U.S Election 2020

[denphone]

We should all take comfort that the Supreme Court judges including all three of President Trump’s picks have closed the book on this nonsense.

Originally Posted by denphone

We should all take comfort that the Supreme Court judges including all three of President Trump’s picks have closed the book on this nonsense.

Any candidate has the right to question voter integrity. So it is not nonsense. Mail in ballots are prone to fraud.

Secondly, Supreme Court has not shut the book completely, plus the decision was not unanimous, two justices dissented saying the case should be heard, the SC refused to touch the case because Texas suit joined on by other multiple States, lacked “standing”.

[Stephen]

Thing is Trump etc can bleat on all they want about voter fraud and such, however everything they claim happened. Didn't. There simply is no hard evidence to support any such claim.

Trump has been filling peoples heads with so much CT nonsense that a lot of them believe it to be true.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mick

Secondly, Supreme Court has not shut the book completely, plus the decision was not unanimous, two justices dissented saying the case should be heard, the SC refused to touch the case because Texas suit joined on by other multiple States, lacked “standing”.

The dissent was a procedural matter as to whether the Supreme Court is allowed to deny hearing the case as it came from a State, as that is within the 'Original Juristiction' of the Supreme Court.

The Judges were 9-0 that the requested relief asked for in the case wasn't to be granted even if the case had been heard:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sco...-election-suit

Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas said they would have heard the case -- without granting other relief, like issuing an injunction on electoral proceedings. They added that they expressed "no view on any other issue."

So it is possible that other cases could be escalated to the Supreme Court, but they would have to make it through all the lower courts first, which so far none have due to lack of standing or evidence.

Originally Posted by Mick

Any candidate has the right to question voter integrity. So it is not nonsense. Mail in ballots are prone to fraud.

Secondly, Supreme Court has not shut the book completely, plus the decision was not unanimous, two justices dissented saying the case should be heard, the SC refused to touch the case because Texas suit joined on by other multiple States, lacked “standing”.

This has been shown not to be true - the biggest, and most recent, Mail in vote fraud was bay a Republican in North Carolina in 2018.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-53353404

Numerous national and state-level studies have shown that although there have been isolated cases, electoral fraud is very rare.

There have been a few, well-publicised cases, such as in the 2018 North Carolina primary, which was re-run after a consultant for the Republican candidate tampered with voting papers.

But the rate of voting fraud overall in the US is less than 0.0009%*, according to a 2017 study by the Brennan Center for Justice.

And Federal Election Commission head Ellen Weintraub has said: "There's simply no basis for the conspiracy theory that voting by mail causes fraud."

*that equates to 2547 votes (273 million X 0.0009%)

Mail in ballots are prone to fraud and I’m not changing my stance on this fact.

---------- Post added at 16:11 ---------- Previous post was at 16:09 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

The dissent was a procedural matter as to whether the Supreme Court is allowed to deny hearing the case as it came from a State, as that is within the 'Original Juristiction' of the Supreme Court.

The Judges were 9-0 that the requested relief asked for in the case wasn't to be granted even if the case had been heard:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sco...-election-suit


So it is possible that other cases could be escalated to the Supreme Court, but they would have to make it through all the lower courts first, which so far none have due to lack of standing or evidence.

So as I said, the SC have not completely shut the door on this election as of yet.

[BenMcr]

Originally Posted by Mick

So as I said, the SC have not completely shut the door on this election as of yet.

No court ever shuts the door to anything as far as I'm aware. They rule on each case presented and decide on that basis.

Outside of cases brought by US States, the Supreme Court is review body. All cases have to have gone through the lower courts first and all evidence has to be presented to those lower courts - the Supreme Court does not accept new evidence.

So far there have been 58 cases brought by the Trump campaign and associates for various claims and in various state and federal courts regarding the 2020 US election. 57 of them have been lost including the Texas State case, and Mike Kelly case application to the Supreme Court.

The one case that was one was around a deadline for ID proof for a small number of ballots - that weren't in the final count of that state anyway.

Originally Posted by Mick

So as I said, the SC have not completely shut the door on this election as of yet.

It seems they've shut the door on changing the election.

The two judges which said they should hear the case still said they wouldn't throw out votes. In other words, even if the case was heard and won the remedy would be that Pennsylvania would have to change their processes for next time.

Even if they found the state had acted improperly in allowing mailing in ballots it would have been a matter of technicality and so throwing out the votes of every person in the state would be too extreme a measure. The Republicans, in court, were not arguing these votes were not genuine and actual votes but that the way the election was run was invalid. Not enough to justify throwing legitimate votes in the bin.

Now if the Republicans could prove that these votes were fraudulent then they might have a case but they can't and, again in court, have not alleged that.

So unless Trump has something else the Supreme Court does not appear to be on course to overturn the election.

Trump's only options are the House rebelling against the EC or a literal military coup.

[GrimUpNorth]

Originally Posted by Mick

Mail in ballots are prone to fraud and I’m not changing my stance on this fact.

Interesting, 8.5 million postal votes were issued (18.4% of the electorate) for the 2016 Brexit referendum so if they're that prone to fraud maybe your team lost after all and we shouldn't have left or is it only fraudulent if your side doesn't win?

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Interesting, 8.5 million postal votes were issued (18.4% of the electorate) for the 2016 Brexit referendum so if they're that prone to fraud maybe your team lost after all and we shouldn't have left or is it only fraudulent if your side doesn't win?

lmfao

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

lmfao

An erudite and succinctly put point of view as always.

[BenMcr]

Trump loses another case. Judge agreed he had standing. He lost on the merits of the case. The Judge was appointed by Trump.

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-electio...tion-lawsuits/

Soon-to-be-former President Donald Trump has time and again touted his stacking of the judiciary with hundreds of lifetime appointments, but those judges have resoundingly rejected meritless post-election lawsuits brought by Trump and his allies. That happened again in Wisconsin federal court.

“This is an extraordinary case,” U.S. District Judge Brett Ludwig wrote in a 23-page ruling on Saturday. “A sitting president who did not prevail in his bid for reelection has asked for federal court help in setting aside the popular vote based on disputed issues of election administration, issues he plainly could have raised before the vote occurred. This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits.”

“In his reply brief, plaintiff ‘asks that the Rule of Law be followed,'” Ludwig observed.

“It has been,” he concluded.

[Mad Max]

Originally Posted by Mr K

An erudite and succinctly put point of view as always.

You're allowed a laugh occasionally, unlike yourself who is the heart and soul of every party...

Originally Posted by GrimUpNorth

Interesting, 8.5 million postal votes were issued (18.4% of the electorate) for the 2016 Brexit referendum so if they're that prone to fraud maybe your team lost after all and we shouldn't have left or is it only fraudulent if your side doesn't win?

Equally, they could all have been fraudulant remain votes, so in reality leave won by far more, so no real point here, or anything interesting.

[Mr K]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

You're allowed a laugh occasionally, unlike yourself who is the heart and soul of every party...

Well done, that was a complete sentence !

Keep it up.
.