ExpatOK

2 minutes ago, jvs said:

It is done!Get over it!

Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees.

On 11/5/2020 at 1:54 PM, cmarshall said:

 

The Constitution provides no role for the Supreme Court in the election process.  Organizing the voting and counting the ballots is left to the states and therefore covered by state law and the state constitution.  So, in a recent case where the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that mail-in ballots received up to three days after election day would be counted if they were postmarked by election day due to both Covid the current slowdown of mail delivery.  The Trump campaign sought an injunction by the Supreme Court to stop this three-day extension.  The Supreme Court declined to hear the case, because it lacked jurisdiction over voting practice in the states, consistent with the role I have described.

 

In Bush v. Gore the Bush campaign sued to stop the Florida recount.  But since the process of counting votes or recounting them is not within the jurisdiction of the federal courts including the Supreme Court another basis had to be found to justify issuing a stay.  The majority of the Court decided that it did have jurisdiction after all by virtue of the "equal protection of the law" clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, to wit, that since the state of Florida did not have uniform standards for recounting ballots the voting rights of some citizens were not receiving their equal protection.  This is a completely bogus position since, if it were true, then no recount in any state would be constitutional since they all had different standards and methods for counting and recounting votes.  The Court's  corrupt intention was all the more evident, since, if it had found a violation of equal protection under the law the proper remedy would have been to redirect the recount to use a specific standard conformant to equal protection.  Instead, the Court stopped the recount permanently giving the election to Bush by some 500 votes.

 

So, my statement that the Supreme Court lacks any constitutional role to play in elections is true, but if the actions during an election of some entity can be construed to violate the Constitution then the Court can insert itself into the process.  While there might be legitimate bases for the Court to do so, its stay in Bush v. Gore was manifestly corrupt, an interpretation is supported by peculiar actions taken by the Court in this case.  The written opinion of the Court was, unusually, not signed by any justice.  The vote was 5 to 4 strictly along party lines.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor did express some regret about the decision years after she retired.  "It took the case and decided it at a time when it was still a big election issue,” O’Connor said to the Chicago Tribune editorial board of the Supreme Court. “Maybe the court should have said, ‘We’re not going to take it, goodbye.’ “

 

So, while the Supreme Court has no legitimate role in deciding elections that can and have intervened illegally, unconstitutionally, and corruptly to decide a presidential election for political purposes.  I expect them to do so again in the coming month.  

"The Supreme Court on Friday listed several high-profile election lawsuits for consideration at its mid-February conference.

The cases include challenges to the 2020 election from Trump-aligned lawyers Lin Wood and Sidney Powell, as well as Republican Rep. Mike Kelly's Pennsylvania lawsuit. Nearly every lawsuit takes issue with the expanded use of mail-in ballots by many states."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/supreme-court-election-challenge-february

1 hour ago, Tug said:

Well at least we are moving in a fact based direction with competent leadership I got my first jab of the maderna vaccine no side effects I’m my case I’m still following all safety protocols to protect my fellow citizens 

Best of luck.

2 hours ago, rooster59 said:

Li Wenliang, an ophthalmologist at a hospital in the city, became one of the most visible figures in the early days of the outbreak in Wuhan when he tried to sound the alarm about its appearance, but was reprimanded by police for "spreading rumours."

1 hour ago, PatOngo said:

....and look where that lead! The communists need to pay!

Now, look closely. Do you see any parallels with what is going on now in the US?

Let's see what biden_i does with this.

5 hours ago, Disparate Dan said:

won't happen, wouldn't work. The military there is as contemptuous of the people as elsewhere (ie Burma's immediate neighbours). Power and the money is all - and the west continues to oblige with pathetic protestations of synthetic 'outrage' that fool nobody.

Would have been a timely opportunity for this new Biden bloke to do somethng useful and show he's not a complete fool - but that isn't happening either.

Rest assured biden_i will not do anything useful. To use your words, he's a complete fool.

On 2/6/2021 at 10:25 AM, ExpatOK said:

Trump should not testify, but instead have his lawyers present this as part of his defense:

 

 

To the President, something felt amiss. “It was all very, very strange,” Trump said on Dec. 2. “Within days after the election, we witnessed an orchestrated effort to anoint the winner, even while many key states were still being counted.”

In a way, Trump was right.

There was a conspiracy unfolding behind the scenes, one that both curtailed the protests and coordinated the resistance from CEOs.

 

https://time.com/5936036/secret-2020-election-campaign/

From the Time magazine article:

"Their work touched every aspect of the election. They got states to change voting systems and laws and helped secure hundreds of millions in public and private funding. They fended off voter-suppression lawsuits, recruited armies of poll workers and got millions of people to vote by mail for the first time. They successfully pressured social media companies to take a harder line against disinformation and used data-driven strategies to fight viral smears."

3 minutes ago, Surelynot said:

I hope he isn't prevented from running again......how sweet that will be......another crushing blow for the narcissistic, orange blimp....and he will lose to a woman....555

Gonna talk about her color, or just President Trump's? And I have to agree with your other post; you need to get out more, obviously.

56 minutes ago, earlinclaifornia said:

Wrong AGAIN!

https://www.facebook.com/cnn/videos/gop-senator-calls-trumps-actions-inexcusable-but-questions-constitutionality-of-/1051456592030847/

What happens if Trump is not convicted?  

The Democrats could pass a resolution to "censure" Trump or invoke a section of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution to try and have him disqualified from holding office in the future. 

https://www.voanews.com/usa/us-politics/heres-how-trumps-impeachment-trial-likely-will-play-out

President Trump will not be convicted or otherwise prevented from running for office.

3 hours ago, RichardColeman said:

God help the world if we lock down the planet every time there us a new variant and we have to wait for a new effective vaccine to be rolled out. Some point we have to just roll with what we have and get on with life as best we can.

 

 

 

 

 

Yet locking the planet down is what many posters here want. The CEO of Moderna said we will have to live with COVID as it will likely be with us forever. One could also add, "just like the common cold and the flu."

President Trump now has a free option. Since the Rand Paul point of order was voted on, there is now no way President Trump can be convicted. He can put on any defense he wants and he will be found not guilty. 

Kudos to Rand Paul for boxing in the Republicans.

5 minutes ago, Knocker33 said:

So what have the Antifa and BLM terrorists been charged with for taking over Seattle's  capital hill ?

Not much of anything. It's a double standard to say the least.

I'll take a wait and see approach in getting the vaccine in Thailand.  If a certificate of vaccination is required for extending my stay, I'll get the certificate.  The vaccine itself is another story.

And they continue to live in their dream world...