SCOTUS Flips Trump the Bird

Fallacy: argumrntum ad verecundiam. An event occurred in the physical realm, regardless of an opinion, order, or decision, the event did happen. In the case of the red light runner, it means the person got away with running a red light. It doesn't mean they didn't run the red light. Even if nobody witnessed it, it still happened. Somehow the election laws got changed in PA, and NOT BY THE LEGISLATURE. We actually know how because it was done in the open. The SOS made a number of "emergency declarations." Except the SOS lacks the authority to do so. Only the legislature has that authority.

 

Good luck.

 

Except by the USSC who summarily dismissed the challenge, shirking its responsibility to the people.

 

No laws were changed. That's incorrect, yet you keep repeating it like it's fact. Argumntum ad bullshyteisus

 

They didn't even get to the dismissal stage. This was a case of original jurisdiction.

 

LOL

 

And even if that's true it was never challenged by anyone who has standing to challenge it at an appropriate time prior to the election and suffered an injury by this action. Furthermore the election was certified absent any valid legal challenge.

That's false, SCOTUS acted responsibly and properly for a change and summarily dismissed it for lack of standing and lack of original jurisdiction.

 

Well actually it was dismissed for lack of standing and lack of original jurisdiction

 

Rule 17 requires a motion for leave to file in original jurisdiction cases. That's what was decided 7-2. I don't think the case was legally or officially filed, only the motion for leave to file, which was rejected.

 

Any person legally eligible to vote in a presidential election has standing. And the USSC, despite its retreat, absolutely has jurisdiction on matters of constitutional law -- which is in fact the reason for its existence.

"You had ONE JOB!"

Last time I checked, Article II, Ss. I is in fact IN THE CONSTITUTION.

So again I revert to my original comment on your thread: The USSC has not flipped the bird to Trump, but rather to the American people.

 

Each voter has standing within his state. He has no standing to sue other states. Easy stuff here Rob. I'm surprised you talk right over it.

 

That's 100% false in this case. But even if that were true, it still would require that the plaintiff suffer injury as a result of such an action and that the suit be timely filed prior to an election. You are flailing as usual. No one who is well versed in the legal aspects agrees with your legal fantasy.

You are partly correct, however it does not have original jurisdiction in THIS matter BECAUSE of the Constitution (the limited powers granted in Article III and the prohibitions of the 10th Amendment).

 

No election laws were changed. You keep repeating this falsehood. We're not Trumpsters here so continually repeating a lie doesn't make it true.

According to the Pennsylvania Supreme court, the election result was legal. The SCOTUS has ZERO authority to intervene in anything PA does unless it violates the US Constitution. The PA Supreme Court is the ultimate arbiter of STATE law, including the law under which the election was, fairly and legally, conducted.

 

You'll need to support that claim with some evidence, please.

The injury should be obvious to rational observers: An unlawful or irregular vote being counted has the mathematical effect of invalidating a lawful or regular one. One invalid vote in Tennessee cancels my valid vote in California. Given the numerical differentials of the electoral college, it is not a precise 1:1 equation... statistically one Texas presidential vote, for example, actually has more weight than one New Hampshire presidential vote, given the number of electoral votes each singular vote contributes to. But the principle in law is the same: equal protection of the law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, specifically "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States..."

I am not the topic of this thread, ad hominem fallacy.

You have surveyed every single person "well versed in the legal aspects" have you? I'd like their names please. Or I will graciously accept your retraction.

What you meant to say was "it is my opinion that I do not agree with your legal fantsy."

Article II Ss. I -- the one that specifically establishes the executive and specifies the process through which the chief executive will be selected -- states "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct..."

The Legislature thereof.

Not The secretary of state thereof... not the governor thereof... not the attorney general thereof...

The Constitution is specific and deliberate in requiring a sole legislative body, a quorum, to direct the way a given state conducts a presidential election. This is where the 10th Amendment's very important and usually ignored (by lefties and righties alike) codicil "nor prohibited by it" comes to the party. Like your right to swing your fist stops at the end of my nose, the concept of "states' rights" stops at the state line. The Constitution specifically empowers state legislatures and only state legislatures with the authority to direct presidential elections such that no single person -- such as a governor, sos, atty general -- could unilaterally make law, or policy, or emergency declaration, or any other legal machination that would have the effect of abridging the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the many and various states. If a state wants to elect its governor by a beer drinking contest, that is its right: The Constitution of the United States does not specify how a state shall select its governor, therefore the 10th Amendment prevents the federal government from interfering in that selection. Not so with a presidential election, however. And this is the very important distinction that the masturbating "legal experts" on CNN are ignoring.

In closing, "states' rights" are not absolute: To make it very simple, the 10th Amendment says states have the right to make laws as long as they are not already covered by the Constitution. And there are many areas where states are required by the federal government -- such as Full Faith and Credit -- to observe the laws of other states and to observe federal laws. This is what allows a citizen to travel freely between states, for example, and what makes your New Jersey marriage legal in Florida. Well, the manner in which a state conducts a presidential election is already covered in the Constitution by specifying the legislative body empowered to make the rules. Therefore, the USSC shirked its responsibility in this matter and has in fact, as I initially stated, flipped the bird not to Donald Trump, but to the American people -- and I mean all the American people... Biden voters included.

 

So I don't have to type it again: http://politicalforum.com/index.php...-trump-the-bird.582244/page-7#post-1072295514

 

So I don't have to type it again: http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-trump-the-bird.582244/page-6#post-1072292950

 

The most verbose bullshit I've ever seen. We have 51 separate elections. Hello?

 

Yeah, it's called the Constitution. Read it sometime. I've already cited the relevant clauses and the arguments and so did SCOTUS. SCOTUS agrees in its most recent ruling and so do all constitutional scholars whose opinions I've heard. I am not going to rehash ad nauseum. You are 100% wrong, live with it or keep flailing with specious arguments and inappropriate citations, it's your prerogative.

 

Yeah to Trump supporters, they lost, isn't that just awful?

 

Snarky ad hominem does not make your pallid argument any better. I've cited specifically from the Constitution. Pretending I haven't read it is a cheap diversionary tactic to cover your poorly-constructed position.

Argumentum ad vericundiam. Fallacy. The opinions of "constitutional scholars you've read" are not evidence. They are opinions.

I am not claiming to be wrong or right. I am claiming that the USSC has shirked its responsibility to protect the rights of the people by retreating from a case in which prima facie evidence of irregularities exist thus causing injury to the American people.

 

Not just to Trump supporters, as I've already stated. The winner of the election is irrelevant -- what is relevant is the means through which the election was conducted in certain states and the highest court in the land flipping the bird to the American people by issuing a summary dismissal to the great unwashed.

 

So have I (even prior to the SCOTUS ruling) and so has SCOTUS. The citations from the Constitution by SCOTUS are specific and relevant to the case, yours are not.

Correct, they are opinions of those who actually know what they're talking about, yours are not. The evidence is the Constitution.

I don't blame you. It would be ridiculous for you to claim you know better than those who actually know what they're talking about. Especially since you're arguing apples and oranges.

They have on many occasions in the past, however this isn't one of them.

Yes I know you've tried to make that claim. But the truth is we would never be having this discussion because you would have never raised this issue if you weren't a Trump supporter or if Trump won. So who are you kidding?

 

Oh? The sections of the Constitution I cited -- the ones covering presidential elections, "states' rights," and equal protection are not relevant?

Ad hominem fallacy. I am not the topic of this thread.

I accept your retraction.

I'd like to suggest the possible invalidation of lawful votes is a topic worthy of the court's consideration. You feel differently. Just remember, the pendulum swings both ways. A man far smarter than me once said "we get the government we deserve."

Ad hominem fallacy. I am not the topic of this thread. You also have no evidence that I am a "Trump supporter" as you fallaciously claim, were it even relevant, which it is not. However, I understand posting fallacies is easier than creating actual arguments or taking positions and supporting them with facts.

 

You have a phony way of quoting me out of context. Did you deliberately omit the remainder of the quote where I said "relevant TO THE CASE" because otherwise you have no legitimate argument?

Again making phony assertions. I never said you were. I was comparing your opinion(s) to those who actually know what they talking about because they are authorities on the subject and you definitely are not.

I haven't retracted anything. That's 3 for 3 ad hominems so far.

While I agree with your suggestion and it has merit, it is not valid in THIS CASE.

Well then, I stand corrected. You're a Biden supporter trying your damnedest to help out Trump and Trump supporters with phony legal arguments you have no real clue about.

 

Huh? Tilting at windmills...

See you just did it again. Your opinion regarding my knowledge is irrelevant. You cannot discredit my argument so you have try to discredit me. This is a fallacy, argumentum ad hominem. You are indeed making me the topic. You'll make a better argument if you stick to the relevant facts. Attack your opponent's argument, not your opponent.

Sure you did.

Of course it is. We have a state that violated the U.S. Constitution by changing its election laws and in so doing may have invalidated tge votes of our fellow citizens. That should at least be worthy of a thorough review of the facts. But instead the American people got a "**** you" from the court, flipped the bird as you put it.

Ad hominem fallacy, I am not the topic of this thread. Also fallacy, argumentum falsum dilemma.