Election 2020 Election 2020: It's (almost) over! (maybe...possibly...ahh who are we kidding, it's 2020!)

[DarthOne]

Can we have a source on Pennsylvania joining Texas in suing itself?

I don't really follow this guy and have no reason to trust him.

Anyway, if you have Pennsylvania joining a lawsuit by Texas to sue Pennsylvania for breaking its constitution...well, that does make it a rather interesting arrangement. Be interesting if bodies in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia join suite.

Apparently, it's breaking news, so I don't think we'll have any news articles about it for a few hours or until tomorrow. As for the guy in the video, I find him pretty trustworthy. That said, if this does turn out to be false, I take full responsibility for sharing this misinformation.

 

[Zachowon]

Can we have a source on Pennsylvania joining Texas in suing itself?

I don't really follow this guy and have no reason to trust him.

Anyway, if you have Pennsylvania joining a lawsuit by Texas to sue Pennsylvania for breaking its constitution...well, that does make it a rather interesting arrangement. Be interesting if bodies in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Georgia join suite.

The man who posted the images on twitter is a GOP member and one of the most loved

 

[Duke Nukem]

S a l t

 

[Zachowon]

S a l t

My fries are the saltiest there for best

 

[Archmagnus]

S a l t

I need more

 

[Lord Sovereign]

I need more

Literally most of us right now.

 

[lordmcdeath]

A few notes to everyone doing their happy dances right now.

1. There is no hearing currently scheduled. The supreme court has a pretty set schedule and they only do hearings on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, they release/write opinions on Thursday, and they conference primarily on Friday. As of this moment no emergency hearing has been set for Friday, so it seems unlikely there will be one.

2. Ironically the legal theory might to trip them up in this instance is the electoral college. Because we don't actually elect the president, but instead elect electors, it makes all presidential elections a purely state matter. The electors electing the president is arguably the federal one. Hell some states just had the legislature nominate them early on.

3. The Texas lawsuit does not allege the unconstitutionality of the 1876 Election law, which establishes things like the safe harbor date and the date for the electors to vote, among other things. Without that legal argument and associated ruling, the legislation is considered both legal and binding. Meaning either the time for remedy has past under safe harbor or there is barely more than a day before the electors vote.

Basically all this can really do now, unless the originalists are willing to bin the legal theories they have spent decades shaping, is provide political top cover for a Republican senator to contest things on January 6th.

He should have filed this weeks ago or specifically alleged the unconstitutionality of the 1876 election law.

 

[Vaermina]

A few notes to everyone doing their happy dances right now.

1. There is no hearing currently scheduled. The supreme court has a pretty set schedule and they only do hearings on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, they release/write opinions on Thursday, and they conference primarily on Friday. As of this moment no emergency hearing has been set for Friday, so it seems unlikely there will be one.

2. Ironically the legal theory might to trip them up in this instance is the electoral college. Because we don't actually elect the president, but instead elect electors, it makes all presidential elections a purely state matter. The electors electing the president is arguably the federal one. Hell some states just had the legislature nominate them early on.

3. The Texas lawsuit does not allege the unconstitutionality of the 1876 Election law, which establishes things like the safe harbor date and the date for the electors to vote, among other things. Without that legal argument and associated ruling, the legislation is considered both legal and binding. Meaning either the time for remedy has past under safe harbor or there is barely more than a day before the electors vote.

Basically all this can really do now, unless the originalists are willing to bin the legal theories they have spent decades shaping, is provide political top cover for a Republican senator to contest things on January 6th.

He should have filed this weeks ago or specifically alleged the unconstitutionality of the 1876 election law.

This is about the states illegally changing the way their people vote.

 

[lordmcdeath]

This is about the states illegally changing the way their people vote.

Not illegally, it is more focused on unconstitutionality than crime if we read the same brief. The burden of proof is lower and this more the Supremes speed.

But without specificly trying to striking that 1876 law as unconstitutional as well, it and the time table it sets forth are considered valid law and are thusly controlling.

More over, fundamentally remedy cannot violate valid law. Its part of the Texas suit, as they are fundamentally alleging that court results in addition to executive action broke constitutional law.

 

[Vaermina]

Not illegally, it is more focused on unconstitutionality than crime if we read the same brief. The burden of proof is lower and this more the Supremes speed.

But without specificly trying to striking that 1876 law as unconstitutional as well, it and the time table it sets forth are considered valid law and are thusly controlling.

More over, fundamentally remedy cannot violate valid law. Its part of the Texas suit, as they are fundamentally alleging that court results in addition to executive action broke constitutional law.

You're apparently making the same mistake as some of the others in thinking this issue can be rendered moot by any sort of timing or event.

It can't.

 

[lordmcdeath]

You're apparently making the same mistake as some of the others in thinking this issue can be rendered moot by any sort of timing or event.

It can't.

The fundamental point of law cannot due to the nature of court and complaint, but the remedy certainly can. They cannot provide remedy that is in volation to valid law. That is why having the legal argument that the 1876 law is unconstitutional would have been so important. If SCOTUS struck that down, then certainly you could seek that remedy until Jan 6th.

 

[Vaermina]

The fundamental point of law cannot due to the nature of court and complaint, but the remedy certainly can. They cannot provide remedy that is in volation to valid law. That is why having the legal argument that the 1876 law is unconstitutional would have been so important. If SCOTUS struck that down, then certainly you could seek that remedy until Jan 6th.

While it would be nice, they don't need remedy, they just need judgement on whether it was or wasn't constitutional.

 

[lordmcdeath]

While it would be nice, they don't need remedy, they just need judgement on whether it was or wasn't constitutional.

Yes, they do need remedy. A judgement of unconstitutionality alone would only abrigate executive action or the effect of lower court judgments going forward in future elections.

 

[Vaermina]

Yes, they do need remedy. A judgement of unconstitutionality alone would only abrigate executive action or the effect of lower court judgments going forward in future elections.

And the thing you are forgetting.

It would also be grounds for the impeachment of both Biden and Kamala since it would be declaring that the election that put them in office was unconstitutionally decided.

 

[Bear Ribs]

And the thing you are forgetting.

It would also be grounds for the impeachment of both Biden and Kamala since it would be declaring that the election that put them in office was unconstitutionally decided.

Eh, I'm not sure that matters. We're in an era where impeachment is only possible if you control both houses. If either party holds one, impeachment isn't happening, grounds or not.

 

[Vaermina]

Eh, I'm not sure that matters. We're in an era where impeachment is only possible if you control both houses. If either party holds one, impeachment isn't happening, grounds or not.

It does matter.

Because almost any Democrat or Republican that refuses to Impeach an unconstitutionally elected President is going to find themselves voted out of office come next election.

Such a thing is literally the election soundbite from hell, and both sides would be blaring it against whatever incumbent voted against impeachment 25/7 come the next election cycle.

 

[Zachowon]

They deem it unconstitutional they can basically say the election was unconstitutional and the amount of people calling into the legislature of their state would be so large they would basically have to give in or face mass riots and protests or worse.

but of course the left only think they can do this and they there is nothing the will unite both sides, yet it seems Biden is already pissing off the Far left so...

 

[lordmcdeath]

It does matter.

Because almost any Democrat or Republican that refuses to Impeach an unconstitutionally elected President is going to find themselves voted out of office come next election.

Such a thing is literally the election soundbite from hell, and both sides would be blaring it against whatever incumbent voted against impeachment 25/7 come the next election cycle.

Are you kidding? The counter narrative practically writes itself. The bias of the Trump judges trying to coronate him. Between Barrett, what happened to Garland, and the low opinion they had of the other conservatives on the court this couldn't play harder into their practically prepackaged messaging.

I would expect the Republicans to move in pretty big groups, but even then depending on how broad judgement is, as this is going to radically change how we do election and also apply to Texas and host of other states. But again, because they didn't include a challenge to the 1876 electoral law, he will still be dually elected.

No amount of public pressure is going to change that without getting rid of the 1876 electoral law. There is no legal avenue for the state legislatures to intervene anymore.

 

[Zachowon]

Are you kidding? The counter narrative practically writes itself. The bias of the Trump judges trying to coronate him. Between Barrett, what happened to Garland, and the low opinion they had of the other conservatives on the court this couldn't play harder into their practically prepackaged messaging.

I would expect the Republicans to move in pretty big groups, but even then depending on how broad judgement is, as this is going to radically change how we do election and also apply to Texas and host of other states. But again, because they didn't include a challenge to the 1876 electoral law, he will still be dually elected.

And he will be impeached or deemed to have an unconstitutional presidency and they will find a way to get rid of him.
You are acting like the Dems don't have face to save. It wont matter if the media paints the judges in negative light, for all we know it could be a 9-0 in favor of Texas, in which case it would be over for the dems. is 9-0 going to happen? Most likely not, but that is the point I am making....
We have no idea, and we have till the 20th of Jan to have this whole issue figured out. Plenty of time for a rushed case

 

[lordmcdeath]

No. You have until January 6th. Because they didn't include that 1873 Electoral Law as unconstitutional as well. And most original jurisdiction cases take the better part of a year minimum. The supreme court only has hearings 3 days a week and they haven't worked weekends or holidays in the courts history.

Also unconstitutional presidency, is not a thing. Impeachment is an option but the Democratand Democratic independents already loathe Trump with the sort of fiery passion that honestly scares me sometimes. Any Democrat who voted for impeachment would be primaried.

As for 9-0, really? Its enough of a stretch that the conservatives would be effectively binning centuries of jurisprudence and a number of legal frameworks that they are personally committed to, along with opening to an avalanche of these original jurisdiction lawsuits along with basically junking federalism in our elections.