Explainer: What might happen if U.S. election result is disputed?

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Andy from Kent said:

 

It's shocking to me that a country as large as the USA ends up with two old men battling it out for the Presidency.

 

All votes cast I think are really going as a vote for the Vice President candidate.

 

I'll bet the video on YouTube of Trump being dragged out of the White House feet first will get a lot of like votes. ????

 

Makes you wonder if Kent is perhaps not the ideal perch from which to gain a sophisticated grasp of American politics.  The last time the Vice Presidential candidate actually tipped an election with VP Lyndon Johnson in the 1960 election.  No one gives a hoot about the VP candidates.

 

However, there are at least some anecdotes that suggest that there were Republican voters who disliked Trump, but were not willing to vote for Biden this year, because they didn't like the idea that a black woman might succeed to the presidency.  Harris was probably a poor choice for the VP slot on the Democrat ticket, because she had been a poor vote-getter during her own run for the presidential nomination and her state of California is solid blue anyway.  

 

A simple explanation of Biden's win by a small margin over Hillary in 2016 is just that Biden's a man.  

[Tounge Thaied]

2 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

I think you underestimate the creativity of the 4,000 lawyers that Trump has attacking the election results.   Since Justices Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett are on the Supreme Court today, because they were part of the successful judicial coup that was Bush v. Gore in 2000, it strains credulity to imagine that they would scruple to hand the election to Trump given the chance.  

 

But it could play out this way:  They tie up the count in the courts until Dec. 8, the deadline for reporting the winning electoral slate to Congress.  Then the Republican legislatures can pass a law picking the (Republican) electors themselves under the claim that to fail to do so would disenfranchise the entire state.  But the Dem governor sends in the slate of electors who actually won the vote.  So now Congress has two competing slates, the Senate and the House each vote which to accept.  The Senate will be either majority Republican or tied at 50-50.  If Republican, the Senate accepts the Republican slate.  If 50-50 does Pence get a tie-breaker vote?  Damned if anyone knows given the poor drafting of the Electoral Count Act of 1888.  But there is a high risk that the House and the Senate will not agree on which electors to accept, despite that the law is clear that they must accept the governor's.  If that all results in neither candidate getting to 270, the the House elects the president with one vote per state and Trump wins.

 

If you think the Republicans would disdain to display such contempt for the voters, you haven't been paying attention.   

Cool story bro!

[cmarshall]

3 hours ago, Tounge Thaied said:

If you (meaning anyyone) were paying attention to the run up to this election... most people would agree this was going to be a shenanigans %^&^ show from all sides on election day. Why would you not promote the only best credible accounting and judgement of the voting process? The Supreme court is the Supreme decider in the American system... it what they've got. Doing it any other way will never be accepted by either side of this.

 

The Supreme Court has no constitutional role in deciding elections under the US Constitution.  For the presidential election the ultimate decider is the Congress.

[Tounge Thaied]

10 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

 

The Supreme Court has no constitutional role in deciding elections under the US Constitution.  For the presidential election the ultimate decider is the Congress.

You're attempting to conflate the usual role of the U.S. supreme court with the U.S. Constitutional voting system process. And you're are right, they have no direct role. The highest court settles legal federal legal arguments it has legal jurisdiction over. The fact that the U.S. Supreme court was used to settle the election dispute of 2000 is obvious evidence of how it can be and is used in instances such as this one.

Edited November 5, 2020 by Tounge Thaied
spelling and content

[cmarshall]

1 minute ago, Tounge Thaied said:

You're attempting to conflate the role of the usual role of the U.S. supreme court with the U.S. Constitutional voting system process. The highest court settles legal federal legal arguments it has legal jurisdiction over. The fact that the U.S. Supreme court was used to settle the election dispute of 2000 is obvious evidence of how it can be and is used in instances such as this one.

 

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.  

[Tounge Thaied]

14 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

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.  

You're opining, which is fine. And I see your argument... I see where you are coming from. However, seemingly you are resolving to the original idea that the Supreme Court will be eventually called in to hear some form of legal arguments. As I understand it, because I have no legal training and not having spent that much time on this, that Trump's Top personal lawyer, Rudy Gulioni (however you spell it) is suing in several states and is considering a larger federal lawsuit, primarily surrounding the Democrats illegal practice of not allowing a bi-partisan "observer" process of counting votes. Anyway, your thoughtful comments are well noted.. so we shall see in about a month or so?

[Neeranam]

26 minutes ago, cmarshall said:

In Bush v. Gore the Bush campaign sued to stop the Florida recount. 

I thought it was Gore who caused the delay of the count for over a month. 

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, Neeranam said:

I thought it was Gore who caused the delay of the count for over a month. 

 

There had been an automatic recount kicked off because the winning margin was less that 0.5%.  Then Gore request recounts in four counties that had high Democratic vote counts, which were not completed by the deadline of Nov. 14.  The Florida Secretary of State refused to extend the deadline for those four counties, but the Florida Supreme Court did extend the deadline until Nov. 26.  On Dec. 8 the Florida State Court order a statewide manual recount.  Bush filed a writ of certiorari with the US Supreme Court on Dec. 9 which heard oral arguments and decided in favor of Bush on Dec. 12.  

 

So, no delay could be attributed at any point to Gore which is not surprising since delay was not in his interest.  

[cmarshall]

1 hour ago, Tounge Thaied said:

You're opining, which is fine. And I see your argument... I see where you are coming from. However, seemingly you are resolving to the original idea that the Supreme Court will be eventually called in to hear some form of legal arguments. As I understand it, because I have no legal training and not having spent that much time on this, that Trump's Top personal lawyer, Rudy Gulioni (however you spell it) is suing in several states and is considering a larger federal lawsuit, primarily surrounding the Democrats illegal practice of not allowing a bi-partisan "observer" process of counting votes. Anyway, your thoughtful comments are well noted.. so we shall see in about a month or so?

 

Giuliani represents Trump only on TV, not in any legal proceedings for which Trump has ample other legal representation.  No decision to allow or disallow observers at any polling place would be within the purview of the Democratic Party.  The local board of elections would make all such decisions.  Since they are local authorities there could not be any national lawsuit against all of them.

[JulesMad]

And usa still believes they are a democracy ????????????

[frequentatore]

I've just talked to Donald.

I'll tell you more later.

[Jingthing]

Just now, JulesMad said:

And usa still believes they are a democracy ????????????

One thing is for sure. Other countries aren't knocking down the doors to try to copy the US system. Shining city on a hill, my <deleted>.

[Tounge Thaied]

1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

One thing is for sure. Other countries aren't knocking down the doors to try to copy the US system. Shining city on a hill, my <deleted>.

No doubt... if you are honoring the truth... the America experiment at freedom is dead. But as one wise man once said, it is the truth that shall set you free... and that immutable truth is certainly applicable today. Chog Dee America!!!

[Tounge Thaied]

3 hours ago, cmarshall said:

 

Giuliani represents Trump only on TV, not in any legal proceedings for which Trump has ample other legal representation.  No decision to allow or disallow observers at any polling place would be within the purview of the Democratic Party.  The local board of elections would make all such decisions.  Since they are local authorities there could not be any national lawsuit against all of them.

You're wrong... if they are breaking the law... there will indeed be a lawsuit against them.

[Tounge Thaied]

2 hours ago, JulesMad said:

And usa still believes they are a democracy ????????????

Democracy: The manipulation of the 51%. All any good marketeer, all any good social engineer needs to do is manipulate enough of the ignorant masses.. and he wins. That is democracy... Good luck you dumb &()*$^$^

Edited November 5, 2020 by Tounge Thaied
spelling and content

[ExpatOK]

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

[jvs]

6 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

 

 

"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

It is done!Get over it!

[ExpatOK]

2 minutes ago, jvs said:

It is done!Get over it!

Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees.

[Berkshire]

15 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

18 minutes ago, jvs said:

It is done!Get over it!

Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees.

The SC hasn't agreed to hear these cases yet.  But even if they did, so what?  The only thing that may come out of it is that election laws in certain states may need to be tweaked.  That's about it.  If that excites you, by all means, keep at it.

[stevenl]

56 minutes ago, ExpatOK said:

Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees.

No. Scotus may decide to take a look at mail in ballots for future elections. No more, no less.

 

Mind the words 'may' and 'future'.

Edited February 8, 2021 by stevenl

[heybruce]

8 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

 

 

"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

Do you expect the Supreme Court to disallow all those electoral votes that were cast in accordance with the laws of the states at the time?  Even with no evidence of significant fraud? 

 

If that is what you are hoping for, prepare yourself for a major disappointment.

[herfiehandbag]

8 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

 

 

"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

 

8 hours ago, ExpatOK said:

Sorry, but SCOTUS disagrees.

Since the Chief Justice of The Supreme Court administered the oath of office to President Biden, I rather suspect that that same Chief Justice is now going to "change his mind"!