”

Case 2

“Before the Court now is a question of whether the General Assembly overstepped the bounds of this power and violated our Constitution when it enacted legislation that allows for universal mail-in voting. For the reasons that follow, we find no constitutional violation”
Click to expand...
A: 1. “I was wrong about what happened.”

Unless you have an ulterior motive (partisan hack) or mental illness (narcissistic personality dirsorder) that prohibit you from acknowledging that you were spectacularly wrong. In that case, spend at least 12 posts arguing nonsense and trying to move the goalposts and peak at “the Supreme Court should hear cases about events that never happened.”

Good fun. Thanks for the laughs. Good luck with your new partnership at Dunning & Kruger, LLP.
 
#12,157
#12,157
AM64 said:
Maybe we need to address a few issues such as the election of federal issues when deciding what is state and what is federal. When some states decide that election rules are flexible and they don't need to enforce common issues like voter vetting, that affects other states that hold more traditional and more restrictive measures. Interstate commerce is a similar instance - particularly things that allowed some states to interfere by restricting transport common to other states.
Click to expand...
The federal government can do that by passing a new law or amendments to the voting rights act to regulate state elections. After Moore v. Harper rejected the independent state legislature theory, that should be able to be done constitutionally. There would have to be some compromise with Democrats to get it out of the senate, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#12,158
#12,158
Orangeslice13 said:
So a governor it Alabama signs an executive order that says no polling stations in poor black communities in violation of their constitution. The State court says it’s all good, and SCOTUS has nothing to say on this?


Got it. Makes perfect sense that the governor has full authority over what happens in the state.
Click to expand...

The federal government has been meddling in how state voting is conducted for a very long time. In fact, AL was just forced to redistrict by the feds, so I think you are right that the SC could have intervened ... and should have intervened on some of the hasty and poorly conceived and conducted voting rule changes put in place so people could safely vote with Covid in the air. As Rahm Emanuel said:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#12,159
#12,159
AM64 said:
The federal government has been meddling in how state voting is conducted for a very long time. In fact, AL was just forced to redistrict by the feds, so I think you are right that the SC could have intervened ... and should have intervened on some of the hasty and poorly conceived and conducted voting rule changes put in place so people could safely vote with Covid in the air. As Rahm Emanuel said:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Click to expand...
If it violates federal law, like the voting rights act, or raises a federal constitutional issue, like the independent state legislature theory, it is ripe for US Supreme Court Jurisdiction.

A state Supreme Court deciding whether state law passed by the state’s legislature passed muster under the state’s constitution is not a federal issue. That is purely a state issue. US Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over PA’s vote by mail because of how it came about.

They had jurisdiction to decide whether PA’s Secretary of State violated the US constitution by directing that late-received votes be counted based on the postmark. The PA Supreme Court held that she did not and the US Supreme Court effectively agreed by refusing to take the case. They later rejected the constitutional theory upon which, IIRC, that case was based. So that should explain why they declined to take it.
 
Last edited:
#12,160
#12,160
AM64 said:
The federal government has been meddling in how state voting is conducted for a very long time. In fact, AL was just forced to redistrict by the feds, so I think you are right that the SC could have intervened ... and should have intervened on some of the hasty and poorly conceived and conducted voting rule changes put in place so people could safely vote with Covid in the air. As Rahm Emanuel said:

"You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it's an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."
Click to expand...
Pretty much.
That’s why the panic over the Zulu variant of covid. Trying to manufacture a crisis
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#12,163
#12,163
Orangeslice13 said:
So
Like I said
They had the authority according to SCOTUS judges to hear the case. SCOTUS chose not to hear it.

They should have heard the case.
Clearly you disagree. That’s why you are mad and being disrespectful now (nothings been made up beyond your attempts to move goalposts all over the place)
Click to expand...

RockyTop argues from the legal side, nothing wrong with him doing that. What you and I are frustrated with is that courts decide one day to look at the broad picture and make new law, and the next day they take a very focused view and decide "not our problem". Often that decision looks political; we don't have a role in what the courts do (other than be victims), so we tend to be incensed by the complete lack of consistency where someone in legal practice claims there is no inconsistency.

Should someone state "J Doe was murdered by D Trump on Wed, Aug 4, ...; the court might decide that D Trump was guilty, or it might decide (like fact checkers) that he wasn't guilty because the time of death was Thurs not Wed. We consider the fact that the guy was murdered and who did the deed as the important factor; lawyers and the court can take a nitpicky view and ignore the important point because someone got a fact wrong.
 
#12,164
#12,164
AM64 said:
RockyTop argues from the legal side, nothing wrong with him doing that. What you and I are frustrated with is that courts decide one day to look at the broad picture and make new law, and the next day they take a very focused view and decide "not our problem". Often that decision looks political; we don't have a role in what the courts do (other than be victims), so we tend to be incensed by the complete lack of consistency where someone in legal practice claims there is no inconsistency.

Should someone state "J Doe was murdered by D Trump on Wed, Aug 4, ...; the court might decide that D Trump was guilty, or it might decide (like fact checkers) that he wasn't guilty because the time of death was Thurs not Wed. We consider the fact that the guy was murdered and who did the deed as the important factor; lawyers and the court can take a nitpicky view and ignore the important point because someone got a fact wrong.
Click to expand...
What he does is take something you say in general and decides you are saying something specific then argues against that. Sort of a straw man. I can’t decide if it’s a “gotcha” game he’s trying to play or just something he doesn’t realize he’s doing. Either way I’m not interested in it as the conversation is of no value to me at that point. Honestly that’s why I’m here, to have conversations I find interesting and beneficial. So I become very dismissive and/or just repeat my original comment. It’s amazing how long he will continue to imagine a conversation while I’m not even reading what he’s posted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InVOLuntary and AM64
#12,165
#12,165
Rule 9.A is my favorite.

9. If anything weird happens throughout the season, (cancelled games, schedule shift, etc) I will be sole arbiter of how to fairly proceed. The appeal process is as follows:
A. STFU
B. You were probably going to lose anyways
 
  • Like
Reactions: GordonC and AM64
#12,166
#12,166
RockyTop85 said:
If it violates federal law, like the voting rights act, or raises a federal constitutional issue, like the independent state legislature theory, it is ripe for US Supreme Court Jurisdiction.

A state Supreme Court deciding whether state law passed by the state’s legislature passed muster under the state’s constitution is not a federal issue. That is purely a state issue. US Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over PA’s vote by mail because of how it came about.

They had jurisdiction to decide whether PA’s Secretary of State violated the US constitution by directing that late-received votes be counted based on the postmark. The PA Supreme Court held that she did not and the US Supreme Court effectively agreed by refusing to take the case. They later rejected the constitutional theory upon which, IIRC, that case was based. So that should explain why they declined to take it.
Click to expand...

We just see things from different perspectives. I once had a lawyer as a partner in a business; we discussed legal decisions a few times, and his thought process was much like yours which is very different from the way most of us process information and make decisions. I think several of us here would say that when a state decides to use mail in voting with no positive identification other than very tenuous signature verification (when so very few of us are even slightly knowledgeable in handwriting analysis), that the process adopted by some states can be seen as diminishing the voting integrity which very much affects the voting rights of all.

Apparently there aren't even real rules as to what constitutes a signature. There was a document floating around in VN the past few days that showed the judge's "signature" above his typed name as a stylized but clearly printed AE ... actually made me think of a brand that he might use on his victims.
 
#12,167
#12,167
Orangeslice13 said:
What he does is take something you say in general and decides you are saying something specific then argues against that. Sort of a straw man. I can’t decide if it’s a “gotcha” game he’s trying to play or just something he doesn’t realize he’s doing. Either way I’m not interested in it as the conversation is of no value to me at that point. Honestly that’s why I’m here, to have conversations I find interesting and beneficial. So I become very dismissive and/or just repeat my original comment. It’s amazing how long he will continue to imagine a conversation while I’m not even reading what he’s posted.
Click to expand...

I've had the same feelings usually when attempting to discuss things with RockyTop. I think he's intelligent and probably competent in a legal setting, but he simply doesn't speak the same language and process thought in the same way we do. It's frustrating and I rarely engage him because it's a lot like arguing with luther ... just a different variation on a theme. I honestly think the legal system completely perverts the reasoning of those who participate in the system ... it's just weird "logic".
 
#12,168
#12,168
AM64 said:
I've had the same feelings usually when attempting to discuss things with RockyTop. I think he's intelligent and probably competent in a legal setting, but he simply doesn't speak the same language and process thought in the same way we do. It's frustrating and I rarely engage him because it's a lot like arguing with luther ... just a different variation on a theme. I honestly think the legal system completely perverts the reasoning of those who participate in the system ... it's just weird "logic".
Click to expand...
You notice I never start the conversation
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#12,170
#12,170
AM64 said:
Sometimes I do. I guess it falls in the "expecting a different outcome" thing.
Click to expand...
If I’ve initiated more than 3 conversations with the two of you combined in the last calendar year, I’d be surprised to learn it.

I checked. It’s 0 with you and no more than this one with Slice since January. This one is debatable. I didn’t tag him, just posted links to what actually happened in Pennsylvania and he responded.
 
#12,171
#12,171
RockyTop85 said:
If I’ve initiated more than 3 conversations with the two of you combined in the last calendar year, I’d be surprised to learn it.

I checked. It’s 0 with you and no more than this one with Slice since January. This one is debatable. I didn’t tag him, just posted links to what actually happened in Pennsylvania and he responded.
Click to expand...

I admitted to initiating conversations with you. I'm just disappointed that we rarely seem to have common ground regarding how the legal game is played. That disappointment is likely why so many people don't view the legal system or those participating in it fondly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeslice13
#12,172
#12,172
What's done is done, what coulda, shoulda and what actually happened is history.
Digging up bones helps no one. Move forward not backwards. Find the solution to fix the problem. Dems and Reps walking around butt hurt is not the solution. It should not be swept under the rug but fine the solution. What's done is done.
 
#12,174
#12,174
Orangeburst said:

Why Trump’s Presidential Immunity Defense May Just Lead To An Election Indictment Dismissal​


Click to expand...
Considering the Source and your love of Trump I can see why you would post such BS. Drinking more BourBon instead of Kool aid should nurse you back into reality. One article vs 99 that say the opposite. If you need proof just Google it.
 
#12,175
#12,175
Sudden Impact said:
Considering the Source and your love of Trump I can see why you would post such BS. Drinking more BourBon instead of Kool aid should nurse you back into reality. One article vs 99 that say the opposite. If you need proof just Google it.
Click to expand...
when it goes to SCOTUS, we will see won’t we
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top