Election Litigation Status

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Yeah, he ain’t reading that.

- Doc

[subgenius]

Yeah, he ain’t reading that.

- Doc

No way you have read it yet.
and yes, when i got to the oxymoron
CNN fact-checking page
I walked away. literally posted an image affirming the above oxymoron.
Now, back to Doc bashing the messenger.

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

——o O o——, I read Chap’s post in its entirety, and I read the words in your linked image. You, otoh, didn’t read Chap’s post because it was longer than two sentences, and wasn’t scannable enough to cherry pick some BS that you’d then hurr hurr durr durr. In fact, right now I’m running the risk of losing you because your knot-for-a-brain has immediately noticed the words in this post have now surpassed your normal ability to read and, I’m absolutely positive of this, you risk getting a headache if you actually try to read for understanding rather than scanning for a bit you can hurr hurr durr durr. I have literally, and I’m being literally literal here, have inserted dozens upon dozens of sentences in my responses to you, or the quoted responses by others, that demonstrate you don’t read. Seriously. From “the feathered walrus only sleeps at night” to “subgenius won’t notice this sentence because he’s not reading any of this anyway” I’ve dropped dozens of these nuggets over the years. Now that my response has turned into a paragraph I’m fairly certain I could drop something smack dab in the middle of this paragraph that’s totally a 180 and you wouldn’t catch it.

- Doc

[Chap]

Wyoming Congresswoman and House Republican Conference Chair Liz Cheney (R-WY) issued a statement about the importance of respecting the sanctity of our electoral process:

“America is governed by the rule of law. The President and his lawyers have made claims of criminality and widespread fraud, which they allege could impact election results. If they have genuine evidence of this, they are obligated to present it immediately in court and to the American people. I understand that the President has filed more than thirty separate lawsuits. If he is unsatisfied with the results in those lawsuits, then the appropriate avenue is to appeal. If the President cannot prove these claims or demonstrate that they would change the election result, he should fulfill his oath to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States by respecting the sanctity of our electoral process.”

I recall from my Bible-reading days:

1 Kings 19:18 - the Lord speaking to the prophet Elijah, who has hidden in a cave on Mount Horeb in his despair at the apostasy of Israel from its ancestral religion:

Yet I have left me seven thousand in Israel, all the knees which have not bowed unto Baal, and every mouth which hath not kissed him.

So far the Republicans seem to be able to muster about half a dozen who have not bowed the knee to Trump, and who have not kissed his arse. But at least it's a start!

(Hey! That Brit-blind software again!)

[Doctor CamNC4Me]

Here's a bit for anyone who has to read that the Democrats were graceless and tried to overturn the 2016 election:

The Democrats in leadership were quick to offer their congrats to Trump in 2016. Clinton conceded the day after the election. Obama congratulated Trump and immediately began the transition process with GSA. Here are some other sentiments from Democrats at the time:

Chuck Schumer:

"President-elect Trump called me this morning, and I congratulated him on his victory," Schumer wrote in a Facebook post the day after the election. "Last night the American people exercised their sacred right to vote and made their voices known, electing Donald Trump to the Presidency, and returning Republican majorities to both Houses of Congress. I congratulate Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan on their victories as well."

Nancy Pelosi:

"The peaceful transfer of power is the cornerstone of our democracy," Pelosi said. "After an election in which Donald Trump won the electoral college and Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, we have a responsibility to come together and find common ground."

Joe Crowley:

"In the end, Donald Trump won," Crowley said. "I congratulate Mr. Trump on a hard-fought victory and after a grueling campaign, it is now time for our country to heal and to work on moving our nation forward."

John Kerry:

"I want to offer my congratulations to President-elect Donald Trump and wish him well," Kerry said.

Donna Brazille (who's Republican contemporary right now is Ronna McDaniel):

"We want to congratulate President-elect Donald Trump for his apparent Electoral College victory last night," Brazile said. "After this fierce campaign, now is the time for leaders from both parties to strive in good-faith to bridge our deep political divides, and work together in service to our one United States of America."

Jon Tester:

"Let's give him a chance," Tester said. "Who knows, we might be pleasantly surprised. And if we're not, we'll hold him accountable."

That's just a small sample of Democrats offering congratulations and well-wishes after Trump won in '16. In fact, I remember the general sentiment was shock mixed with "let's at least give him a chance and see what he can do." The two situations could not be anymore different and the two parties could not be anymore different in their actions. This country cannot move forward if its people don't recognize the objective fact that the Republican party is immensely worse than any other political offering in this country and is solely focused on squeezing every dime out of the taxpayers while doing as little work as possible because they are lazy and disingenuous.

Edit: Source: https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/politics ... index.html

It's worth nothing that even though Clinton won the popular vote, she conceded gracefully rather than filing 30 lawsuits, demanding recounts, trying to bully officials into changing the results, calling the results fake, throwing temper tantrums, claiming she won and refusing to concede. Her margins of loss were much narrower than Trump's in certain cases.

- Doc

[subgenius]

——o O o——, I read Chap’s post in its entirety,

You read it, digested it, formed a reply post, typed it up...hit enter in under 3 minutes.
Wow, your lips move fast.

[subgenius]

It's worth nothing that even though Clinton won the popular vote, she conceded gracefully rather than filing 30 lawsuits, demanding recounts, trying to bully officials into changing the results, calling the results fake, throwing temper tantrums, claiming she won and refusing to concede. Her margins of loss were much narrower than Trump's in certain cases.

- Doc

Hillary Clinton cocneded because that's what losers do.
Its worth noting that your post is ignorant of history. Obama filed several lawsuits for his first ever victory against an incubent. But yeah, you keep on keeping it real.

[Gunnar]

Trump's irrational refusal to concede the obvious does not diminish in the slightest the reality that he did indeed lose this election much more conclusively than Clinton did in 2016. One can indeed argue that Clinton lost according to the existing rules of the game (as even she conceded), but by those still existing rules, there is no way to honestly or rationally argue that Trump did not lose in 2020.

[canpakes]

Hillary Clinton cocneded because that's what losers do.
Its worth noting that your post is ignorant of history. Obama filed several lawsuits for his first ever victory against an incubent. But yeah, you keep on keeping it real.

All this talk about cocneding and incubents is curious, indeed.

But I just dropped in to note that one can refuse to concede, and still be a loser. And in the case of Trump, a loser that doesn’t know how to deal with it as an adult.

[Res Ipsa]

The Federal District Judge in Trump v Boockvar dismissed the PA case in a brutal opinion. I’ve only seen pieces, but my eyebrows were singed. It will likely be appealed to the Court of Appeals, and heard pretty quickly. The Supreme Court does not have to accept review.

Here’s the thing — the Trump campaign cannot point to a specific chunk of ballots that is big enough to change the result. So it has to argue that the court should throw out hundreds of thousands of perfectly legal ballots and change the results of an election without evidence of enough improperly cast ballots.

That’s the type of case the Supremes usually duck.

Opinion: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-cont ... ng-MTD.pdf

Meanwhile, a group of Republican legislators in PA filed suit in state court asking the court to declare the vote by mail statute PA enacted over a year ago unconstitutional. It asks the Court to throw out all ballots cast by mail except military ballots or to order the (Republican) legislators to appoint the state’s electors. There’s a teensy problem with the suit called “laches.” It’s an equitable doctrine which means you can lose the right to sue if you wait too long. Courts are really reluctant to disenfranchise voters who have cast their ballots based on a claim that could have been brought a year ago.