Opposition to bill of complaint. MI,WI,PA,GA respond

I know more about her case than you realize. I recall that she attempted to get the taxpayers of Alaska to fund her defense. yes there was a battle for the governorship but it was that the democrats wanted to regain the seat. They did not give two moose craps about Palin it was the governorship that they wanted. tHe people of Alaska had legitimate issues regarding certain questionable morally lacking or maybe criminal actions she took. That is where a good portion of those lawsuits lay. Much of the legal fight was over her using state of alaska resources for her family's travel. I never said that there were no lawsuits, why would I they are public record.

 

Then what are you disputing?

That one about travel was separate from the others, I believe she lost that one but all the others were thrown out or dropped when she resigned.

Anyways that is history now and I don't have those sources on hand anymore, I would have to search for them same as you and most of it has been scrubbed by leftist media anyways.

 

We are going to agree to disagree about this and "scrubbing. ". That is ok.

We watched the first two trucks filled with vaccine leave the Michigan plant. One FedEx one UPS. Two business rivals cooperating to send viles of vaccine that will by the next 72 hours be distributed to every state and D.C. Yes those first two trucks were symbolic but symbolic of what our country used to be until four years ago. FedEx and UPS symbolized a partnership of rivals not "enemies of the people". Yes I am being nostalgic and a dreamer but that is the country that. I came to and grew up in. That is the country that 3 months efore I left for boot camp I officially became old enough to become a citizen of. That is the country that I pledged allegence to. That is the country that my parents brought me to- LEGALLY!,

 

You still haven't produced any laws broken.
You said some states went around some laws, but you haven't stated which laws.

And most everyone of those issues have been brought up to courts and judges. They've all been dismissed. I suspect, because like you can't do, trump team can't cite any laws that were violated.
He thought accepting ballots by mail would get tossed and he was wrong. There's nothing wrong with mail ballots if the process is followed per state laws.

 

Your post is not based on reality.

Secretary Boockvar was opposed to a mail-in arrival date extension. She conceded after two legal challenges invoking the Free and Equal Elections Clause of the PA Constitution, and even then, asked the court that the extension be three rather than seven days as requested. In addition:

1. Many counties had been overwhelmed by mail-in ballots during the June primary, and hard-pressed to meet statutory deadlines.
2. In November, the number of mail-in ballots was expected to be even larger, and more problematic, as more people vote in general elections.
3. Covid-19 would increase the use of mail-in ballots even further.
4. USPS had advised that services standards would not be met.
5. This, together with a small window between ballot applications and return deadlines, meant a high likelihood of many ballots arriving too late.

The Supreme Court of PA noted that the election code provided courts with the authority to take action, when necessary, to protect the right to vote, as also the emergency powers of the governor, both of which had already been used to grant 7-day extension to certain counties during the June primary.

In addition, the PA Supreme Court specified that it was acutely aware of the plenary power of the legislature vis-a-vis election law and that it was providing a 3-day extension purely as temporary equitable relief, on a one-time emergency basis only due to a perfect storm of extraordinary circumstances.

Far from being a corrupt act of which voters were "sadly" unaware, the above was to protect their right to vote.

The Republican Party challenged the extension. SCOTUS declined to hear the case on a 4-4 split. Later, Justice Alito ordered late-arriving ballots to be segregated to facilitate a remedy if needed. However, the Republican Party has not yet asked for further review. They may argue that the extension was unconstitutional but they'd need to overcome the three competing constitutional issues which permitted it - namely, the right of PA courts (per the election code) to take action to protect the vote, ditto governor emergency powers, plus the free and equal elections clause of the PA constitution.

 

Yes I did. Sorry you missed it. Pennsylvania election law bars the counting of ballots that arrive after election day. But they counted them anyway.

He may have been wrong. Perhaps he was right. Neither one of knows or will ever know. I don't think the refusal for courts to hear the cases had anything to do with the merits of the cases. I may be wrong there too but that is what I think.

 

That is the view from the left to be sure.

 

As my post is entirely factual, please point out which part is "left".

 

All of it.

 

In other words, none of it, if you can't be specific.

 

In other words:

"the view from the left" = FACTS.

Got it.

 

I just haven't seen the law.

But here is an article on the ruling. It does say there was a requirement. Is a requirement a law?

In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said that ballots could be counted if they were received by 5 p.m. Nov. 6, as long as they were mailed by Election Day, Nov. 3. It also said that ballots without a postmark would "be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day" unless there was strong evidence to the contrary.

Before this year, the state required absentee ballots to be received by Election Day. But Democrats pushed for the extension because of concerns that postal delays would disenfranchise some of the millions of Pennsylvania voters who are expected to cast their ballots by mail this year because of the pandemic.
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/19/9224...can-count-ballots-received-after-election-day

And the USSC decided not to hear the case. But didn't offer up why. Also stated in the linked article.

So, my question, if laws, not just requirements, were broken, why did the State's supreme courts not rule against the broke laws?
One can conclude, no laws were broken.

Or were there roadblocks that allowed for law change. But I don't think laws were changed or broken.
The messing with the mail system over the summer made for the influx of mail ballots to be slowed down.
It was a bad timing for the postal service to screw around with mail system in an election year.

Court refusals happened in several states as well as USSC. That strongly suggests their was no merit to the cases. If one state only decided against hearing a case one could say it was politically motivated.
In Wi, the SC is 4-3 conservative leaning.
And yesterday, a trump appointed judge in Wi also dismissed a case of his.
There's just to many dismissed cases to think this was nothing more than hail Mary's by trump team.
He thought the USSC would bail him out. Even stated so with the Barret nomination. He was wrong. Judges still how laws over party.

 

Yes, the requirement is by law.

 

No, the view from the left involves differing interpretation of the facts. Such things as the merits of the case or whether COVID is an emergency when voting. The view from both sides is opinion, not facts.

 

An example is assigning the term emergency from COVID when applied to voting. That is an opinion I don't share. My opinion is an issue but it points out that opinions and facts aren't the same thing. Another is stating that the cases have no merits. I believe courts wouldn't hear them even if they believed they did have merit. It is political cowardice or maybe political brilliance. But refusal to hear a case has nothing to do with the merits of a case.

 

The part that supports suppressing court hearings that could affect a democrat president elect.

 

If you can't find anything "left" in my post, you make something up? Lame.

 

I am citing the opinion of the Courts, and furthermore, their use of the term "emergency" applies to the relief granted - which was granted not just on the basis of COVID, but prior experience in June and the status of USPS service standards. The court doesn't care if you agree with their opinion or not.

Your opinion that courts would refuse to hear a case even if it has merits is again, just your opinion, and - in my opinion - not at all rational. Judges doing so are from both sides of the aisle, and their reasons are the same. So, while it may suit you to believe that rejection is a product of political cowardice or brilliance, there's no basis for believing so. Rather, it's just an illustration of how conspiracy theorists can always make something up to "explain" - in a self-serving manner - why things are as they are.

 

No doubt about that. In this case I don't care about theirs either.

Yes my opinions are opinions. No doubt about that. That I am a conspiracy theorist is an opinion as well and one based only on your opinion.

 

I didn't make anything up. I formed an opinion based on what I hear and read in the media. I can't help but think your opinions are based on bias. Nevertheless, they are just opinions and they won't affect anything.

 

Facts are not interpretive:

You keep making things up because you lost this debate. This was LEGALLY adjudicated, and you were wrong. Accept it, learn from it, and move on.

 

I understand it was legally adjudicated. But the cases weren't heard so they were improperly adjudicated in my view. I understand why they were not heard as well. I just don't agree with it. Like you, I am entitled to my opinions. The facts you bring up aren't at issue. The behavior of the judicial system is IN MY OPINION.

 

No. Everything you mentioned in your post was actually adjudicated in one form or another. Its not an "alternative fact" to point that out.

Yes, you have a right to your opinion, but your opinion should be based on some level of facts. And in this case it is not. The facts are that Biden won, FAIR AND SQUARE. This WAS adjudicated , their just wasn't any evidence. Their has to be a discovery phase of every legal action, and in almost every case brought by the right their was no evidence of what they were accusing. Why would any court agree to hear any of this with literally no evidence

 

Sorry I can't agree. Yes Biden won. Neither you nor I nor the judicial system know whether or not if was fair and square. I understand why they refused to hear the cases. There was all kinds of evidence. Enough? Who knows? We interpret the facts differently.