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.
The Big Lie
In recent interviews, Liz Cheney has been calling President Trump’s insistence that the 2020 election was stolen “The Big Lie.” And over the weekend the mainstream media has been beside themselves over the forensic audit underway in Arizona. Today, President Trump decided to take those words and shove them back in the faces of spineless Republicans like her, Kevin McCarthy, and others by issuing the following statement:
Of course, Cheney doubled down on her assertions, and – much like every other Republican leader – has refused to actually debate the mountains of evidence most of us recognized immediately and have been daring others to examine ever since. One person who’s been front and center in all of this is Jenna Ellis, the president’s attorney who threw down a gauntlet of her own:
I love this, all of it. It reminds me that there are still a few people out there willing to have it out with the weak-kneed gatekeepers who care almost nothing about truth and even less about consequences. Will Cheney or any of the other media sycophants have the courage to debate any of our best and brightest on actual facts? Will conservative media outlets like Ricochet be willing to provide a forum?
This isn’t going away now, matter how much the hand-wringing NeverTrumpers want it to. I (and others like me) won’t sit quietly while these people desecrate our country and its laws. It’s beyond time to take a side on who is lying to whom. I stand with the president – not the usurper sitting in his chair, but the real one, who’s willing to call out a lie when he sees it, even if everyone else is afraid to.
Published in General
I did indeed. Lots of us Antifa guys sit around discussing original jurisdiction in the Supreme Court and why you can’t overturn another state’s elections. That and the administrative state really gets us going.
You mentioned anti-fa, not me.
What. You’re not a lawyer?
So you’d rather be on the side of Roberts and Kagan over Thomas and Alito. Noted. Conservative thinker indeed.
Yea they said they should hear the case- that’s what I said they should have done- and not grant any other relief- also what I said.
Thomas and Alito also likely thought that Texas had no standing. The only disagreement was about the point at which the Court should toss it. The majority would deny permission to even file the complaint, given the obvious standing problem. Thomas and Alito said, no, we have to let them file the complaint, and then we can dismiss for lack of standing.
This is conjecture on your part, and I recognize that you covered it with use of the word “likely.” Alito’s statement was ambiguous, perhaps intentionally so.
There you go.
Haha! Good one
What does “in the class” mean, in math or statistics?
Maybe he meant +-3dB. :-)
“The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the ‘Manner’ of federal elections. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, non-legislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example…The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority non-legislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable…One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.”
Yeah, Thomas sure sounds like a guy who had no intention of hearing these cases.
It is a little speculative on my part, I admit. But given the procedural posture – it was before the court on a motion for leave to file a complaint- the fact that they made no argument supporting standing, and said they would grant no other relief after allowing the filing of the complaint, I’m fairly confident in my take on it. I admit it’s a cheap confidence, as we’ll likely never know for sure.
That’s not from the Texas case. None of that meant that Texas had standing it it’s case. I didn’t say anything about what Thomas thought of PA’s handling of the election.
Also, none of that means Trump won PA. If they thought the wrong guy won, the PA legislature could have, consistent with the Const. and electoral vote counting statutes, sent an alternate slate of electors. Trump pushed them to do that. They refused.
The Texas case was all about PA and all of these issues. This dissent shows Thomas was clearly itching to deal with all of these cases since before and after the election. Every dissent he’s made has consistently expressed this.
There were plenty of PA officials crying foul about the suspect vote count but I’m not concerned about that at this point. I’m only concerned with verifying facts, seeing the actual ballots Biden says he won, and examining the machines that counted them.
Hilarious argument here.
That is the only case that Trump actually had anything approaching an argument. And guess what I agree. Those absentee ballots should not have been allowed and SCOTUS should have heard that case as Thomas was arguing and should have forbidden those ballots from being accepted.
Now here’s the hard part for Trumpists. Those ballots didn’t come close to deciding the electoral margin.
Secondly, that does not give TEXAS the right to sue PA to overturn its election. Which is why Thomas and Alito argued that the case should have been accepted under original jurisdiction but as they say in their opinion they would not have given any other relief.
How do you know that? The contested states in total only had a 48,000 difference.
Fair enough, but the court was right to dismiss the Texas case for lack of standing, and I think Thomas and Alito would have done the same had the court allowed the complaint to be filed. That’s not on the merits of the case, but it’s still the right thing for the Court to do.
It would be interesting to see the results of that, but my guess is the outcome would be the same. Trump’s probably better off leaving it a mystery.
As I said above, the meaning of Alito’s words are open for debate, as the subsequent debate about their meaning indicates. I was happy to receive at least a mild concession on that point from another poster who’s followed this issue. Making blanket statements about ambiguities isn’t a good look.
Less than 10,000 votes in PA came in after the three day cut off. All should have been binned before I’m called a leftist again. But nowhere near enough to change the outcome
So you are strictly talking about only late tabulated votes in all of the states? Is that right?
Alito’s words: “In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction … I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.” My emphasis.
The case was about the votes that came in three days after Election Day. That’s what I’m talking about, which is what the Thomas opinion refers to.
Yes, you made that clear. I stand by my comment that there is debate about what he specifically meant, as there is about why he labeled his comments a “statement” rather than a “dissent.” I’m not saying you’re wrong; I’m saying you’re wrong to think it’s definitive. You can look it up.
Fair enough.
Just for the record, I don’t think this is the argument the GOP should be making. Four states really screwed up by not dealing with Zuckerberg and the lawfare. Theoretically, the legislatures could overturn their own results, but I don’t blame them for not doing it. That is what Trump and everybody should be talking about.
Okay, fair enough. But if you made a habeas corpus petition to a federal court and it was turned down for procedural reasons and in a dissent a judge said he would hear your case but not grant you relief, you’d be pretty sure you weren’t going to win.
And “other relief” in that context would seem to be limited only to an injunction, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that they wouldn’t have possibly concluded that there was illegality/fraud, or that it might be sufficient to do something afterward.
This isn’t as strong a point as you think it is. If Alito is referring to the fact that he wouldn’t grant an injunction, hardly leaves one with the impression that he thinks there’s much of a case. Also, as the other poster pointed out, if the bill of complaint was accepted, we don’t even know if Alito and Thomas would have found Texas had standing. Whatever about Alito, there’s little in Thomas’s history to suggest he thinks the Texas AG has standing to sue PA for its internal election laws.
Alito, Thomas and even Roberts- who wrote the dissent- all dissented in Massachusetts v. EPA, which allowed Massachusetts to sue the EPA based on future harm that might come from their actions. Justice Stevens wrote that god awful opinion and thankfully the Court didn’t follow it this time.
The case about Zuckerberg and the Democrat law fair is more sensible even though nothing could be done about it except the legislatures just throwing out the results. Zuckerberg and the Democrats completely capitalized on COVID-19. I don’t think Zuckerberg did anything until the middle of September. The GOP was warned about the Democrat law fair but nobody saw Zuckerberg coming. He literally doubled the election budget and then skewed the whole thing towards the Democrats in the key states. He even hired Democrat operatives as government employees. Perfectly legal and obviously wrong. You can’t have private people renting the government.