BREAKING NEWS

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

As I was telling one of my neighbors today, it's VERY unlikely Trump can prevail unless he can get to SCOTUS; so far, nada; however, if he does, Hanny could be very disappointed with his Gordian knot legal reasoning.

SCOTUS giving the presidency to Trump would certainly create a good deal of chaos, which I am not excited about.

But, I think that is unlikely even if Trump's team gets a case to their docket.

You are blinded by almost-TDS (I could never tell, you're not Monte but you seem to deny logic). If Trump can get to SCOTUS, he's got 75% chance of winning.

Only if you assume judges he appointed are political creatures, and not constitutional ones.

I trust the Federalist Society to recommend conservative judges that respect the rule of law.

[TheOneX]

Nullifying elections based on bureaucratic and legal confusion sets a pretty bad precedent, equally ripe for abuse.

As I understand the PA lawsuit, the claim is that in the rush to change some election procedures the proper legislative channels were ignored. There is a strong case for this.

The second part of any lawsuit, though, is what remedy should be applied. Nullification isn't the only option. In fact, it is a pretty unlikely remedy. Asking the legislature to fix up the new laws through proper channels before the next election is a more reasonable expectation.

No, not at all, that is idiotic. Maybe you are forgetting something, the word unconstitutional is synonymous with illegal, it is just a special kind of illegal that refers to the very foundation of your governmental system. If this election is deemed unconstitutional that means this election is deemed illegal. You cannot have people serving in office that were elected illegally. The fix for this is simple, you have a new election. Nullifying an election does not mean you suddenly disenfranchise everyone, no it means you have another damn election held through legal means. There is no other legal option if the election is ruled unconstitutional, end of story this is not up for debate. Allowing any other option is how you get dictators, not how you avoid them.

The only office where holding a new election is not viable is for President of the United States of America because that election is held to a higher law than Pennsylvania's Constitution. For this election, the authority to choose the electors has always been in the hands of the state legislature. They have in the past delegated that selection away, but always have the right to override that delegation. So yeah, maybe not ideal, but at least you keep your constitutional integrity intact. The other option is to say the Constitution does not matter, only the whims of those in power matter. That is not acceptable.

Not every legal, or constitutional dispute creates some sort of manichaean, existential threat of dictatorship.

Did I say it was? No, I merely pointed out the mechanism that could be used to make it possible. The whole purpose of our style of government is to avoid a dictatorship, so it is relevant to point out that subversion of the law often leads to dictatorships. If you do not guard yourself from it today, you are opening the door to it for tomorrow.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

No, not at all, that is idiotic. Maybe you are forgetting something, the word unconstitutional is synonymous with illegal, it is just a special kind of illegal that refers to the very foundation of your governmental system. If this election is deemed unconstitutional that means this election is deemed illegal. You cannot have people serving in office that were elected illegally. The fix for this is simple, you have a new election. Nullifying an election does not mean you suddenly disenfranchise everyone, no it means you have another damn election held through legal means. There is no other legal option if the election is ruled unconstitutional, end of story this is not up for debate. Allowing any other option is how you get dictators, not how you avoid them.

The only office where holding a new election is not viable is for President of the United States of America because that election is held to a higher law than Pennsylvania's Constitution. For this election, the authority to choose the electors has always been in the hands of the state legislature. They have in the past delegated that selection away, but always have the right to override that delegation. So yeah, maybe not ideal, but at least you keep your constitutional integrity intact. The other option is to say the Constitution does not matter, only the whims of those in power matter. That is not acceptable.

Not every legal, or constitutional dispute creates some sort of manichaean, existential threat of dictatorship.

Did I say it was? No, I merely pointed out the mechanism that could be used to make it possible. The whole purpose of our style of government is to avoid a dictatorship, so it is relevant to point out that subversion of the law often leads to dictatorships. If you do not guard yourself from it today, you are opening the door to it for tomorrow.

It is conceivable that nullifying PAs election is also unconstitutional.

Then, whence the clear path to avoiding dictatorship?

[The Conservative]

SCOTUS giving the presidency to Trump would certainly create a good deal of chaos, which I am not excited about.

But, I think that is unlikely even if Trump's team gets a case to their docket.

If it happens in one state, the rest will follow suit.

That is a bold prediction.

No, it's not. Once you have president, you have a foundation to work upon. If we find that all three states did exactly the same thing Trump wins.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

If it happens in one state, the rest will follow suit.

That is a bold prediction.

No, it's not. Once you have president, you have a foundation to work upon. If we find that all three states did exactly the same thing Trump wins.

Since the lawsuit in question pertains to a specific set of PA laws, it is unlikely the three swing states 'did exactly the same thing,' what with different states having different laws, constitutions, and election procedures.

[The Conservative]

That is a bold prediction.

No, it's not. Once you have president, you have a foundation to work upon. If we find that all three states did exactly the same thing Trump wins.

Since the lawsuit in question pertains to a specific set of PA laws, it is unlikely the three swing states 'did exactly the same thing,' what with different states having different laws, constitutions, and election procedures.

No, votes are not meant to be collected or "found" after the closure of the polls by the US CONSTITUTION. Which all four states have been found doing. If this goes to the SCOTUS and it denies all votes "found" or "collected" after the closure of the polls, Trump wins.

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

No, it's not. Once you have president, you have a foundation to work upon. If we find that all three states did exactly the same thing Trump wins.

Since the lawsuit in question pertains to a specific set of PA laws, it is unlikely the three swing states 'did exactly the same thing,' what with different states having different laws, constitutions, and election procedures.

No, votes are not meant to be collected or "found" after the closure of the polls by the US CONSTITUTION. Which all four states have been found doing. If this goes to the SCOTUS and it denies all votes "found" or "collected" after the closure of the polls, Trump wins.

To my knowledge, there is nothing about that in the PA lawsuit.

[The Conservative]

Since the lawsuit in question pertains to a specific set of PA laws, it is unlikely the three swing states 'did exactly the same thing,' what with different states having different laws, constitutions, and election procedures.

No, votes are not meant to be collected or "found" after the closure of the polls by the US CONSTITUTION. Which all four states have been found doing. If this goes to the SCOTUS and it denies all votes "found" or "collected" after the closure of the polls, Trump wins.

To my knowledge, there is nothing about that in the PA lawsuit.

https://outline.com/Nvm9z4

Petitioners appear to have established a likelihood to succeed on the merits because petitioners have asserted the Constitution does not provide a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment,” McCullough wrote.

That is exactly what it is about.

https://www.pacounties.org/GR/Documents ... ummary.pdf

[Hanarchy Montanarchy]

"a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment" is specific to PA, and has nothing to do with "found" ballots after polls close in PA or any other state, and about which I doubt any current state constitution says much of anything.

I know you very much want this to be about the constitutionality of collecting ballots after polls closing, but it just isn't.

[The Conservative]

"a mechanism for the legislature to allow for expansion of absentee voting without a constitutional amendment" is specific to PA, and has nothing to do with "found" ballots after polls close in PA or any other state, and about which I doubt any current state constitution says much of anything.

I know you very much want this to be about the constitutionality of collecting ballots after polls closing, but it just isn't.

Federal constitution trumps (no pun intended) state constitution when it comes to Presidental Elections, not local state elections... so when it comes to the presidential election, the state constitution does not override federal.