Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POTUS 45.65: I'm Just Here For The Lincoln Project Ads

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by rufus View Post

    We wait with baited breath.
    He posted it 40 minutes before this post...try to keep up.

    The only difference in the polling place that I voted at and the drive through ones are I walked in vs. drove in. Texas allows for temporary structures to be used as polling places. This should be a no-brainer.
    Jordan Kawaguchi for Hobey!!
    Originally posted by Quizmire
    mns, this is why i love you.

    Originally posted by Markt
    MNS - forking genius.

    Originally posted by asterisk hat
    MNS - sometimes you gotta answer your true calling. I think yours is being a pimp.

    Originally posted by hockeybando
    I am a fan of MNS.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

      What exactly is "this" in your question? Rules? Only liberal voters are impacted by rules?
      The comment in question:

      You want to know what I wonder? I wonder why all these liberals with these huge brains we keep hearing about have such a surprisingly difficult time with a very, very simple task...
      You don't need to try and waterboard me with a wall of useless text this time - consider the question rhetorical at this point.
      Last edited by Slap Shot; 11-02-2020, 12:48 PM.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by SJHovey View Post

        So, the Texas dispute, if I understand it correctly, is actually a really interesting one. If someone has some corrections to my facts, let me know as that could change my opinion, but I think I understand the dispute.

        By the way, the Texas dispute also illuminates what I was talking about earlier, which is that we run into problems when we have Clerks and other government officials who just decide, perhaps with good intent, to make up new rules.

        Here is what I understand has happened in Harris County.

        Texas election law says that you must cast a ballot at a "voting station" in a "polling place." However, you can request a "curbside ballot" if you suffer from a disability that would limit your ability to access the polling station without assistance, or if doing so exposes the voter to a likelihood of injury.

        The Harris County elections clerk, probably due to Covid, decided on his own to erect a series of drive thru "tents" where people can drive up and presumably fill out or drop off their ballot. Many, many people have already done so.

        Some Republicans in Texas have challenged the votes cast in these tents as votes not cast in compliance with Texas election law. Basically, the argument centers around whether these tents, with the personal cars in them, are a "polling place" or "voting station" under Texas law, and that further, if they are, then the County is not complying with other rules that govern voting stations, such as a rule that persons be in there alone (except for a minor child or interpreter.)

        Is that what you understand the factual dispute and arguments to be?

        It sounds like the Texas Supreme Court rejected these arguments and will allow the votes to be counted, although apparently there is a federal court case where the same arguments will be heard this week.

        So again, this is a "problem" that is created by a bureaucrat deciding, on his or her own, how things should be done when they really didn't have the authority to do so.

        But that said, I would probably rule (if I were in charge) that the votes should count, for these reasons:

        1. I would guess that the terms "voting station" and "polling place" are defined broadly enough, or could be interpreted broadly enough, to allow voting in these tents, so long as the county is regulating or keeping watch over these tents in the same way as they might inside a high school gym.

        2. Since the law allows a request for a "curbside" ballot if there is a "likelihood of injury" I assume that a judge could conclude that participating in the drive thru process constitutes a "request" and that possible covid infections in large crowds meets the "likelihood of injury" requirement, although I confess I have no idea what Texas law requires for purposes of either a "request" or proving "likelihood of injury." But my guess is its a pretty low standard, and in the past anyone who has asked for a curbside ballot has probably been given one.

        3. I don't think the arguments that the personal cars, in the tents, are not properly treated as voting stations goes anywhere because I doubt that when people request a curbside ballot they are denied if someone else happens to be in the car.

        But, I admit it'll be interesting to see which way the final court decisions go on this issue.
        This is a genuinely thoughtful and thorough post. Thank you.
        Cornell University
        National Champion 1967, 1970
        ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
        Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Deutsche Gopher Fan View Post

          I’m not an EC expert by any means but we could have shenanigans where states Biden won send their own R electors to vote for dump in the electoral vote, right? I feel like I read that as a fear about Florida in particular
          Dueling elector slates. Say Biden wins FL (trying to pick the most corrupt possible state for the example) and the FL Republicans say f-ck it and forward their own slate. They will concoct REASONS, which will have no merit but if they can get a favorable Court ruling then it doesn't matter. SCOTUS is infallible because it is last.

          Maybe Roberts splits the difference and throws out both slates, the Ultimate Both Siderism. They still deny Biden the EV that way.

          Assume nothing but malevolence coming from Dump in particular, the Republicans broadly, and "conservatives" in general.
          Cornell University
          National Champion 1967, 1970
          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

          Comment


          • Originally posted by rufus View Post

            We wait with baited breath.
            Bated.

            Unless you were making a (pretty good actually) joke.
            Cornell University
            National Champion 1967, 1970
            ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
            Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

              Bated.

              Unless you were making a (pretty good actually) joke.
              I'm going to be honest, when I saw that in his post, and given rufus' history of insults he's directed in my direction, I really, really wanted to respond. And I had some good responses. But I declined, because, well, what's the point.
              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

                Dueling elector slates. Say Biden wins FL (trying to pick the most corrupt possible state for the example) and the FL Republicans say f-ck it and forward their own slate. They will concoct REASONS, which will have no merit but if they can get a favorable Court ruling then it doesn't matter. SCOTUS is infallible because it is last.

                Maybe Roberts splits the difference and throws out both slates, the Ultimate Both Siderism. They still deny Biden the EV that way.

                Assume nothing but malevolence coming from Dump in particular, the Republicans broadly, and "conservatives" in general.
                I am not sure the SC has the authority to decide when it comes to the Electors but who knows. Everything seems so contradictory when I research it.
                "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                -aparch

                "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                -INCH

                Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                Comment


                • Originally posted by MinnesotaNorthStar View Post

                  He posted it 40 minutes before this post...try to keep up.

                  The only difference in the polling place that I voted at and the drive through ones are I walked in vs. drove in. Texas allows for temporary structures to be used as polling places. This should be a no-brainer.
                  Look, I don't spend every waking minute on this board like some people.
                  What kind of cheese are you planning to put on top?

                  Comment


                  • Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Handyman View Post

                      I am not sure the SC has the authority to decide when it comes to the Electors but who knows. Everything seems so contradictory when I research it.
                      Who is to stop them?

                      If SCOTUS says they can do something, they can do it. They don't need a reason. Everything we learned about law posits that the people in charge are acting sincerely. Now we have a highest Court that is a bag man. It will do what it wants to do.
                      Cornell University
                      National Champion 1967, 1970
                      ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                      Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                      Comment


                      • That isnt how things work...SCOTUS only has the power the Constitution allows for. Unless someone brings suit on a Constitutional ground of some sort they really dont even have a voice in that regard. To make a ruling there needs to be an issue brought in front of the court and Electors being challenged are dealt with in Congress. I mean I guess the State of Florida could sue to have the GOP Electors counted (or the people to block said move) but if the popular vote in state is against them I dont see Roberts and Co. blowing up the entire Federal System over it.

                        And make no mistake that is what would happen. If the Supreme Court ruled that the Leg had the right to overturn the will of the voters (after the fact) then the whole thing implodes on itself. It is one thing to undermine or de-legitimize the vote...but without evidence of rigging to just outright ignore the total count of votes and allow for this would be chaos. That was one of the Nightmare Scenarios that went around a month or so ago.

                        Such a challenge is the last thing the Plutes want...they need this to end as quietly as possible with Trump going away and Biden being his normal Centrist self. Sure they will have higher taxes...it isnt like they pay them anyways. They want to go back to normal because a protracted battle (especially one that could lead to a massive Constitutional Crisis) is bad for business. They need stability and calm. Sure Trump being in office is never bad for them because they clean up all over the place but any sort of overreach to get him there will likely lead to the very things they want to avoid.

                        "It's as if the Drumpf Administration is made up of the worst and unfunny parts of the Cleveland Browns, Washington Generals, and the alien Mon-Stars from Space Jam."
                        -aparch

                        "Scenes in "Empire Strikes Back" that take place on the tundra planet Hoth were shot on the present-day site of Ralph Engelstad Arena."
                        -INCH

                        Of course I'm a fan of the Vikings. A sick and demented Masochist of a fan, but a fan none the less.
                        -ScoobyDoo 12/17/2007

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Handyman View Post
                          That isnt how things work...SCOTUS only has the power the Constitution allows for.
                          And they interpret the Constitution. Which means it allows for whatever they say it does.

                          They are the Ground. There is nobody* in our system of government to tell SCOTUS "u r doin it wrong." If they say white is black then it is.

                          Why can't people grasp this simple fact? All law ultimately plugs into an agent of final legal force. In a monarchy it's the king (well, usually. Talk to the Renaissance Poles if you want to get confused). In the US, it's the Court. They define truth.

                          * Except the army. But that's in every system of government.
                          Last edited by Kepler; 11-02-2020, 03:49 PM.
                          Cornell University
                          National Champion 1967, 1970
                          ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                          Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

                            And they interpret the Constitution. Which means it allows for whatever they say it does.

                            They are the Ground. There is nobody* in our system of government to tell SCOTUS "u r doin it wrong." If they say white is black then it is.

                            Why can't people grasp this simple fact? All law ultimately plugs into an agent of final legal force. In a monarchy it's the king (well, usually. Talk to the Renaissance Poles if you want to get confused). In the US, it's the Court. They define truth.

                            * Except the army. But that's in every system of government.
                            Yep. This. If they decide it they decide it. And now they have 6 Orcs on a 9 man squad.
                            **NOTE: The misleading post above was brought to you by Reynold's Wrap and American Steeples, makers of Crosses.

                            Originally Posted by dropthatpuck-Scooby's a lost cause.
                            Originally Posted by First Time, Long Time-Always knew you were nothing but a troll.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Kepler View Post

                              Who is to stop them?

                              If SCOTUS says they can do something, they can do it. They don't need a reason. Everything we learned about law posits that the people in charge are acting sincerely. Now we have a highest Court that is a bag man. It will do what it wants to do.
                              There is a reason why justices who were believed to be very conservative turned out to be more liberal than thought, and vice versa. The reason -- there is nothing we can do about it.

                              I know that for the last four years it has been an extremely popular pasttime to fantasize about all of the crazy takeover schemes that could happen, but never will. But just ask this question. Why would the Supreme Court ever do what you propose?

                              Take Florida for example. They have a state statute that says that votes for a candidate are considered votes for the electors from that party. Very simple. I can't imagine the contortions the Supreme Court would have to go through to say that is no longer the law.

                              What is to gain for them? They serve for life. They have reached the highest pinnacle of their profession. Throw that all away to appease Donald Trump? Please.

                              There is a show on Showtime that has run since 2016 called The Circus. It's a little half hour political show that started during the Trump/Clinton campaign, and has revived for this year's election. The show itself has lost a little steam, but a couple of weeks ago they had this lawyer on who worked for Clinton and worked for Obama and was basically the Democrat's go-to lawyer for election shenanigans. He is leading the Democrat's efforts again during this election.

                              One of the hosts wanted to engage the guy in a bunch of "what ifs" Trump does this or Trump does that or a state does this or a state does that. The guy's response was basically, "won't happen." The host persisted but the lawyer was basically like, look, a lot of people want to hypothesize about Trump coming in and stealing this state or stealing the election, and it just doesn't work that way. Trump would love to be able to do that, it just can't be done.

                              What has happened here is this. The things that people here and on social media are freaking out about are the things that are probably rumbling through Trump's tiny mind right now, but about which he has no chance to accomplish and wouldn't know how even if there was a chance. That is, you guys are all starting to think like him, but in reverse. I don't think that's such a good thing if we assume he's crazy.
                              That community is already in the process of dissolution where each man begins to eye his neighbor as a possible enemy, where non-conformity with the accepted creed, political as well as religious, is a mark of disaffection; where denunciation, without specification or backing, takes the place of evidence; where orthodoxy chokes freedom of dissent; where faith in the eventual supremacy of reason has become so timid that we dare not enter our convictions in the open lists, to win or lose.

                              Comment


                              • These aren't normal justices.

                                SCOTUS justices used to be fine judges with lots of experience and knowledge in law and/or public policy. That's not what we have on the Court, now. We have politicians. Not especially good ones, even. They are playing out a tired, bankrupt political (not judicial) ideology with no consideration whatsoever of the merits, let alone the legal principles. This is a Court of Tom Cottons and Lindsay Grahams.

                                Gatekeeping is a double-edged sword. It selects for elitism: at its worst, class, at its best, merit. The Court no longer has a functioning gatekeeping device. It is the equivalent of a bunch of as-sholes off the street. Yes, these as-sholes maybe passed the bar, but a lot of people do. These are cranks. They are there to do a job. They may believe in it, like Scalia did, or they may be purely cynical, like Rehnquist was. But that doesn't even matter: what matters is they will not have the intellectual flexibility or the curiosity or the best interests of the common wealth in mind. They're bag men.

                                Doubtless there have been a handful of these jackwagons before, but it's never been a huge number and its never been stacked on one side of the Court. It's what happens when one major political party no longer has any interest in governance beyond the exploitation of their constituents for personal gain. That's all the Republican party has been for thirty years, and all its SCOTUS nominees are now.

                                I know you don't see it, but we do, and it's incredibly demoralizing.
                                Last edited by Kepler; 11-02-2020, 04:44 PM.
                                Cornell University
                                National Champion 1967, 1970
                                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X