Election results discussion thread (and sadly the inevitable aftermath)

[Agema]

$3 million well spent: Trump paid (his supporters') money for a recount that increased the margin of Biden's lead in Winsconsin.

Joe Biden gains votes in Wisconsin county after Trump-ordered recount

Milwaukee recount, which cost Trump campaign $3m, boosts Democratic president-elect days before state must certify result

www.theguardian.com

 

[Houseman]

$3 million well spent: Trump paid (his supporters') money for a recount that increased the margin of Biden's lead in Winsconsin.

Joe Biden gains votes in Wisconsin county after Trump-ordered recount

Milwaukee recount, which cost Trump campaign $3m, boosts Democratic president-elect days before state must certify result

www.theguardian.com

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So many that it added to both candidates totals, despite them looking for fraudulent votes. His claim doesn't even make sense on it's face.

 

[Dwarvenhobble]

So many that it added to both candidates totals, despite them looking for fraudulent votes. His claim doesn't even make sense on it's face.

I mean technically it could make sense if there was some auditing during the recount or something as they'd only recount the votes and not throw them out there and then that would have to come down to courts.

 

[Houseman]

The PA Supreme Court dismissed the other lawsuit because "you should have complained before you were injured. You waited too long!" as if one's constitutional rights could be slept upon as if this were Trademark law.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The PA Supreme Court dismissed the other lawsuit because "you should have complained before you were injured. You waited too long!" as if one's constitutional rights could be slept upon as if this were Trademark law.

I N C O R R E C T

1) Mr. Technicality, they failed to file their suit within the legal timeframe, if you're going to whine about technicalities being why you should disenfranchise voters, you don't get to complain when your case fails on technicalities.

2)

Justices also remarked on the lawsuit’s staggering demand that an entire election be overturned retroactively.

“They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted,” Justice David Wecht wrote in a concurring opinion.

 

[Houseman]

1) Mr. Technicality, they failed to file their suit within the legal timeframe, if you're going to whine about technicalities being why you should disenfranchise voters, you don't get to complain when your case fails on technicalities.

Are you saying it's okay to violate constitutional rights if you miss the filing deadline?

“They have failed to allege that even a single mail-in ballot was fraudulently cast or counted,”

Yeah, they failed to allege that because... that's not what they were even alleging. They also failed to allege that the Clintons were lizard-people.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Are you saying it's okay to violate constitutional rights if you miss the filing deadline?

They should have thought about it before sitting on their thumbs for months. Or maybe made a compelling reason for why they were late in filing. But in any case, since their arguments aren't good faith and are resting entirely on pleading technicalities, the judges were absolutely right to tell them they can technically get fucked.

Yeah, they failed to allege that because... that's not what they were even alleging. They also failed to allege that the Clintons were lizard-people.

Cry more. Maybe they should make an argument then for why they waited until they lost to complain.

 

[Houseman]

They should have thought about it before sitting on their thumbs for months.

"Oh, you were raped months ago and only just now thought to go to the police about it? You should have done that earlier. Case dismissed!"
That seems to be your logic.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

"Oh, you were raped months ago and only just now thought to go to the police about it? You should have done that earlier. Case dismissed!"
That seems to be your logic.

Ha ha, you are bad at this. Honestly I think the idea that you have to file a suit against a law within a time frame is silly, BUT

These idiots aren't here to argue in good faith, and above the literal written word of the law should always come doing what's right. And what's right is telling these people to fuck off.

And trying to draw parallels to rape is neither similar in what's written (this would be like coming forward after a statute of limitations timeframe) or the circumstance (the difficulty in a victim of rape coming forward against pedantically arguing quibbles of law)

So again, cry more.

 

[Houseman]

and above the literal written word of the law should always come doing what's right.

I would think that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.

(this would be like coming forward after a statute of limitations timeframe

There is no statute of limitations on the constitution.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

I would think that the spirit of the law is more important than the letter of the law.

Good, then you should be against them filing a suit since their only purpose is disenfranchising voters. By your own admission iirc you're against just needlessly disenfranchising voters.

There is no statute of limitations on the constitution.

There is however a deadline in this specific case against filing a suit, so it's disingenuous for you to have drawn that parallel on the grounds of technical law enforcement. It was also disingenuous for the other reason I said.

 

[Houseman]

Good, then you should be against them filing a suit since their only purpose is disenfranchising voters

Assuming malice on the part of the plaintiffs is also something the law should never do.

There is however a deadline in this specific case against filing a suit,

So without assuming malice, and assuming their constitutional rights were really violated, how would you suggest they go about getting justice?

 

[crimson5pheonix]

Assuming malice on the part of the plaintiffs is also something the law should never do.

Well no, since their suit is explicitly to overturn the results of the election by discounting votes that they aren't arguing are in any way fraudulent (correct?), then the purpose of their suit is to disenfranchise voters.

So without assuming malice, and assuming their constitutional rights were really violated, how would you suggest they go about getting justice?

How were their rights violated? By people voting? That's a bit of a false premise, their rights weren't violated in any way shape or form, nor are they arguing that.

 

[Houseman]

Well no, since their suit is explicitly to overturn the results of the election by discounting votes that they aren't arguing are in any way fraudulent (correct?), then the purpose of their suit is to disenfranchise voters.

They're arguing that Act 77 allows for anyone to declare themselves worthy of a mail-in ballot, while the state constitution says otherwise
"Being scared of covid" is not a valid reason according to the law. In fact, Act 77 predates covid.

How were their rights violated? By people voting?

By the opposition illegally changing the rules, yes.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They're arguing that Act 77 allows for anyone to declare themselves worthy of a mail-in ballot, while the state constitution says otherwise
"Being scared of covid" is not a valid reason according to the law. In fact, Act 77 predates covid.

They're now arguing it's unconstitutional to not take votes away from people. They're the ones infringing on other people's rights. Namely their right to vote. The only way this could be seen otherwise is if they were to make their argument without it having an effect on this election because...

By the opposition illegally changing the rules, yes.

It was legal. The law literally said so. They can argue the law was unconstitutional (though apparently they can't because they waited too long), but nobody voted illegally. And most definitely erring on the side of the spirit of the law, those votes were cast under the assumption it was legal to do and by all account it was legal for them to cast their votes. As there is nothing wrong with their votes there's no reason to throw them out.

Now, if they wanted to bring a case up to say Act 77 should be overturned for future elections, by all mean, have fun. If however they want to overturn the election, I'm 100% with the judges. They should technically go fuck themselves.

 

[Houseman]

They're now arguing it's unconstitutional to not take votes away from people.

They're arguing it's unconstitutional for lawmakers to just randomly make up any law or amendment they want, regardless of what it contradicts.
If this case is used as precedent, I wonder what would happen? "I can make it illegal to wear white after labor day because this case says I can! I can make slavery legal again because this case says I can!"

They can argue the law was unconstitutional

That's...what they're doing. If the law is unconstitutional, all the votes would be thrown out as a consequence. Just like how if they made up a law allowing slavery, and if it was struck down as unconstitutional, the slaves would go free.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

They're arguing it's unconstitutional for lawmakers to just randomly make up any law or amendment they want, regardless of what it contradicts.
If this case is used as precedent, I wonder what would happen? "I can make it illegal to wear white after labor day because this case says I can! I can make slavery legal again because this case says I can!"

They're the ones infringing on other people's rights. Namely their right to vote. The only way this could be seen otherwise is if they were to make their argument without it having an effect on this election because...

That's...what they're doing. If the law is unconstitutional, all the votes would be thrown out as a consequence. Just like how if they made up a law allowing slavery, and if it was struck down as unconstitutional, the slaves would go free.

It was legal. The law literally said so. (though apparently they can't because they waited too long), but nobody voted illegally. And most definitely erring on the side of the spirit of the law, those votes were cast under the assumption it was legal to do and by all account it was legal for them to cast their votes. As there is nothing wrong with their votes there's no reason to throw them out.

Now, if they wanted to bring a case up to say Act 77 should be overturned for future elections, by all mean, have fun. If however they want to overturn the election, I'm 100% with the judges. They should technically go fuck themselves.

 

[Houseman]

but nobody voted illegally.

The Constitution of Pennsylvania

www.legis.state.pa.us

Those who did not meet the conditions listed here voted illegally.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

The Constitution of Pennsylvania

www.legis.state.pa.us

Those who did not meet the conditions listed here voted illegally.

No, because they were following Act 77. Their votes were legal. There were no claims that they were unconstitutional at the time and their votes were cast in the faith that they would be accepted as they were. Arguing now that it's unconstitutional would take the law off the books, but just like you don't charge someone for violating a law that was passed the day before for an action they made years ago, you can't take away their votes for following Act 77 and following the law as it was written and enforced at the time.