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

[moxy 1,051]

2 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

TO me, if 95% of a persons posts are criticizing the left and supporting the right, they are not a moderate. If they claim to be a moderate, then what they really are is a conservative with an identity issue. 

  

Yes, very much this.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

25 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I am drinking Tension Tamer tea at the moment, thank you.

Wow, that was the only one I thought had any real issue going on. I bet the Texas one will meet a similar end.

What gave you the impression this petition would work over the one that SCOTUS nearly took on but temporarily declined to hear (4-4)?

Edited December 8, 2020 by Burnt Reynolds

[abum 324]

27 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I am drinking Tension Tamer tea at the moment, thank you.

Wow, that was the only one I thought had any real issue going on. I bet the Texas one will meet a similar end.

we shall see. 

[laylalex 7,293]

58 minutes ago, Burnt Reynolds said:

What gave you the impression this petition would work over the one that SCOTUS nearly took on but temporarily declined to hear (4-4)?

I actually mistook this one for the other one. That 4-4 one was the one I meant. I still don't think that one is going much of anywhere but it does to me at least seem to pose the kind of question that SCOTUS could hear if I understand correctly.

 

I did talk to my dad today what he thought about the TX case and he called it an embarrassment. I guess he read most of it today by the time I talked to him. He said the first thing that popped out at him was the issue of standing, and what standing the people of Texas have in the conduct of elections in other states. Like, how is Texas harmed in some sort of particularized way that makes it different from any harm suffered by any other state? Why did no other states join? My dad isn't a Biden supporter, but he doesn't see the point in any of this litigation. He did mention to me that he thinks the only good that will come out of any of this is that the states will take the time to look at their election laws and see what needs to be fixed, and that states could learn from each other what does and doesn't work. Like, obviously you want to make an election secure and transparently run, but you also want to ensure a secret ballot. You want to make sure no one who isn't eligible to vote can do so, but you also want to make voting accessible to every citizen who is eligible. It's a delicate balance but there is time and space now to think about these things, now that the election is over.

 

However I have to point out that my dad mostly does business law, so make of that what you will! This is just his spitballing, but he's been practicing for longer than I've been alive.

[Burnt Reynolds 5,058]

2 minutes ago, laylalex said:

I actually mistook this one for the other one. That 4-4 one was the one I meant. I still don't think that one is going much of anywhere but it does to me at least seem to pose the kind of question that SCOTUS could hear if I understand correctly.

 

I did talk to my dad today what he thought about the TX case and he called it an embarrassment. I guess he read most of it today by the time I talked to him. He said the first thing that popped out at him was the issue of standing, and what standing the people of Texas have in the conduct of elections in other states. Like, how is Texas harmed in some sort of particularized way that makes it different from any harm suffered by any other state? Why did no other states join? My dad isn't a Biden supporter, but he doesn't see the point in any of this litigation. He did mention to me that he thinks the only good that will come out of any of this is that the states will take the time to look at their election laws and see what needs to be fixed, and that states could learn from each other what does and doesn't work. Like, obviously you want to make an election secure and transparently run, but you also want to ensure a secret ballot. You want to make sure no one who isn't eligible to vote can do so, but you also want to make voting accessible to every citizen who is eligible. It's a delicate balance but there is time and space now to think about these things, now that the election is over.

 

However I have to point out that my dad mostly does business law, so make of that what you will! This is just his spitballing, but he's been practicing for longer than I've been alive.

I think the case that was almost taken stands the best chance by far of success, but even with it, I doubt it changes any outcomes. Still very necessary for future elections. About Texas.. it was filed only hours ago (like on the brink of midnight), and Louisiana has already joined. More may join given the pressure to do so, but I don't think more jumping in would impact decisions.

 

I got really excited for the Texas thing this morning but then I had a conversation with my cat, who's a lawyer, and she told me I was dumb for getting excited when there was no cert (yet). I'm getting tired of this mouthy cat.

[laylalex 7,293]

Here's the thing though -- I have been reading about the Texas case and pretty much no one serious thinks it's going to go anywhere. People on the left and the right. Why didn't the TX solicitor general sign onto it if it's any good? That's who usually argues cases on behalf of TC before the Supreme Court. 

 

Standing is the threshold problem though. What is Texas' harm? (I think Louisiana said it would support the case, not joined it.) What makes it more affected than other states? Why aren't other states' voting programs -- California, for example, where they mailed everyone a ballot and we certainly got someone else's ballot, previous tenant -- being brought up in the case as being problematic? Why select those states? 

 

This doesn't look like a good case, and you will disagree. But I'm going with my dad -- I may disagree with him on politics, but I've known him a long time and he seems to have a good sense of what makes sense legally. I think this is one where you and I can agree to disagree politely and have a nice wait and see attitude here.  We both agree things need to be fixed, which is a good place to start from.

[Ban Hammer 13,464]

48 minutes ago, laylalex said:

 but I've known him a long time

gosh i hope so!

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

57 minutes ago, laylalex said:

Here's the thing though -- I have been reading about the Texas case and pretty much no one serious thinks it's going to go anywhere. People on the left and the right. Why didn't the TX solicitor general sign onto it if it's any good? That's who usually argues cases on behalf of TC before the Supreme Court. 

 

Standing is the threshold problem though. What is Texas' harm? (I think Louisiana said it would support the case, not joined it.) What makes it more affected than other states? Why aren't other states' voting programs -- California, for example, where they mailed everyone a ballot and we certainly got someone else's ballot, previous tenant -- being brought up in the case as being problematic? Why select those states? 

 

This doesn't look like a good case, and you will disagree. But I'm going with my dad -- I may disagree with him on politics, but I've known him a long time and he seems to have a good sense of what makes sense legally. I think this is one where you and I can agree to disagree politely and have a nice wait and see attitude here.  We both agree things need to be fixed, which is a good place to start from.

Does your Dad have bad Dad puns of the legal variety?

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[moxy 1,051]

 

1 hour ago, laylalex said:

Standing is the threshold problem though. What is Texas' harm? (I think Louisiana said it would support the case, not joined it.) What makes it more affected than other states? Why aren't other states' voting programs -- California, for example, where they mailed everyone a ballot and we certainly got someone else's ballot, previous tenant -- being brought up in the case as being problematic? Why select those states? 

I’m not even the spawn of a lawyer and this would be my take. If I see some jackass half way across the country on Youtube wreck his neighbor’s car, I can’t just go and sue him because there’s no harm done to me specifically. Texas controls Texas elections. Whatever other states do is their own business.

 

But they knew that. They never expected it to succeed. It’s just one more way to keep grifting Trump supporters and separating them from their money. He’ll keep the grift up for as long as he can, not to be president, but to sucker punch his own supporters. (but sure, AOC is fleecing her supporters with sweatshirts lol)

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

[laylalex 7,293]

29 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Does your Dad have bad Dad puns of the legal variety?

There is one thing worse than dad jokes, and one thing worse than lawyer jokes, and that's a lawyer dad joke. I like you too much to do that to you.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

8 minutes ago, moxy said:

 

I’m not even the spawn of a lawyer and this 

Spawn of Lawyer sounds like a very  B minus horror flick.

[laylalex 7,293]

Just now, CanAm1980 said:

Spawn of Lawyer sounds like a very  B minus horror flick.

I think it's on Amazon Prime right now.

[Crtcl Rice Theory 2,432]

Just now, laylalex said:

I think it's on Amazon Prime right now.

I think it is featured on one of those odd free Roku channels along with Son of Robocaller.