2020 General Election

[Ibanez]

The Supreme Court appears to have accepted Texas's case.

I don't see them overriding the will of the voters. In fact, with their 1 line dismissal of the Pennsylvania case, I think we can infer that they won't wade into these waters. We'll see what happens after 3pm today when the 4 states respond.

I read this earlier and Ben makes an interesting point ( I know, he's a Republican turncoat b/c he dares to have an opinion).

Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election law expert and CNN contributor, told CNN on Wednesday that he didn't think the court "for an instant" will consider taking up the case.
The GOP "used to be a party for states' rights," Ginsberg said. "I can't imagine something that is less faithful to the principle of states' rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections."

Sen. John Cornyn, the senior Texas Republican, told CNN that "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

[AZGrizFan]

The Supreme Court appears to have accepted Texas's case.

I don't see them overriding the will of the voters. In fact, with their 1 line dismissal of the Pennsylvania case, I think we can infer that they won't wade into these waters. We'll see what happens after 3pm today when the 4 states respond.

I read this earlier and Ben makes an interesting point ( I know, he's a Republican turncoat b/c he dares to have an opinion).

Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election law expert and CNN contributor, told CNN on Wednesday that he didn't think the court "for an instant" will consider taking up the case.
The GOP "used to be a party for states' rights," Ginsberg said. "I can't imagine something that is less faithful to the principle of states' rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections."

Sen. John Cornyn, the senior Texas Republican, told CNN that "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

I agree with Cronyn and Ginsberg. Especially Ginsberg’s statement on state’s rights.

[mainejeff]

Can you imagine California or New York trying to overturn the votes of Texans?

[AZGrizFan]

Can you imagine California or New York trying to overturn the votes of Texans?

It’d probably go over about as well as this effort has.

[Winterborn]

I don't see them overriding the will of the voters. In fact, with their 1 line dismissal of the Pennsylvania case, I think we can infer that they won't wade into these waters. We'll see what happens after 3pm today when the 4 states respond.

I read this earlier and Ben makes an interesting point ( I know, he's a Republican turncoat b/c he dares to have an opinion).

Benjamin Ginsberg, a longtime Republican election law expert and CNN contributor, told CNN on Wednesday that he didn't think the court "for an instant" will consider taking up the case.
The GOP "used to be a party for states' rights," Ginsberg said. "I can't imagine something that is less faithful to the principle of states' rights than a Texas attorney general trying to tell other states how to run their elections."

Sen. John Cornyn, the senior Texas Republican, told CNN that "I frankly struggle to understand the legal theory of it. Number one, why would a state, even such a great state as Texas, have a say-so on how other states administer their elections? We have a diffused and dispersed system and even though we might not like it, they may think it's unfair, those are decided at the state and local level and not at the national level."

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

Don't confuse me posting the above with thinking they have a case.

They do have the possibility to have it viewed but back in 2016 I believe the Supreme Court threw out a case by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado for legalizing marijuana. Also California vs. Arizona in 2020 there was another case dismissed. As an arm chair attorney I do not think it will even be heard, but that is just my opinion.

Now the Texas filings do bring up some interesting points that are already being brought up in the states the suit is against (that the states in question failed to follow their own state constitutions when they amended the voting procedures this year). Those are more interesting to me and have more grounds IMHO (see disclaimer above about being an arm chair attorney ).

[Ibanez]

I don't see them overriding the will of the voters. In fact, with their 1 line dismissal of the Pennsylvania case, I think we can infer that they won't wade into these waters. We'll see what happens after 3pm today when the 4 states respond.

I read this earlier and Ben makes an interesting point ( I know, he's a Republican turncoat b/c he dares to have an opinion).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

I agree with Cronyn and Ginsberg. Especially Ginsberg’s statement on state’s rights.

You will, from this day forth, be known as States' Rights Griz.

[Winterborn]

I agree with Cronyn and Ginsberg. Especially Ginsberg’s statement on state’s rights.

You will, from this day forth, be known as States' Rights Griz.

Not catchy enough and too wordy.

[Ibanez]

I don't see them overriding the will of the voters. In fact, with their 1 line dismissal of the Pennsylvania case, I think we can infer that they won't wade into these waters. We'll see what happens after 3pm today when the 4 states respond.

I read this earlier and Ben makes an interesting point ( I know, he's a Republican turncoat b/c he dares to have an opinion).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

Don't confuse me posting the above with thinking they have a case.

They do have the possibility to have it viewed but back in 2016 I believe the Supreme Court threw out a case by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado for legalizing marijuana. Also California vs. Arizona in 2020 there was another case dismissed. As an arm chair attorney I do not think it will even be heard, but that is just my opinion.

Now the Texas filings do bring up some interesting points that are already being brought up in the states the suit is against (that the states in question failed to follow their own state constitutions when they amended the voting procedures this year). Those are more interesting to me and have more grounds IMHO (see disclaimer above about being an arm chair attorney ).

I don't think that at all. I know you're just posting information.

There's an interesting (and accurately titled) article on Reason.com a bout yesterdays dismissal.
https://reason.com/2020/12/08/scotus-jo ... l-victory/

Although the Pennsylvania legislature approved Act 77, the law that expanded absentee voting, in October 2019, Kelly and the other plaintiffs did not challenge it until after Pennsylvania proved to be crucial in defeating Trump's reelection bid.

Plainly said - Trump and the GOP didn't raise a stink or try to sue over these changes until after they lost. If it wasn't a matter of great importance in October 2019, then what suddenly changed 13 months later?

[Ibanez]

You will, from this day forth, be known as States' Rights Griz.

Not catchy enough and too wordy.

[kalm]

I don't see them overriding the will of the voters. In fact, with their 1 line dismissal of the Pennsylvania case, I think we can infer that they won't wade into these waters. We'll see what happens after 3pm today when the 4 states respond.

I read this earlier and Ben makes an interesting point ( I know, he's a Republican turncoat b/c he dares to have an opinion).

https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/10/politics ... index.html

Don't confuse me posting the above with thinking they have a case.

They do have the possibility to have it viewed but back in 2016 I believe the Supreme Court threw out a case by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado for legalizing marijuana. Also California vs. Arizona in 2020 there was another case dismissed. As an arm chair attorney I do not think it will even be heard, but that is just my opinion.

Now the Texas filings do bring up some interesting points that are already being brought up in the states the suit is against (that the states in question failed to follow their own state constitutions when they amended the voting procedures this year). Those are more interesting to me and have more grounds IMHO (see disclaimer above about being an arm chair attorney ).

Agreed. Would the state constitutionality rise to the level of injunctive relief?

[Winterborn]

Don't confuse me posting the above with thinking they have a case.

They do have the possibility to have it viewed but back in 2016 I believe the Supreme Court threw out a case by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado for legalizing marijuana. Also California vs. Arizona in 2020 there was another case dismissed. As an arm chair attorney I do not think it will even be heard, but that is just my opinion.

Now the Texas filings do bring up some interesting points that are already being brought up in the states the suit is against (that the states in question failed to follow their own state constitutions when they amended the voting procedures this year). Those are more interesting to me and have more grounds IMHO (see disclaimer above about being an arm chair attorney ).

I don't think that at all. I know you're just posting information.

There's an interesting (and accurately titled) article on Reason.com a bout yesterdays dismissal.
https://reason.com/2020/12/08/scotus-jo ... l-victory/

Although the Pennsylvania legislature approved Act 77, the law that expanded absentee voting, in October 2019, Kelly and the other plaintiffs did not challenge it until after Pennsylvania proved to be crucial in defeating Trump's reelection bid.

Plainly said - Trump and the GOP didn't raise a stink or try to sue over these changes until after they lost. If it wasn't a matter of great importance in October 2019, then what suddenly changed 13 months later?

Agree. The question should of been raised immediately but both sides thought they could benefit from it so nothing was said until one lost.


Edit: I figured you didn't but just wanted to make my position clear for others reading. Also to maintain my schtick that both sides suck donkey balls and that politicians are corrupt and should never be trusted with more than a dull butter knife.

[Winterborn]

Don't confuse me posting the above with thinking they have a case.

They do have the possibility to have it viewed but back in 2016 I believe the Supreme Court threw out a case by Oklahoma and Nebraska against Colorado for legalizing marijuana. Also California vs. Arizona in 2020 there was another case dismissed. As an arm chair attorney I do not think it will even be heard, but that is just my opinion.

Now the Texas filings do bring up some interesting points that are already being brought up in the states the suit is against (that the states in question failed to follow their own state constitutions when they amended the voting procedures this year). Those are more interesting to me and have more grounds IMHO (see disclaimer above about being an arm chair attorney ).

Agreed. Would the state constitutionality rise to the level of injunctive relief?

If I am understanding your question right, I think it should. Pennsylvanian in particular there were several areas that lawmakers played fast and loose with the implementation of new voting procedures. I haven't had time yet to really look into the wording on if they are only temporary or a permanent part of going forward of how to vote in that state.

[kalm]

Agreed. Would the state constitutionality rise to the level of injunctive relief?

If I am understanding your question right, I think it should. Pennsylvanian in particular there were several areas that lawmakers played fast and loose with the implementation of new voting procedures. I haven't had time yet to really look into the wording on if they are only temporary or a permanent part of going forward of how to vote in that state.

In other words do they ride to a level where the only remedy is overturn the results or require a new election?

[Winterborn]

If I am understanding your question right, I think it should. Pennsylvanian in particular there were several areas that lawmakers played fast and loose with the implementation of new voting procedures. I haven't had time yet to really look into the wording on if they are only temporary or a permanent part of going forward of how to vote in that state.

In other words do they ride to a level where the only remedy is overturn the results or require a new election?

Gotcha and then I did understand it correctly. In Pennsylvania, I think it does. The other states, I am more on the fence but leaning towards no.

[Winterborn]

Not catchy enough and too wordy.

Is that real?

[Ibanez]

I don't think that at all. I know you're just posting information.

There's an interesting (and accurately titled) article on Reason.com a bout yesterdays dismissal.
https://reason.com/2020/12/08/scotus-jo ... l-victory/



Plainly said - Trump and the GOP didn't raise a stink or try to sue over these changes until after they lost. If it wasn't a matter of great importance in October 2019, then what suddenly changed 13 months later?

Agree. The question should of been raised immediately but both sides thought they could benefit from it so nothing was said until one lost.


Edit: I figured you didn't but just wanted to make my position clear for others reading. Also to maintain my schtick that both sides suck donkey balls and that politicians are corrupt and should never be trusted with more than a dull butter knife.

We're in agreement on that one. We're good.

[Winterborn]

The discussion about legal matters reminded me of this clip.

The Otter Defense.

[Ibanez]

Is that real?

WHAT!? IS THAT REAL??


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Rights_Gist

His name was based on the Southern states’ rights doctrine of nullification politics of his father, Nathaniel Gist.[1] Nathaniel Gist was a disciple of John C. Calhoun and chose his son's name to reflect his own political sentiments.

[kalm]

In other words do they ride to a level where the only remedy is overturn the results or require a new election?

Gotcha and then I did understand it correctly. In Pennsylvania, I think it does. The other states, I am more on the fence but leaning towards no.

So SCOTUS would look at the evidence differently this time than in their recent Penn ruling?

[Winterborn]

Is that real?

WHAT!? IS THAT REAL??


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Rights_Gist

His name was based on the Southern states’ rights doctrine of nullification politics of his father, Nathaniel Gist.[1] Nathaniel Gist was a disciple of John C. Calhoun and chose his son's name to reflect his own political sentiments.

Well I'll be......

Guess the practice of giving kids weird names is older than I thought.

[Winterborn]

Gotcha and then I did understand it correctly. In Pennsylvania, I think it does. The other states, I am more on the fence but leaning towards no.

So SCOTUS would look at the evidence differently this time than in their recent Penn ruling?

No. I think it is a internal state matter (and needs to be dealt with at a state level) and that they will follow their previous ruling.

[kalm]

So SCOTUS would look at the evidence differently this time than in their recent Penn ruling?

No. I think it is a internal state matter (and needs to be dealt with at a state level) and that they will follow their previous ruling.

So it hasn’t been ruled on at the state level yet? Just lower federal courts?

[Winterborn]

No. I think it is a internal state matter (and needs to be dealt with at a state level) and that they will follow their previous ruling.

So it hasn’t been ruled on at the state level yet? Just lower federal courts?

To the best of my knowledge that is correct. I will also add that I have not followed it as closely the past few weeks so something might been done since then.

Work has kept me from doing much research here lately.

[Ibanez]

WHAT!? IS THAT REAL??


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/States_Rights_Gist

Well I'll be......

Guess the practice of giving kids weird names is older than I thought.

May I introduce Cotton Mather

[Skjellyfetti]

So it hasn’t been ruled on at the state level yet? Just lower federal courts?

To the best of my knowledge that is correct. I will also add that I have not followed it as closely the past few weeks so something might been done since then.

Work has kept me from doing much research here lately.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court already ruled on it before the election.
The Republican legislature established the voting rules.
The AG doesn't think it violates state law.
The election has been certified.

Not sure how you're wanting it to be handled at the state level.