Permanent Portfolio Forum
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/
https://www.gyroscopicinvesting.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11629
Frankly, at that point "Fu** their feelings"Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:30 pm don't think it is possible, it will be conditional -- only if they make the "correct" decision. Which is the part that worries me about millions of Trump supporters having the same losing is not an option mentality.
Maybe the ideal. However, there has been, is, and will always be a lot of sloppy lawmaking. I witnessed this first hand when trying to implement certain employee deductions in reaction to new employment laws passed by the Massachusetts state legislature.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:30 am Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.
No. The precedent from 2000 that it was pure naked grab of political power by the Supreme Court! There was not even standing for them to get involved. The Florida Supreme Court had already made its ruling.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:54 amThe precedent from 2000 was that states must follow the election laws that were on the books at the time of the election.pmward wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:51 amIf it's entirely up to the state legislature, then why is it in Federal court? And why is one state suing another state over their state policy?Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:45 amOne problem with your position is that there isn't a right to vote, except as created by the state legislature. There are federal constitutional parameters: the legislature can't exclude people from voting based on certain things (race, sex), but other than that it is entirely up to the state legislature how voting for president is done in their state.pmward wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:40 amThe thing is there are many ways to enforce a law. Denying the right to vote to millions is not the only solution. There's the violation and the recompense. If the recompense is more damaging than the violation, it is not fair. I would argue that is a greater evil. I also don't think this requested solution to deny the right to vote to millions is either constitutional or legal.Mountaineer wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:30 am Simplistic perhaps, but I think the Executive branches of government should enforce the laws as passed by the Legislative branches. The Judicial branches can dispense mercy if necessary.
In the 2000 election the Republicans got ALL military votes from overseas to count in Florida whether or not they fulfilled all the existing requirements, such as meeting the postmark deadline or being received by a deadline (which is always past Election Day).Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:26 amThe broader point isn't about the cutoff, it's about the mechanisms of voting. If you vote in a way that is illegal, whether it's after the date, before the date, don't sign your ballot, mail in a ballot when you can't mail in a ballot, whatever, it doesn't count.pmward wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:23 amAny ballots received after the cutoff are not going to change the outcome. They are not suing over ballots received after the fact. They are suing because they believe that those states went against their own laws in allowing mail in voting. Mind you, plenty of good old Republican states have had mail in voting for years. Mail in voting has been the standard here in AZ as long as I've lived here for instance. Why are they targeting mail in voting in these states, even though some of the states that went for Trump had mail in voting that is not being questioned? Simply because mail in votes tend to skew more democrat than republican, and throwing those millions of votes out would change the state by denying the votes of millions of registered voters who simply followed what the state told them to do. It is anti-democratic to ask that these votes be thrown out. It's also hypocritical to only question this in democratic states.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:08 am
Okay... What about people who turn up the day after Election Day and want to vote? They overslept, or had the wrong day, or who knows what. Is it "anti-democracy" to turn them away? There are parameters, procedures, start and end dates to voting. That's how it works. This isn't a free-for-all.
This is not a lawsuit seeking fairness, this is a lawsuit that is a strategy to overturn an election that Trump lost. As such, it is anti-democratic.
All that went on in Florida for the 2000 election being the PRIME example of all that you state!pmward wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:33 am Republicans are all happy when democracy works in their favor. But the moment they lose, they are willing to throw it out. It shows the Republicans don't really care about the will of the people, or the election, they really only care about whether or not their guy won or lost. Whatever benefits them is fair game, and whatever does not benefit them is not. It's a ridiculous hypocritical double standard.
How does mail-in voting differ from military votes from overseas?Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:35 amWe can play this game all day. It's the will of the people of that state, through their legislature, to NOT have mail-in voting. Having mail-in voting is asking the will of the people to be thrown out.pmward wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:30 amThere's a difference between a voter voting illegally, and a voter that followed what the state instructed them to do to a T having their vote thrown out. This punishes the voter not the state. The voter did nothing wrong. If these were primarily Republican votes being thrown out people on this forum would be losing their shit. But, when it's democrat votes being thrown out, they cheer. The people elected Biden, and Texas is asking that the will of the people be thrown out in other states. That is anti-democratic, and there is simply no way you can twist that to be anything else.
As witnessed by the Florida 2000 election there ARE statewide standards. But then there are also (legal) variations between county standards.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:44 am Without a process of voting, you don't have votes at all. Votes are determined by the process. And it sounds like you're saying any action of a legislature is illegitimate without a statewide referendum..?
I agree with you that the challenge of a statewide policy should also be statewide. On the flip side, though, our legal system is adversarial. Neither candidate is obligated to look out for the other.
However, the Supreme Court DID do this in 2000. Therefore, all you describe above is still a possibility since there is precedent for the Supreme Court coming up with flawed reasonings to decide a case so as to cause the election to go to their preferred candidate.pmward wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 11:56 amRight. Well we agree on something at least. And while politics is adversarial, the judgment of the court is not. The courts job is to be impartial, and to ensure that any damages awarded are inline with the violation.
In all of these states the cases have all been heard and ruled on. The state courts, including many republican judges, found no issue with the way the vote was handled. They did not find the mail in voting to be illegal. Judges across the board in their rulings have stated that the requested compensation is more damaging than any potential violation. This is basically just a last ditch and highly unlikely effort for Trump to try to steal an election that he lost. The odds of the SCOTUS throwing out these states electors and handing the presidency to Trump is so incredibly slim. I think that if they actually did that, that would be the day our democracy would be officially dead. If the votes of millions of people in basically every single swing state are thrown out on a technicality and the election is decided by the federal courts, you no longer can claim to have democracy.
I don't think it's realistic that the SCOTUS throws these states out. I mean Trumpians can have their fantasy for a few more days at least. But the courts will not overrule the election, and next week with the electoral college it will be done.
You are speaking in idealistic theory. As witnessed by the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Florida in the 2000 election and that each of them sometimes act according to their political leanings in other rulings, there is no guarantee they do the objective, right thing.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pmWhy don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:09 pmGood point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.glennds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:08 pmSo in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.
I have unfortunately been too aware of it for years from direct personal experience.Cortopassi wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:30 pmOoh, I needed to look up the Dunning Kruger effect. That is NOT me. I never overestimate my ability, except maybe with drywall and plumbing.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:17 pmSpeaking personally, I'm perfectly happy to do that.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pmWhy don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:09 pmGood point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.glennds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:08 pmSo in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.
But seriously, I am happy with that as well. The only thing that would make my weekend perfect is to hear tech say that. I don't think it is possible, it will be conditional -- only if they make the "correct" decision. Which is the part that worries me about millions of Trump supporters having the same losing is not an option mentality.
There's an awful lot of assuming facts not in evidence here regarding Florida 2000, Vinny.yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:00 pmYou are speaking in idealistic theory. As witnessed by the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Florida in the 2000 election and that each of them sometimes act according to their political leanings in other rulings, there is no guarantee they do the objective, right thing.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pmWhy don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:09 pmGood point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.glennds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:08 pmSo in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.
Vinny
Just in the last few weeks I read a huge book written in January 2001 that did have ALL the facts in evidence regarding the Florida 2000 post-election from Election Day through the Supreme Court's ruling in mid-December 2000.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:04 pmThere's an awful lot of assuming facts not in evidence here regarding Florida 2000, Vinny.yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:00 pmYou are speaking in idealistic theory. As witnessed by the Supreme Court's ruling regarding Florida in the 2000 election and that each of them sometimes act according to their political leanings in other rulings, there is no guarantee they do the objective, right thing.doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:15 pmWhy don't we let the conservative supreme court decide what the reasonable thing to do is? After all, I'm sure their insights into the constitution, legal case history, and potential pitfalls is without question more considerable than what anyone here brings to the table. I just hope that the political right will accept the ruling. The Dunning Kruger effect is very strong of late.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:09 pmGood point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.glennds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:08 pmSo in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.
Vinny
And those facts are...?yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:07 pmJust in the last few weeks I read a huge book written in January 2001 that did have ALL the facts in evidence regarding the Florida 2000 post-election from Election Day through the Supreme Court's ruling in mid-December 2000.
Have you read anything that counters what I wrote?
Vinny
I'm not one with a photographic memory.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:15 pmAnd those facts are...?yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:07 pmJust in the last few weeks I read a huge book written in January 2001 that did have ALL the facts in evidence regarding the Florida 2000 post-election from Election Day through the Supreme Court's ruling in mid-December 2000.
Have you read anything that counters what I wrote?
Vinny
It seems that the real question is whether SCOTUS has the right to force a state to follow its own rules. I don't know how there can be a black-or-white answer on that, other than the court's ruling, which was that it can.
I haven't read the book, but weren't the state rules not being followed in the 2000 case related to recount?Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:15 pmAnd those facts are...?yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:07 pmJust in the last few weeks I read a huge book written in January 2001 that did have ALL the facts in evidence regarding the Florida 2000 post-election from Election Day through the Supreme Court's ruling in mid-December 2000.
Have you read anything that counters what I wrote?
Vinny
It seems that the real question is whether SCOTUS has the right to force a state to follow its own rules. I don't know how there can be a black-or-white answer on that, other than the court's ruling, which was that it can.
Furthermore regarding the objectivity of the votes of the Supreme Court.....If it was always truly objective just based upon the law and the facts....when why in almost every controversial case that they rule upon are we able to predict with a high degree of accuracy how each judge is going to rule or vote?Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:15 pmAnd those facts are...?yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:07 pmJust in the last few weeks I read a huge book written in January 2001 that did have ALL the facts in evidence regarding the Florida 2000 post-election from Election Day through the Supreme Court's ruling in mid-December 2000.
Have you read anything that counters what I wrote?
Vinny
It seems that the real question is whether SCOTUS has the right to force a state to follow its own rules. I don't know how there can be a black-or-white answer on that, other than the court's ruling, which was that it can.
I never said it was impossible that there were violations, nor that any remedy was impossible. I have said that this specific requested remedy of throwing away the right to vote of millions of Americans after the fact is incredibly unlikely, not fair, and possibly not even legal.
And I guess we could debate the meaning of failure.
3 U.S.C. § 2 contains a provision for an election failure in “any State.” In such an event, the legislature of that state may shuffle things around: “the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” In other words, if there is a true election failure, the states who suffer the failure take control
No "guessing" involved! Of course, we could debate the meaning of failure, a word which is subject to great interpretation!doodle wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 2:17 pmAnd I guess we could debate the meaning of failure.
3 U.S.C. § 2 contains a provision for an election failure in “any State.” In such an event, the legislature of that state may shuffle things around: “the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” In other words, if there is a true election failure, the states who suffer the failure take control
There's a difference between "forcing a state to follow it's own rules" and throwing out votes from legal registered voters.Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:15 pmAnd those facts are...?yankees60 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:07 pmJust in the last few weeks I read a huge book written in January 2001 that did have ALL the facts in evidence regarding the Florida 2000 post-election from Election Day through the Supreme Court's ruling in mid-December 2000.
Have you read anything that counters what I wrote?
Vinny
It seems that the real question is whether SCOTUS has the right to force a state to follow its own rules. I don't know how there can be a black-or-white answer on that, other than the court's ruling, which was that it can.
Why would this constitute as an election "failure"? These are votes cast by legal registered voters. There are no accusations of fraud in this suit. All votes in this suit are assumed to have been made by legal registered voters that would have voted the same way in person as by mail. There is no failure here. The will of the people of each of those states was clear. To do anything other than the will of the people as evidenced by the actual count of votes would be the real "failure".Libertarian666 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 1:54 pm3 U.S.C. § 2 contains a provision for an election failure in “any State.” In such an event, the legislature of that state may shuffle things around: “the electors may be appointed on a subsequent day in such a manner as the legislature of such State may direct.” In other words, if there is a true election failure, the states who suffer the failure take control. The federal government and the president do not. https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/t ... s-he-cant/Xan wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:09 pmGood point. With the election on Monday, it's too late. At least for the presidential contest. Seems like the reasonable thing is either for the contested states to have their electors sent home, or for the legislatures to appoint some.glennds wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 12:08 pmSo in that scenario, what happens to all the dates set forth in the Constitution? The Court doesn't have the right to waive them. Do we amend the Constitution to provide for the mulligan?
2/3 of House and Senate would need to approve, AND THEN 2/3 of state legislatures.
No. The lawsuit we are debating has no claim of fraud. It's strictly in the realm of state procedures. So for the scope of this lawsuit in the SCOTUS it is assumed all votes were legit. They still have not brought any litigation for fraud to the table. Until they do, your opinion is conjecture and nothing more.