He's given up on PA.

@realDonaldTrump
How does Biden lead in Pennsylvania Polls when he is against Fracking (JOBS!), 2nd Amendment and Religion? Fake Polls. I will win Pennsylvania!

JFLNYC wrote:You guys are kidding yourselves if you think any Republican appointee other than Roberts would vote with the Dems in a case such as posited, and even Roberts would only vote with the Dems if needed.

Vote on what? There isn't a specific case, because it hasnt happened yet.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:You guys are kidding yourselves if you think any Republican appointee other than Roberts would vote with the Dems in a case such as posited, and even Roberts would only vote with the Dems if needed.

Vote on what? There isn't a specific case, because it hasnt happened yet.

What would the case even look like? I'm legit asking.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:You guys are kidding yourselves if you think any Republican appointee other than Roberts would vote with the Dems in a case such as posited, and even Roberts would only vote with the Dems if needed.

Vote on what? There isn't a specific case, because it hasnt happened yet.

Precisely. I think we have this generic “I got screwed by voter fraud” case in mind. Some seem convinced that five SC justices will just rubber stamp a decision handing Trump the election because...?

It’s Donald Trump we are talking about, he isn’t even a real conservative.

I just can’t believe trump is organized enough to put an actual case together that could go to SCOTUS even a scotus that’s on the take. All he ever does is make baseless accusations and not follow up.

MoBettle wrote:I just can’t believe trump is organized enough to put an actual case together that could go to SCOTUS even a scotus that’s on the take. All he ever does is make baseless accusations and not follow up.

Yes, it’s not like his record with the SC is particularly stellar. Most of the decisions against him have not been 5-4, so I don’t see RBG’s death likely changing that dynamic. Plus, on a personal level, I would imagine every justice despises Trump.

His tax case was 7-2. They don't give a shit about him.

momadance wrote:His tax case was 7-2. They don't give a shit about him.

Yup, that’s what I am talking about. Again, one cannot compare the facts involved with the decision issued in 2000 to the hypothetical BS case Trump and Barr create our of thin air.

06hawkalum wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:You guys are kidding yourselves if you think any Republican appointee other than Roberts would vote with the Dems, and even Roberts would only vote with the Dems if it needed.

Exactly. Trump is going to have 3 of his own people on the court, people chosen for their willingness to tow the heritage foundation line and kneel to the emperor. Alito and Thomas will do whatever is the most awful thing, as they always do. Roberts is window dressing and will probably make it 6-3 to make it look like there was more agreement since he won't be able to stop the result.

Must win FL or OH or some other combo to get those PA electoral votes somewhere else.

Eh, I think you will be pleasantly surprised by the outcome of any SC vote. Furthermore, PA isn’t going to certify Trump electors if Biden scores a decisive victory there, which appears to be the likely outcome. They are not going to be able to provide any evidence that ~10% of Biden’s votes were submitted fraudulently. Again, you two seem a bit too paranoid, but perhaps it is a coping mechanism to prepare yourself for the worst case scenario.

It may be a coping mechanism a bit, but I also have seen it happen in other democracies over my lifetime and we are not immune to such a collapse. I have also seen Trump continually wriggle out of trouble over the last 5 years and it seems like he's covered in teflon. He controls many of the levers of government and has a willing accomplice in the GOP. I think there is reason to be concerned. I don't know how old you were in 2000, but MANY people were shocked at the time by that outcome in the courts. This time, the stakes are much higher and it seems at least a large minority of the court would be fine with an authoritarian. Geniuses don't take down democracies, corruption does. If the people on the court are corrupt enough, and these latest appointees were probably vetted based largely on that characteristic, any outcome is possible. An intelligent judge could manufacture a reason from the case law if they really wanted to, and the average Joe on the right (or the left) wouldn't know any better. Legal scholars might throw up their hands and scoff, but that doesn't move any needle in Trump's world.

Or maybe we'll wipe him out and you can make fun of my angst. It's a trade I'll happily make.

Werthless wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:You guys are kidding yourselves if you think any Republican appointee other than Roberts would vote with the Dems in a case such as posited, and even Roberts would only vote with the Dems if needed.

Vote on what? There isn't a specific case, because it hasnt happened yet.

But this works both ways.

I said to JH at one point that neither of us can know what someone might produce as a distraction/premise to steal an election. We don't know what they'll do. Barr has certainly been acting like they are going to win, breaking the law repeatedly and saying things like history's winners write the history. Since we don't know what they'll do, we can't know what case would show up in SCOTUS and how far the justices would need to bend truth to vote for Trump's play. Alito, for example, certainly doesn't care about disenfranchising voters. It's not in his makeup or his past actions.

1.) The Supreme Court is not going to "steal" the election for Trump.

2.) If the Supreme Court does "steal" the election for Trump, the U.S. is finished. Time to move on.

06hawkalum wrote:

momadance wrote:His tax case was 7-2. They don't give a shit about him.

Yup, that’s what I am talking about. Again, one cannot compare the facts involved with the decision issued in 2000 to the hypothetical BS case Trump and Barr create our of thin air.

BS case? How much do you know about this stuff? I don't think it's as cut and dry as you think. This article does a good example of covering the Purcell Principle, which you will hear about over the next few months.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/0 ... ion-426604

This is just one corner of the case law. This SCOTUS is also much more conservative than the one that had Roberts join the conservatives on the court to strike down a key part of the Voting Rights Act in 2013. An activist judge can find reasons to vote any way they want.

Sorry, but you guys are whistling in the dark. Not capable or organized enough? He's already gotten a case decided by the PA Supreme Ct in his favor nullifying 100,000 mail-in ballots.

What would the case look like? Could take different forms depending upon the state but you can be sure at least one of them would challenge the ongoing counting of mail-in ballots. For example, of the first 341,877 ballots cast as of Friday in Florida, Democrats returned more than Republicans, 184,552 to 93,212 (Florida Democrats rushing to vote, topping Republicans in early mail ballots). IIRC there's a similar imbalance in other states with mail-in voting.

If it's close, for example, in Florida (and it probably will be) Trump will connive to do everything possible to stop -- or even just delay -- the further counting of mail-in ballots. If Trump has the lead and can connive with DeSantis simply to delay the counting of mail-in ballots past the "safe harbor" period Trump would be able to claim Florida's electoral votes.

How do we know this could happen? Because it's exactly what happened in Bush v. Gore! In addition to finding a violation of the Equal Protection clause (don't get me started), 5 justices -- who just happened to be the Republican appointees (and a lot less right-wing as a group than the current Republican-appointee justices) -- agreed that there was no adequate remedy (i.e., a recount) which could be accomplished within the safe harbor deadline! If Trump brings a case like that it won't even have to be decided by the SCOTUS. A lower court could decide it based on Bush v. Gore and the SCOTUS could well just deny certiorari!

There are lots of other possibilities of Trump treachery and, especially in light of Bush V. Gore, it is more than possible -- it's likely -- the SCOTUS would support it. And guess who wrote the deciding Equal Protection Clause opinion. That well-known, hard-core right-winger, Justice Kennedy!

I'm not going to continue writing a law review article. Put simply history is very clear that it won't be hard for Trump to conjure up legal arguments, he's more than capable of putting together legal teams to advance those claims and the SCOTUS has no problem voting along party lines to award a Presidential election.

Trent Steele wrote:1.) The Supreme Court is not going to "steal" the election for Trump.

2.) If the Supreme Court does "steal" the election for Trump, the U.S. is finished. Time to move on.

Hence the concern.

This time is different

Hopefully the Cunningham stuff is too late to matter. The woman was married too, as far as I can tell. Not a good look for either but certainly appears as if it is some sort of revenge ploy from the woman.

06hawkalum wrote:This time is different

Yes. It’s worse.

JFLNYC wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:This time is different

Yes. It’s worse.

Your point is taken. I just disagree that your worst fears will be realized. This is going to be a wave election. That was not the case in 2000.

I doubt the SC wants to ignite a civil war, which was not a concern in 2000. If Joe wins in a landslide, Joe will be sworn in as POTUS in January. This is the most likely scenario based on current polling and Trump’s continued pattern of unforced errors.

FWIW, you seem to think this is all a fait accompli, so why bother voting...or remaining in the country for that matter? Might as well move now before our passports are all cancelled and we are trapped in the U.S.S.A.

They should remove Trump. He’s clearly incapable now more than ever.

06hawkalum wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:

06hawkalum wrote:This time is different

Yes. It’s worse.

Your point is taken. I just disagree that your worst fears will be realized. This is going to be a wave election. That was not the case in 2000.

I doubt the SC wants to ignite a civil war, which was not a concern in 2000. If Joe wins in a landslide, Joe will be sworn in as POTUS in January. This is the most likely scenario based on current polling and Trump’s continued pattern of unforced errors.

FWIW, you seem to think this is all a fait accompli, so why bother voting...or remaining in the country for that matter? Might as well move now before our passports are all cancelled.

I think Trump’s actions are a fair accompli but not necessarily the results and the best way to avoid a bad result is for Biden to win in a landslide.

As for the alternative, my wife and I have already had preliminary discussions about what we might do if Trump wins again, especially if he steals the election, and there is a possibility we could leave the country which, fortunately, we have the means to do.

I don’t think for a moment the outcome of this election is written. But given the political realities of the time and previous history on the subject to expect that the principled goodwill of all actors will carry the day seems to me to be expecting too much. Likewise, not being prepared for the worst seems imprudent under the circumstances.

Nonetheless I remain hopeful for the best, especially because I believe Biden will win resoundingly enough that there will be no doubt.