- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
-
-
While I’m disappointed with the result, I am okay now as the disposition of the dispute resulted from the decision of the nine wise souls.
Time to move on and prosecute the hell out of The Godfather, Giuseppe Biden’s family, break up the social media companies and get a dose of Trump vaccine.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long -
I respect the opinions of Turley, Derschowitz, A. McCarthy, Bill Barr, and many others that suggest that SCOTUS was correct in spurning Texas’s case. But my acceptance is founded in their credibility, not in my deep understanding.
The case Texas made, as I understand it, was that the non-legislative branches of the four defendant states had changed election law during the course of the run up to this year’s elections. This was in direct contradiction with the stated principle in the Constitution that the state legislature shall, in its sole discretion, determine the time and manner of the selection of the state’s electors. This would seem to at least merit SCOTUS deliberation.
As to standing, isn’t that determined in some manner that requires that plaintiff demonstrate that they have suffered some harm as a result of defendants’ actions. It seems indisputable that if the four defendant states improperly name their electors and, if a different result is possible if they had not committed their violations, that Texas and other states could credibly claim harm.
It is remarkable to me that these suits did not arise immediately in response to the subject illegal changes. It damages the credibility of this action that Texas (or others in each of the respective states) did not feel sufficiently threatened to take action earlier in the year.
Holy mackeral, though, I sure do hope that a minimum of one of these Georgia Senate runoffs goes to Republicans. We are toast if it doesn’t.
-
To be honest, I don’t think the Court was capable of rendering a fair judgement. And they knew it. The court mostly consists of 9 elderly justices who are grounded in the law only. Even at that they often make it up as they go along. ACA?
Imagine, if you will, 9 justices who combined, were grounded in statistical mechanics, information theory, higher math, probability theory, computer coding, and electrical engineering. Then you might see them give it a look and still lose.
The problem is the entropy in an election of this size. One side clearly understood that well before the voting began. The other failed to consider all risks and act beforehand.
-
Neo, it seems to me the necessary skill set you describe is not unknown…albeit in limited supply. There are students from technical/quantitative backgrounds who subsequently enroll in law school. They surely could evaluate the arguments that have been advanced re election abnormalities.
And it’s not as if the engagement of an of counsel with specific expertise is unheard of. Look no further than the court room of the esteemed jurist, Emmet Sullivan.
Here's a toast with one last pour, may it last forever and a minute more;
Good fortune seems to you have sung, to live and love way past long
-
-
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.