LOL. Why then did Bush v Gore go to the SCOTUS? You are just making a fool of yourself with every post. I am a lot wiser than you know. You maybe are just not very good at this.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
LOL. Why then did Bush v Gore go to the SCOTUS? You are just making a fool of yourself with every post. I am a lot wiser than you know. You maybe are just not very good at this.
Because it was a different mechanism being contested in 2000 you moron. That was over the recount in Florida, not the reading out of EC votes by the VP. One is arbitrable via SCOTUS and one is not.
Wow. Except of course...when its involved.
"You have no idea how our government and Constitution work. SCOTUS isn't involved."
D- again. So you are 100% wrong.
WTF are you talking about? There is no Constitutional mechanism for redress if a VP monkeys with their ceremonial role. It does not go to the courts like the 2000 Florida recount to be ruled on by SCOTUS. The only way it was resolved for the 1876 election was with the Compromise of 1877. It did not and would not go to SCOTUS. You are wrong.
Put down the shovel. You can write it in all caps and it will still be ignorant. The SCOTUS sole purpose is to be the final answer in disputes between the Legislative and Executive. Your side is in a tizzy over the case before the SCOTUS Moore v Harper. The ISL theory is subject to more than debate. That is just a part of the puzzle. Even leftists legal folks would roll their eyes at your ignorance. The SCOTUS gets involved, when they get petitioned, down to local legislative boundaries being "gerrymandered" so get over yourself.
Technically correct but they had to “get” 81 million votes to make the cheating in the key districts seem plausible.
Just what the globalist want
The narration/video that's taken from is brilliant.
Californica and New York roll up huge numbers but only a finite and decreasing number of Electoral votes. Total count, ask Bush and Trump, are really just data points.
Dude you're flat wrong. Look it up. This is a nonjusticiable issue. Obfuscate with other cases all you want, that does not bear on what we're discussing, Trump's coup attempt.
What you call right wing values were just values. What you’re saying implicitly is that left wing values have always been antithetical to the American character.
To be more blunt, communism is unpopular for good reason. That’s not bullying, that’s just good sense.
Last edited:
Probably someone toothless james follows.
But as I said in the initial post you took issue with, the times they are a changin'. We have mostly been a right-leaning country, as I laid out specifically by era. Now we aren't.
Is that like left of FDR or left of Lenin? What kind of lefty we talking about here?
You refuse to put down the shovel. Know your limits. The whole theory involved an 'alternate slate' of electors from several states...requiring Pence to certify. All of that CLEARLY is under the review of the courts. Its not even worth arguing. And the mere fact that the congress just passed a law to clarify the role of Pence just proves it is a legal argument. Legal arguments go to the SCOTUS to decide. Why would you even try to argue something so clear.
The coup happened with the illegal changing of elections laws before the election.
He isn't very bright apparently. He is trying to say what Trump was trying to do was "illegal." ILLEGAL meaning against the LAW. Who is the final say for LAW? The SCOTUS. So maybe he is saying Trump did nothing ILLEGAL after all if the courts have no jurisdiction. Something cannot be against the LAW if the LAW has no jurisdiction. Maybe Trump should put him on the payroll.
The parents destroy the country from within while the children destroy from without.
That and because Communism has killed 100+ million of their own people just the past 100 years. There is that. The right may hurt your wittle feelings. The left kills you and millions more so they hold power.
Then why didn't it go to SCOTUS in 1876? You're wrong man. Also, the fake electors Trump had sent were not alternates as they didn't abide by the Safe Harbor standard laid out in the Electoral Count Act. What Trump was trying to have Pence do, as laid out in the Eastman Memos by Trump's lawyer John Eastman himself, was unilaterally set aside legitimate electors or acknowledge Trump's fake ones. Not rule over the process of legal objections, as still happened.
Poor kids are brainwashed by bunk anti-American ideology, utterly failed by their parents and society.
Sad really.
You’re welcome to that interpretation of the ISL theory. In fact it may be ruled on by SCOTUS soon. But currently those changes were legal.
You continue to make the argument that Pence is ceremonial, so he did not have final authority. All while arguing that Pence was the final arbiter. Will you make up your mind. Argue with yourself. Eastman was using the entire process of the alternate slate and the final answer of the VPOTUS. NONE of that was ever litigated and now with the new "ceremonial" VPOTUS clearly shows that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter. As you spin...with a ceremonial VPOTUS, who in your world has the final say-so?
Lol nonsense
![[roll]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/roll.r191677.gif "roll [roll]")
If the new law is constitutional, then what it says now was always true, just not as clearly so. Pence unsurprisingly knew what the Constitution and old law both said & meant. He took the time & effort to know. Trump unsurprisingly just didn't know the truth nor wanted to.
You've finally hit on it. There is no final say so as it was never intended to be an issue. Hence the constitutional crisis in 1877. It's a Constitutional loophole as the VP's role was always ceremonial. Y'all contend that the word "shall" in "The President of the Senate shall, in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the Certificates, and the Votes shall then be counted," is not mandatory. It is. There is no method of arbitration as it was never intended to be a Constitutional mechanism able to be contested, just a mandatory instruction.
Yea, it's been a couple of months so I thought it was time. I thought you might be in need of wacking off.
I wonder how many times you brought this up about others over this period. It's been done hundreds of times.
False. Already made, son. Go back to your TDS rants.
Last edited:
Expression on a dog’s face when he knows his owners are liberal
Its INTENTION being ceremonial is a long time subject of debate. The left argued both sides of that, back to the Kennedy election. So it was never settled. THEREFORE it would go to the courts to decide. You do realize you are arguing against yourself when you say the SCOTUS could not get involved...while at the same time arguing that the VPOTUS role was only ceremonial. If the VPOTUS role is final (Trumps hope) then Pence could in fact have rejected a states electors and accepted an alternative slate. None of that was settled in the courts so it would always have ended in the SCOTUS which is 6-3 good guys. Trump would never have won that however in the court IMO. Hail Mary. But not illegal to try. Doing at the tip of a sword...never contemplated.
Trump is not a lawyer. The role of the VPOTUS has been debated for decades. Everyone thinks that nothing has happened except for what happens today. Go back to Bush v. Gore. Go back to Kennedy/Nixon. The dems used a similar back-up plan then with alternate electors. The left usually think up these schemes and they act shocked when the GOP uses a similar scheme against THEM down the road. The Biden Rule is an example used by McConnell against them. Harry Reid blowing up the filibuster. Alternate electors. All Dem initiated, coming back to bite them.
Similar threads
