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
“Conspiracy!” You don’t have to use the word conspiracy, you can call it gravy train. Or you can simply call it going along to get along.
And for people like Doug Doucey and Brian Kemp, well we know that China has been funding Dominion to the tune of $400,000,000, and Zuckerberg has been funding the GA recount to the same level. It is not unthinkable that Kemp really did take money and/or electoral favors in exchange for promoting the Dominion system in his state.
It doesn’t take wild-eyed “conspiracy theory” thinking to see that money (and the promise of votes) buys a lot of compliance.
Bears repeating.
The Deep State now also includes Trump judicial nominee to the 3rd circuit of the federal court of appeals and Bill Barr, the Attorney General nominated by Trump.
Also, Trump appointed the US Attorneys in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Georgia and Nevada.
Even Trump’s appointed US Attorneys are in on the Deep State conspiracy.
Oh, no!
Edited to add: The mutinous crew points the finger at the captain when they run the ship aground.
I’m not clear on what you are advocating. When you say “entire election” are you saying that Pennsylvania’s electoral votes shouldn’t be counted? Or are you saying that the whole election nationwide should be thrown out?
Closer to the former… I’m wondering if that’s an accurate characterization though.
However, I don’t think the former should be outside the realm of consideration.
I have seen many sources from varied political postures in the past recognize the inherent fraud opportunities introduced by allowing anything beyond exceptional conditions for absentee mail in voting. Democrats have routinely attacked requiring in-person voting and voter ID as voter suppression, which is an invalid premise. Covid-19 presented the ideal situation to do mail in voting and it has been done in ways promoting wide scale fraud. There are a number of specific actions and statistical indicators that suggest an organized fraudulent effort behind the the 2020 election in several swing states. Rudy Giuliani’s team has put together evidence to demonstrate factually all of what I just wrote. This evidence is enough to rule this election invalid insofar as the national office of POTUS is concerned. Such action by the Supreme Court will yield a valid constitutional election conducted by the Congress.
It would be wrong to toss out an election in which 150 million people voted based on crackpot theories and unsubstantiated claims put forth in non-hearing hearings.
I hesitate to keep wading into this, and I don’t think any of this will get far enough in the Courts for this to really come up – but, unless the electoral college procedures are defective, I don’t believe there is any provision in the Constitution that gives the Supreme Court the power to just rule the election invalid and send the question to congress. And even if there is a problem with the electoral college, it is at least arguable whether the Supreme Court has any power to do anything about it.
More time needed to investigate? Not much anyone can do about that. The Court has no explicit power (and probably no implicit power) to stop the Electoral College from meeting and voting, no power to delay the inauguration, no power to order that Trump’s term be extended. None of that will happen. Congress can only weigh in if there’s no EC majority.
Compromises have occasionally been necessary to avoid Constitutional crises. The best Trump can hope for, at this point, is to sow enough chaos to generate enough pressure for some kind of crisis like that. Which would be a monstrously unpatriotic thing to do and would be far worse for the conservative side than just dealing with a Biden presidency for 4 years and using all this mess to reform election laws across the country.
We are in the “my dog ate my evidence of election fraud” stage of the post-election drama.
Just as some students in Junior High School would say to their teachers, “My dog ate my book report,” and ask for more time, it looks like Trump’s dead enders are making similar excuses. They can’t admit that Trump lost. They can’t deliver the goods in a court of law.
Obviously, to expect such a Supreme Court ruling is a stretch. I don’t really know how to put any limit on the range of issues they might address as long as it is based on the Constitution. It seems to me, if the facts are what has been alleged, the SC could refer to the Guarantee Clause (The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government) if they conclude widespread fraud denying republican form of government to the people has occurred. I must conclude that you do not accept as true all the sworn affidavits provided by Giuliani’s which would mean they have been soliciting and suborning perjury.
Is it your position that Rudy Giuliani has solicited perjury and suborned perjury?
@bobthompson,
If Giuliani has a ton of sworn testimony, why is he not presenting this evidence in any of the court cases to date?
Consider the possibility that someone speaking into a microphone isn’t equivalent to saying something in a courtroom to a state or federal judge. Also, just because someone swears to have seen something doesn’t mean they actually did see something.
Eyewitness testimony isn’t taken to be 100 percent reliable in courts of law.
Think of Christine Blasey Ford’s accusations of being sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh. Lots of other “evidence” came flying in once the opportunity to defeat a US Supreme Court nominee presented itself.
People lie and people can be mistaken.
Two separate issues here. First, my point about the limits of the Supreme Court’s power to just declare the election void are not dependent on what I think of the facts or the merits of the case. Even if everything alleged is true, if the EC comes to a majority decision, that’s the ballgame. The truth or falsity of the affidavits can’t impact that. I suppose they could convince a state legislature to disregard their election and use some other method to select electors – but that would have to happen before the EC votes. And I do not agree that the republican guarantee clause would help in this case. None of these states have installed a monarchy.
Secondly, you are right that I do not accept as true all the sworn affidavits. I haven’t seen them all, or even a small fraction of them if there are truly thousands of them. How could I judge their truth? I deal a lot in my line of work with sworn statements. It’s a mixed bag. People do lie in them. People are often honestly mistaken about them – even when they are dead certain of what they witnessed. Others are very credible and true. That’s why we have trials to sort all that out.
So, I have no reason to think Guiliani is suborning perjury. It’s possible, but there’s no evidence of it. He would have to know the falsity of the testimony he puts forward in order to suborn perjury. Not being guilty of suborning perjury doesn’t mean the testimony is accurate. In every legal case that was ever decided on the merits – the losing side had sworn testimony that turned out to be wrong, false, unpersuasive, irrelevant, or insufficient. This will be no different regardless of which side prevails.
Of course, there’s also “equal protection.” The Dims push through a lot of their agenda using “equal protection” claims. (Even when it doesn’t really apply.) And last I heard, “turnabout is fair play.”
It doesn’t need to go that far. That large numbers of voters were disenfranchised could be enough. The SC decides these things and I don’t know that there is a limitation beyond what they get from their Constitutional interpretation.
One could imagine a US Supreme Court ruling that the election was a mess and, thus, Donald Trump is the winner of the 2020 presidential election or that a new election should be held.
But Supreme Court justices who are committed to the US Constitution would not likely want to engage in such a overt power grab.
Constitutionalist justices are more likely to defer to the lower courts and state legislatures/Governors/Secretaries of State.
Also, there is a significant difference between Bush prevailing at the US Supreme Court in 2000 and the possibility that Trump could prevail in 2020 based on a US Supreme Court.
In 2000 in Florida, Bush lead after the initial vote count. The Florida Secretary of State certified the election in Florida as a victory for George W. Bush. Gore’s legal team sought one recount after another in an attempt to find enough votes for Gore to put Gore over the top. The US Supreme Court eventually put an end to the recounts. Since Bush was ahead, Bush simply retained Florida’s electors and won the electoral college.
What Trump’s legal team appears to hope for is something more significant, the US Supreme Court un-certifying the electors in more than one state, before the electoral college votes on December 14, 9 days from now.
That ain’t gonna happen.
I disagree. Bar is not dumb. He knew exactly how his statement was going to be misused and it was phrased so it could be easily mischaracterized. The way he phrased it was so the media could restate the second point. Plus what investigation of fraud? What % of affidavits has the DOJ or FBI even investigated? Almost none.
Trump being a moron about how to get anything done with actual politics in a republic and not carrying about details. Never put a team together in the DOJ that actual cared about corruption and the truth. His drain the swamp was all rhetoric he never had the knowledge or skills to due anything about it. That is all this goes to prove. Now the Republican party is mostly to blame for have such a weak bench of Lawyer to even be able to due this
How much you want to bet Bar warned Trump about some of this stuff, but Trump was to busy of basking in everyone praise on the campaign trail and playing Golf, he actually did not want to due real work and change things.
The thing is, even if the Supreme Court made the unlikely decision to throw out Pennsylvania’s electors, Biden still has more than the necessary 270 votes, so that doesn’t affect the outcome. If the Supreme Court made the extraordinarily unlikely decision to throw out the electors from several contended states and Biden didn’t have 270 electoral votes, then the House of Representatives decides. Since the current house has a Democratic majority (by 20 seats, I think) there’s no way that they would elect Donald Trump.
So all these hearings and investigations may yield fruit in the form of reformed processes in future elections, but we are looking at inaugurating Joe Biden next year no matter what.
My understanding is that in a House vote for that purpose, each state gets ONE vote. Not their number of House seats.
I agree in part and disagree in part.
If the election is tossed into the US House of Representatives, each state gets one vote, regardless of how many members of the US House each state has.
So, in that case, given that Wyoming would have 1 vote and California would have 1 vote, Trump would win.
If the election goes to the House, it is not done on a straight one-for-one member vote, it is done by one vote per state delegation and the Republicans have a majority in a majority of states, I think at least 29 states. And the new Congress would make that vote and Republicans gained seats. That would be good for Trump.
@randyweivoda,
What I am interested in is this scenario:
On December 14, about 306 electors vote for Biden and about 232 electors vote for Trump, plus or minus a few faithless electors.
But then on January 6, 2021, the US Congress counts the electoral votes.
Congressman Mo Brooks, a Republican from Alabama, has said he will refuse to accept Biden’s electors from at least one state. This would not matter at all if there is no US Senator who so refuses. But what if, say, Tom Cotton or Ted Cruz also refuses to accept Biden’s electors from Pennsylvania or Georgia?
Well, in 2004 we had a scenario like that. Several members of the Congressional Black Caucus refused to accept Bush’s Ohio electors. And in the Senate, Barbara Boxer from California also refused. So, they debated and voted. The vote in the Senate was something like 77 to 1 to accept the Bush electors (Boxer being the only NO vote) and a similarly lopsided vote in the House.
John Thune, part of the Senate GOP leadership, has said in response to a question on this that he does not envision any US Senator objecting to any of the electors from any state.
We’ll see.
I see. Thank you for the correction.
The interesting thing would be in the Senate where they select the Vice-President, one vote per Senator. If Republicans hold their majority, no problem. But if it is a 50/50 split, does Pence decide?
I think Pence would decide because he would still be Vice President on January 6, 2021.
CONSPIRACY THEORY ALERT
More seriously though, on this site a 2017 article on The Hammer computer program, said that scores of government officials phone calls were recorded, computers, e-mail accounts and bank accounts, etc., were broken into.
Specifically,
“The tapes also reveal that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance court (FISA), Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, 156 other judges, members of Congress, and Donald J. Trump were targeted by the HAMMER.”
Also, Dennis Montgomery, the Hammer’s designer and builder, in an audio interview, was asked what difference does it make, what harm can be done, simply by hacking into peoples private social media and bank accounts? And Mr. Montgomery responded, essentially, “What if he cheated on his income taxes? Will he want me to call the IRS and have them come down on him? What if he had money in an off-shore account? I could even download child pornography into his computer and threaten to go to the police. How would he like me to call the police on him? Who’d believe him?”
Recall if you will that Sharyl Attkisson wrote that several years ago when her computers were compromised and would turn on and operate under the control of unknown others, she had her computer’s security analyzed and she was told that top secret documents were found to be down loaded into and hidden in her computer; and normal computer logs were altered to not show that anyone was in her computer. This activity is exactly what the Hammer program was purported to have been able to do, and in fact had been designed to do.
This is why judges have been unwilling to rule.
(Parenthetically, the article also said: “One of the audio tapes made public by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow revealed that Brennan and Clapper particularly targeted and wiretapped Donald Trump a “zillion times.” ”)
There’s no question about the sky being blue, either.
This is the biggest lie I’ve read in a decade.
Of course we’ll hear more from Blue Yeti. Own it, please, Sad/Blue Yeti. Own your sayings. Roll around in them, like Scrooge McDuck in his vault filled with millions of coins, except in your case, it’ll be a vault filled with condescension.
One of my supervisors used to introduce his spouse as “My first wife.” He thought it was funny because it confused people (he’s been married to her for 30+ years).