Election Litigation Status

[Chap]

Congress doesn't confirm electors vote until December 18th.

Trump's people have brought case after case claiming all kinds of reasons to void this election or parts thereof.

And judge after judge after judge (including Trump appointees and active Republicans) has thrown out those cases, repeatedly pointing out that they really did not stand up.

Now the Supreme Court, with three conservative Trump appointees, has unanimously thrown out the latest attempt.

In the face of all this, could you bring yourself to admit the possibility that Trump really did lose the election, and that cheating or illegality or irregularity played no significant role in deciding that result?

I mean, how many more judges need to rule against Trump?

Or are you done with judges - even Trump-appointed Republicans - and are now dreaming that the guys with camo fatigues, dark glasses and automatic rifles will do for Trump what the law refused him, and impose Trump upon the majority of voters who rejected him?

Why, perhaps you are. Not that you will risk your own skin, I'll be bound.

[canpakes]

The Supreme Court rejected on Friday Texas’s longshot bid to void 20 million votes in four other states, clearing the path for Joe Biden’s victory when presidential electors meet Monday in state capitals across the nation.

Finally.

Congress doesn't confirm electors vote until December 18th.

According to Duke Energy, through July 2016, Duke Energy has attributed about 1,000 outages to squirrels in its service areas.

[subgenius]

Congress doesn't confirm electors vote until December 18th.

Trump's people have brought case after case claiming all kinds of reasons to void this election or parts thereof.

And judge after judge after judge (including Trump appointees and active Republicans) has thrown out those cases, repeatedly pointing out that they really did not stand up.

Now the Supreme Court, with three conservative Trump appointees, has unanimously thrown out the latest attempt.

In the face of all this, could you bring yourself to admit the possibility that Trump really did lose the election, and that cheating or illegality or irregularity played no significant role in deciding that result?

a poorly argued legal point or a poor interpretation by a judge is not the same "really did lose".
Your reliance on those outcomes rather than the facts and evidence being presented by countless witnesses and countless data sets is a great example of that sort of false equivalence.

I mean, how many more judges need to rule against Trump?

Does it matter how many? Why is your imaginary number for "this many is enough" get to be the reality?

Or are you done with judges - even Trump-appointed Republicans - and are now dreaming that the guys with camo fatigues, dark glasses and automatic rifles will do for Trump what the law refused him, and impose Trump upon the majority of voters who rejected him?

I don't believe you understand the issues or the non-monarch society we live in. Your hyperbole here is amusing but also not far removed from an American tradition established in 1776.

Why, perhaps you are. Not that you will risk your own skin, I'll be bound.

Huh?

[Chap]

Trump's people have brought case after case claiming all kinds of reasons to void this election or parts thereof.

And judge after judge after judge (including Trump appointees and active Republicans) has thrown out those cases, repeatedly pointing out that they really did not stand up.

Now the Supreme Court, with three conservative Trump appointees, has unanimously thrown out the latest attempt.

In the face of all this, could you bring yourself to admit the possibility that Trump really did lose the election, and that cheating or illegality or irregularity played no significant role in deciding that result?

a poorly argued legal point or a poor interpretation by a judge is not the same "really did lose".
Your reliance on those outcomes rather than the facts and evidence being presented by countless witnesses and countless data sets is a great example of that sort of false equivalence.

Weird. Trump's legal team - an incredibly talented bunch led by the great Rudi Giuliani, no? - presents their fully documented evidence and arguments to the court. Over and over again.

Over and over gain, in different courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the judges, many of them highly ethical Republicans and Trump appointees (the best of the best, right?) reject the case put by Trump's side. Over and over again.

Under the rule of law, that is what we call 'losing the case'. And under the rule of law, that is where it ends, isn't it? What other constitutional means, apart from the courts, do you have in mind for deciding such issues?

[Gadianton]

"Your reliance on those outcomes rather than the facts and evidence being presented by countless witnesses and countless data sets is a great"

Just your weekly reminder that you actually haven't presented any evidence for fraud yet. One of these days when you feel up to it maybe?

[Moksha]

Rush Limbaugh said the US is 'trending towards secession' and there can't 'peaceful coexistence' between conservatives and liberals.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/rush- ... -BB1bQlJh?

Forgot to ask my question: Should the Presidential Medal of Freedom be rescinded for someone who actively preaches sedition against the United States?

[canpakes]

a poorly argued legal point or a poor interpretation by a judge is not the same "really did lose".

Another day, another equivocation, subs. But, you don’t have the balls to come right out and say that that you believe that Trump hasn’t legitimately lost. Just as you don’t have the balls to state that you believe that widespread use of narrow and targeted voter fraud occurred.

Being a poor propagandist mired in traitorous behavior in service to your pride is your prerogative, but I’d suspect that no one you know believes that you’re sincere about any implied beliefs here.

[canpakes]

In the face of all this, could you bring yourself to admit the possibility that Trump really did lose the election, and that cheating or illegality or irregularity played no significant role in deciding that result?

That would require a degree of testicular fortitude that subs does not possess.

[canpakes]

Over and over gain, in different courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the judges, many of them highly ethical Republicans and Trump appointees (the best of the best, right?) reject the case put by Trump's side. Over and over again.

Under the rule of law, that is what we call 'losing the case'. And under the rule of law, that is where it ends, isn't it? What other constitutional means, apart from the courts, do you have in mind for deciding such issues?

A monarchy would work well for Trumpers. They don’t care about the rule of law, or the courts - if those courts happen to not believe their bullshyte.

[Chap]

Over and over gain, in different courts, all the way up to the Supreme Court. And the judges, many of them highly ethical Republicans and Trump appointees (the best of the best, right?) reject the case put by Trump's side. Over and over again.

Under the rule of law, that is what we call 'losing the case'. And under the rule of law, that is where it ends, isn't it? What other constitutional means, apart from the courts, do you have in mind for deciding such issues?

A monarchy would work well for Trumpers. They don’t care about the rule of law, or the courts - if those courts happen to not believe their bullshyte.

Yes indeed. Which is why I was puzzled by this bit of my exchange with subgenius:

Or are you done with judges - even Trump-appointed Republicans - and are now dreaming that the guys with camo fatigues, dark glasses and automatic rifles will do for Trump what the law refused him, and impose Trump upon the majority of voters who rejected him

I don't believe you understand the issues or the non-monarch society we live in. Your hyperbole here is amusing but also not far removed from an American tradition established in 1776.

So far as I can see, subgenius seems to be suggesting that because the constitutional order set up in America by building new political and legal structures in the last decades of the 18th century began after acts of revolutionary violence, somehow it has become legitimate forever for any group of American citizens dissatisfied with a legal decision to try to reverse it by force of arms, whatever the law may say. Have I understood him correctly?

If that is his view, I don't think he will find that articulating it keeps him out of jail if he ever acts on it - which I doubt in any case he actually has the courage to do.