Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cruz Backs Supreme Review
Ted Cruz came out last night with a highly cogent argument for the Supreme Court taking up the case in Pennsylvania that would disqualify the mail-in ballots.
“Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.
“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.
“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.
“The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’
“In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called ‘laches,’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now.
“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.
“Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.
“As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”
The initial lawsuit is summarized as follows:
Conservative Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and others contend state officials had no right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to expand mail-in voting in 2019, and the state Supreme Court was wrong to uphold that statute. The group called it “an unconstitutional, no-excuse absentee voting scheme.”
“Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election,” the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was “conducted illegally.”
The group seeks an emergency injunction from the nation’s highest court to block the completion of any remaining steps in the state’s certification of Pennsylvania’s 2020 election results, which took place last week. The petition was submitted to Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
This is not a fraud case – it is about the legality of the changes to voting law. It will be interesting to see what the Supremes do – especially Clarence Thomas, who is very much about states’ rights.
Published in General
Sigh.
We’re right back in Autumn 2016. Lines in the sand once again between the protected and the unprotected (h/t Peggy Noonan. I’ve yet to come up with a better descriptor for that which divides us)
I said this before on another thread: these last 4 + years have been rough. We got through the Mueller investigation, the impeachment. All along, in the back of my mind, was : Yeah? See you on election day. To have that stolen is a bridge too far.
And am I the only one that is noting a whiff of : well, it’s just not the “right” people making statements and claiming fraud?
The real problem is that Trump’s legal team is striking out in state and federal court. If Trump’s legal team was winning court cases consistently, then things would look quite different.
But the reality is that elections are usually not won in court. Al Gore came close to “winning” the 2000 election by winning court cases. But most of the time, if you need to even go to court, you have probably already lost.
In sports, the players who are whining about the bad officiating are usually the players who lost the game. It’s similar in politics. If you win the election, usually you don’t whine about how the election “wasn’t fair.” That’s for losers.
That’s sure how some – especially Dems, this time – seem to want to make it. Because by arguing that you basically must have already won your case to even go to court, it becomes often impossible to meet that threshold.
I don’t think this is how the Supreme Court makes decisions. The SC court looks to the Constitution when they have a decision. That is when they are doing it right. It is really up to the discretion of each Justice as to whether they see enough to decide which way they will rule. Have you not been paying attention to the SC? They don’t do criminal cases, they do constitutional cases.
That’s a good point. I hope the SC remembers that too.
Usually the ‘five’ constitutionalists do.
this might seem minor, but to me it’s huge. At the end of the day, Trump has got nothing to do with it. It’s the American people who were stolen from.
Whatever, HW. You keep saying that, that his legal team has failed.
It doesn’t change the reality that there was fraud. Regardless if it has any effect on the election, there was fraud. And it was the American people who were stolen from.
Thank you for this reminder – one doesn’t win election by winning court cases. If I remember correctly, Bush lost all but one. Yay – President Trump still has a chance!
I think the only case that the US Supreme Court might consider is the mail in ballots in Pennsylvania. But that wouldn’t change the outcome of the presidential election in Pennsylvania.
So, Trump’s toast.
Bush won more than a single court case during those weeks. But yes. He won a huge case in the US Supreme Court.
If I had a pile of money to bet, I would bet that Trump’s cases will not even be heard by the US Supreme Court, except, possibly, the Pennsylvania case on mail in ballots. But that wouldn’t be enough to give Trump Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.
So, Trump is done. Biden will be president on January 20, 2021.
I say that as someone who didn’t vote for Biden or Trump in 2020 (or Hillary or Trump in 2016).
Name me three judgments in which the judge said Trump’s team has not met the burden of proof.
Only because it looked to me that the seven states that did this were mostly blue anyway, except perhaps for Utah, which went for Trump anyway. I didn’t see any swing states that have been contested or still are being contested on the list: California, Colorado, [Washington, DC, not a state, but . . . ], Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, Oregon, Utah, Vermont, and Washington.
I believe that you are convinced that discussions of voting fraud damage the Ricochet brand (as you see it). It’s clear that you want Ricochet to play the role of the Washington Generals to the Dem Globetrotters.
But I don’t believe the above statement. The posts arguing against taking legal action to challenge election integrity have generally been the most vitriolic and condescending in the message threads.
I think part of the argument is that while some states may have been very blue in the past, it’s possible to believe – including after seeing the Trump rallies all over, etc, and the number of places that voted for Trump in 2016 after going for Obama in 2008 and 2012 – that some of those blue states may have been… less blue… this time around. But the presumption that they were going to go blue anyway, makes it easier to hide fraud. Which could be exactly why they were chosen.
I don’t know if I’m supposed to respond to comments now, but what the heck…
@kedavis If by “among others” you mean multiple courts across the country, many of which are run by Republican judges (some even appointed by Trump) “seem determined to require proof of some overall conspiracy,” why yes — that is the way our system works.
And @cm if you really think that these courts at different levels different states throughout the country are all corrupt or part of a conspiracy to deny Donald Trump power, then the American experiment is over. Because the courts are more fundamental to our society than any thing else. Even whether or not Donald Trump won the election.
If the courts can consider a case of someone stealing a car or robbing a bank without necessarily being connected to some nationwide Car Stealing And Bank Robbing Organization, why is it so difficult to see that Democrats operating independently – but with the same goal! – might defraud elections in multiple counties/states without also being controlled by some (to repeat the term I used before) Get Rid Of Trump No Matter What It Takes HQ in NYC or wherever?
Not necessarily. Keep in mind that our constitution was well formed to help prevent corruption, but it is a system that is not fool proof. It requires vigilance and user input.
Right now, our media is wholly corrupt. They do not provide quality information, but instead opinion that we should simply trust them on. That can’t stand.
Our judicial system has proven itself to be questionable and sometimes corrupt many times. Impeachment and voting judges out of their seats are remedies that only can be pursued by OUR will through our representatives.
We have to protect our constitution when our leaders and “rulers” fail to. It’s not over until it’s over. I’m just tired of having to argue with conservatives that corruption is ubiquitous in governments. What makes us so special? The constitution is only a part of the safeguard. We are the other part.
For the the eleventy fifth time: It’s not just Democrats who are making these rulings. Many of these judges are Republicans. As are many of the Governors and Secretaries of State.
Also, last time I checked, Bill Barr had not joined the Democratic Party.
As I sometimes put it, no great hand comes down from the sky to make sure that election officials are honest, etc.
So is John Roberts. What of it?
This is an appeal to authority that is not recognized by a number of your subscribers. People like to throw around it’s all party tribalism, but Republican voters have not been on the same page as Republican elites for at over a decade now.
@cm I’m not “waving Barr statements around,” I’m quoting him. The reason you can’t find Barr’s statement on video is because he made these comments to a print reporter from the Associated Press.
The Barr quotes have been all over the media for 24 hours. Rudy Giuliani and the Trump campaign put out a press release responding to his remarks (clearly they believe the Barr’s comments are legit):
If the quotes were made up or if Barr felt he was mis-quoted, Barr would have said something by now. He has not said a word. Because he said it. And he meant it.
Excellent point!
I have no fricking idea if there was fraud on the scale many believe there was. But I do know a few things:
If you’re on the Right and you have planted your flag in the NeverTrump or TrumpSkeptic camp and have made a veritable habit of aiming more fire at Trump supporters than Trump himself, then this is a time to tread lightly.
If you even want to entertain the idea of healing the rift now would be the time to change tactics. If you’re certain that everything was on the up-and-up then encourage the idea of a thorough investigation. Don’t be so damn dismissive or condescending. If you’re right then you make goodwill and you still get Biden in the White House.
Burying this, or rushing past it, will not make things better. Not for the party and not for the country.
OK, I just want to make sure I am understanding your point: you believe that Republican appointed judges –including judges appointed by Donald Trump– are part of this conspiracy too? And Brian Kemp and Doug Doucey and all the election officials in their states? They’re all in on it? Do I have that right?
Is everyone else on this thread on board with that?
Why do you seem to insist on claiming that it either must be some kind of centrally-organized-and-controlled conspiracy, or it doesn’t exist at all?
Sounds like you’re not on board with the very basic building blocks of our society — the rule of law. That you don’t believe anything unless it confirms your pre-selected narrative.
I have nothing else to say.
It’s not a damn conspiracy! You think anything corrupt requires conspiracy is you earning the term “idiot.” What is your issue? Go read a history book.
People with similar goals do not require a conspiracy to act in tandem. I did not conspire with 74M people to vote for Trump.
Or DID you???
Lol. Bullshit. Arbitrary changing of what a “tax” is is not rule of law. Blocking repeals of executive orders is not rule of law. Inventing wholesale definitions of commonly understood terms is not rule of law.