Biden wins presidency, Trump denied second term in White House, Fox News projects

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, moxy said:

Again, not a lawyer, but none of this seems to me how the law works.

 

For starters, no lawyer is going to risk their career by intentionally losing, with the sole purpose of driving it in front of the SC. Ok, maybe Rudy, you might have me there.

 

But let’s imagine it gets to SCOTUS. What will SCOTUS be asked to rule on? Do you believe the SC will be asked to overrule GA on their own state election? The state has already determined that the election was held in accordance with state law and the state constitution. So will the SC be asked to invalidate Georgia’s constitution and state laws?

 

Or are you saying that the Trump legal team is relying on his nominees to just hand him the election by invalidating the states that would need to be invalidated, based on nothing but their loyalty to Trump?

I think you're putting too much thought into this.

[moxy 1,051]

Just now, Burnt Reynolds said:

I think you're putting too much thought into this.

Just looking for clarification. Nobody’s forcing you to answer, I’m being civil and honestly looking to understand how you and others think this is playing out.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

6 minutes ago, moxy said:

Just looking for clarification. Nobody’s forcing you to answer, I’m being civil and honestly looking to understand how you and others think this is playing out.

If that was really it, there was nothing wrong with just asking that.

 

I honestly don't think anything will result that changes the overall election outcome. I've seen plenty of issues arise that require a remedy, that local governments and courts have not followed up on, that there's a chance SCOTUS could follow-up on, but there's so many complexities to what cases come before them, whether they even take up a case, never mind what issue(s) they give more consideration (given the sheer volume of complaints), and what they decide, I couldn't even pretend to know what happens.

Edited December 6, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[abum 324]

37 minutes ago, moxy said:

Imagine you are a client. Your lawyer tells you, “Ok. Here’s what we’re gonna do. We’re going to lose. We are going to lose BIG TIME, and we’re going to look so incompetent while losing that the judge is actually going to chew us out. And then... stay with me here pal... and then we’re going to appeal. Nothing can go wrong with this strategy!”

having courts dismissing the case WITH PREJUDICE, along with all other scathing remarks (like not giving any evidences), is surely the most winningnest strategy ! and that would be appealed to the Supreme Courtyard by Marriot. 

[laylalex 7,282]

36 minutes ago, moxy said:

I’ll clarify. I don’t believe intentionally losing in order to win on appeal is how the law works.

What I understand is that the Supreme Court can only hear certain cases that come up through the state courts, and that's only where there's a federal law question involved. 

 

When SCOTUS heard the PA issue and then punted, there was from my understanding a question of whether the PA courts were trying to create rights that conflicted with PA statute. The constitution gives the legislatures the rights to make their own election laws, and I think the issue is whether the courts were trying to do something only the legislature can do. That to me DOES sound like a federal issue -- if the US Constitution says only legislatures can make election laws, it is a violation of the US Constitution for a PA court to try to make election law if they are not empowered to do so. 

 

But if you have legislatures and courts of a state both saying: these are our duly enacted laws and we are interpreting them correctly, what is there for SCOTUS to decide?

[moxy 1,051]

4 minutes ago, laylalex said:

What I understand is that the Supreme Court can only hear certain cases that come up through the state courts, and that's only where there's a federal law question involved. 

 

When SCOTUS heard the PA issue and then punted, there was from my understanding a question of whether the PA courts were trying to create rights that conflicted with PA statute. The constitution gives the legislatures the rights to make their own election laws, and I think the issue is whether the courts were trying to do something only the legislature can do. That to me DOES sound like a federal issue -- if the US Constitution says only legislatures can make election laws, it is a violation of the US Constitution for a PA court to try to make election law if they are not empowered to do so. 

 

But if you have legislatures and courts of a state both saying: these are our duly enacted laws and we are interpreting them correctly, what is there for SCOTUS to decide?

Well put, and it jives with what would seem to me to make sense. The constitution gives states control over elections, even the presidential election. For SCOTUS to say a state election was invalid somehow, would mean opposing state courts who had already ruled on state law and the state constitution. It seems to me that would be a stupid high bar to hurdle. Like, every state court had basically gotten it wrong.

 

And again, for the Trump legal team to intentionally lose a case (after case after case) in a state courthouse with the sole intent to appeal to the SCOTUS seems criminal to me. (I don’t believe this is what’s happening, I’m responding to this argument having been made earlier) I’m happy to be proven wrong on this point, not a lawyer, I don’t even play one on TV.

[laylalex 7,282]

1 minute ago, moxy said:

I’m happy to be proven wrong on this point, not a lawyer, I don’t even play one on TV.

I auditioned once for a gender-blind version of Inherit the Wind in high school, but I did not get the part of Drummond, so I understand.  

[moxy 1,051]

13 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

I honestly don't think anything will result that changes the overall election outcome. I've seen plenty of issues arise that require a remedy, that local governments and courts have not followed up on, that there's a chance SCOTUS could follow-up on, but there's so many complexities to what cases come before them, whether they even take up a case, never mind what issue(s) they give more consideration (given the sheer volume of complaints), and what they decide, I couldn't even pretend to know what happens.

I really, REALLY think the SC would clear their schedule to hear a case that decides the presidency. I’m pretty sure there’s precedent. I don’t think scheduling is going to be the determining factor.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

I really, REALLY think the SC would clear their schedule to hear a case that decides the presidency. I’m pretty sure there’s precedent. I don’t think scheduling is going to be the determining factor.

It's not about clearing their schedule, it's about maintaining a schedule. There's hundreds of lawsuits right now making their way through the courts. 

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, CanAm1980 said:

Really? Computer crime? Tell me more.

You know a "computer crime" wink wink... seriously, I don't know 

[laylalex 7,282]

3 minutes ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You know a "computer crime" wink wink... seriously, I don't know 

Quote

In 2018, Carone was charged with obscenity for allegedly emailing sexually explicit videos to her boyfriend's ex. She pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, which was dismissed after she served probation.

 

https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/why-melissa-carones-testimony-michigan-232803767.html

[moxy 1,051]

1 minute ago, Cyberfx1024 said:

You know a "computer crime" wink wink... seriously, I don't know 

I haven’t been able to find anything on the exact nature of the crime, but Melisa Carone was convicted of a computer crime and sentenced to 12 months probation. She recently finished that sentence.

[moxy 1,051]

8 minutes ago, laylalex said:

In 2018, Carone was charged with obscenity for allegedly emailing sexually explicit videos to her boyfriend's ex. She pleaded guilty to a lesser charge, which was dismissed after she served probation.

😂

I hadn’t seen that. So yeah, she’s a well-adjusted individual, I’m sure her testimony is very reliable.

[laylalex 7,282]

3 minutes ago, moxy said:

😂

I hadn’t seen that. So yeah, she’s a well-adjusted individual, I’m sure her testimony is very reliable.

 

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

She signed an after-davidzt

Edited December 6, 2020 by CanAm1980