PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Lucifer on November 11, 2020, 02:03:44 PM
-
In all of the confusion I had forgot it was Joe Biden who thrust the knife into Clarence Thomas during his confirmation.
This is going to get interesting.
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/11/the-revenge-of-clarence-thomas-bush-v-gore-and-the-facts-underlying-the-new-pennsylvania-lawsuit-n278286
In the coming days, we will learn whether the Supreme Court will consider the merits of a Petition filed by the Republican Party of Pennsylvania to overturn a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision that extended by three days the time within which mailed-in ballots in Pennsylvania could be received and counted as validly cast, among other things. The Trump campaign has sought to “intervene” in this case as a “party” by adopting the arguments made by the Petitioners.
On Monday, the Trump Campaign and two Pennsylvania voters filed a new lawsuit alleging that the ballot handling processes by which mailed-in ballots were received, pre-canvassed, and canvassed, violated the constitutional rights of Pennsylvania voters in having a fair and accurate tabulation of votes.
The left-wing pundit class of “experts” on election law have waved off these lawsuits as having no chance of success, which is now a narrative that 99% of the media has run with But this is all part of the same plan to convince Americans that Trump has lost the election, that a Biden Presidency is inevitable, and that the legal efforts underway are all part of an effort by Trump to remain in office — which is something the media began trying to condition the public to be suspicious of months before the election.
I happened to not be a believer in grand conspiracies. I have a practical point of view that once an agreement to do something nefarious extends beyond 5-6 people, the chances of the agreement remaining clandestine are practically zero. Somebody says something they shouldn’t have said, someone is overheard making an incriminating statement, an email gets inadvertently forwarded to someone not involved, a participant changes their mind, etc. But that is something different than an entire class of individuals sharing a common goal in mind, and repeatedly acting and speaking in ways intended to bring that goal to fruition — especially when there are inconsistent “facts” against them. “Ignore the inconsistent facts, and keep bleating the mantra of inevitability” is the game plan. The lawsuits are inconsistent facts so wave them off and don’t let them take root in the public consciousness.
But they are going to take root because the allegations are going to be pursued through a litigation process that will produce courtroom testimony under oath, and legal opinions that include statements of fact.
But those are stories yet to come. For now, let’s take a look back in cursory fashion at the ACTUAL outcome of Bush v. Gore — as opposed to the media narrative of what happened in Bush v. Gore. Please Tweet this story to Joy Reid, as I understand she is a bit confused.
Bush v. Gore began as an election challenge in one County in Florida, and it initially began as a question over whether there were uncounted “undervotes” that might change the outcome of the statewide vote in Florida. Within just a couple weeks of the end of voting, and on a dramatically expedited basis which was necessary when the outcome of an election was in doubt, a trial was held in a Florida Circuit Court the outcome of which was that there were “undervotes” in the “punch-card” ballots used by Florida counties where no vote for President had been recorded by the voter. The trial produced evidence that some of the ballots recorded by the tabulating machines as “undervotes” did, nevertheless, have indications that the voter “intended” to vote for a particular candidate. But the voter had not sufficiently “punched-out” the paper “chad” such that the tabulating machine would read the ballot as having a vote. The Circuit Court judge ordered that there be a recount of the “undervotes” in order to determine whether ballots that had been recorded as “undervotes” did have evidence of intent by the voter to cast a vote for a particular candidate. The Florida Supreme Court eventually heard the matter and ordered a statewide recount of all “undervotes” to determine if the “intent” of the voter could be discerned from reviewing each such ballot and treating each one accordingly.
The United States Supreme Court halted the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, and there were two opinions written in the case that are of significance.
Seven Justices found that the absence of any “standards” for conducting a statewide recount as ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Without consistent standards to guide the recount process, there was no way to assure that individual voters in different counties would have their ballots reviewed, evaluated, and accepted/rejected in a manner that assured their right to equal participation in the election process.
Of those seven, five Justices agreed that there was no practical way for that defect to be remedied by the time the case was before the Court, and overturned the Florida Supreme Court’s order that a recount take place.
Justices Souter and Breyer were the two who agreed that the manner in which the recount was ordered was unconstitutional, but they would have sent the matter back to the Florida courts to correct the deficiency — if possible within the timeframe available prior to the meeting of the Electoral College.
Only two Justices — Ginsberg and Stevens — would have allowed the recount to proceed in the manner ordered by the Florida Supreme Court.
The “majority” opinion was issued “Per Curiam”, which means “by the Court”. As such, no individual Justice signed the opinion as the author. The finding of an equal protection violation, and halting the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was decided by CJ Rehnquist, and Justices Scalia, Thomas, O’Connor, and Kennedy.
A subject for a subsequent article will be how the decision reflected in the Per Curiam opinion will be used by the Plaintiffs — including the two individual Pennsylvania voters — in the lawsuit filed this past Monday challenging the actions of Secretary of the Commonwealth Boockvar, and seven County Boards of Elections in Counties that voted heavily in favor of Joe Biden. Contrary to the left-wing pundits, this action has a substantial likelihood of being favorably resolved in favor of the Trump campaign.– and the individual voters who are named Plaintiffs.
The second consequential decision in Bush v. Gore was the concurring opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, in which he addressed the implications of Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 2 of the Constitution on the actions of the Florida Supreme Court. That provision of the Constitution states that Presidential electors shall be selected in the manner determined by the “legislature” of each state.
The left-wing legal pundits have long treated the Rehnquist concurrence dismissively because only two of the other eight members of the Court joined the Chief Justice in his “textualist” approach to the meaning of “legislature” in Cl.2. On that same basis, they are treating the Petition to invalidate the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s order that extended the ballot-receipt deadline — which raises the argument made by Chief Justice Rehnquist in concurrence — with similar dismissiveness. I’ll go into more detail in a subsequent story looking at the legal issues involved in his textualist approach.
But, what is important to know now is that Justice Thomas was one of the two Justices who joined Chief Justice Rehnquist’s concurrence. Further, the “textualist” view of Constitutional law has gained much ground in the judiciary since 2000. Justices Gorsuch and Barrett are clearly “textualists” in their approach to statutory and constitutional interpretation, and while not quite as clearly defined, Justice Kavanaugh has already written that he has significant issues with what the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did.
If Chief Justice Roberts lines up with the three liberals, and there is a 5-4 vote to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision, the senior Justice in the majority determines who writes the Court’s Opinion. That would be Justice Thomas, and it is my prediction that in that event he would choose to write the opinion himself.
That is the reason for the headline above — the “Revenge of Clarence Thomas” on Joe Biden
-
There’s already a meme for it.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201111/d7bb1d5320434297f023d96889bfcfbd.jpg)
-
The problem is, conservative judges tend to rule according to the law. Liberals rule according to what "feels" right to them.
-
In all of the confusion I had forgot it was Joe Biden who thrust the knife into Clarence Thomas during his confirmation.
This is going to get interesting.
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/11/the-revenge-of-clarence-thomas-bush-v-gore-and-the-facts-underlying-the-new-pennsylvania-lawsuit-n278286
Do we know yet how many ballots would be affected by this lawsuit?
-
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20201112/5aa9f41bce0ccf990be5d3b41d19360d.jpg)
-
Do we know yet how many ballots would be affected by this lawsuit?
Nope. However, if PA has to only count legal votes (those that arrive before the 8pm deadline as per PA law, and those that weren't cast fraudulently)) then Trump will likely win by 500,000 if not more.
-
Nope. However, if PA has to only count legal votes (those that arrive before the 8pm deadline as per PA law, and those that weren't cast fraudulently)) then Trump will likely win by 500,000 if not more.
What is the source for that number?
-
PA claims they never counted the segregated votes.
-
What is the source for that number?
From approx 8pm Tues to 4 am Weds Trump had a 600,000 lead, then after a stop Weds at approx 4am, to the restart the lead mysteriously vanished very quickly.
Watching the vote counts of the votes coming in after the 8pm legal deadline has also diluted the total, not to mention the vote dumping and the dead people voting.
But we shall see. Once the state is done counting then the canvassing can begin. There's going to be huge problems with the mail in ballots, the dead vote, signature matching, etc. And if the plaintiff's prevail in the lawsuit, it should eliminate all of the illegal votes after 8pm Tuesday.
You do want all legal votes correctly counted, correct?
-
PA claims they never counted the segregated votes.
PA is now a soup sandwich with their dismal handling of this election. They will be canvassed, which will begin showing voting irregularities (provided they don't kick the monitors out of the room).
If it appears to be as screwed up as it's looking now, the legislature may have to step in an invalidate the election for PA. Or the SC may rule all votes after 8pm Tues null and void, and then when you add in the ballot dumps and dead vote, plus all of the screwed up mail votes, the numbers will change dramatically.
Right now I'm betting on an election invalidation.
-
https://redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/11/13/naacp-motion-to-intervene-in-pa-lawsuit-presents-evidence-that-state-county-officials-violated-pa-election-laws-n279084
On November 10, 2020, the NAACP, joined by Common Cause, the Pennsylvania League of Women Voters, and several other Democrat Party interest groups, filed a Motion to Intervene and filed a responsive brief in the new lawsuit brought by the Trump Campaign against Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth, and seven Pennsylvania County Boards of Elections with regard to their handling of mail-in ballots as part of the Nov. 3, 2020 Presidential Election.
At issue is what happened with respect to mail-in ballots that were found to be defective in one of a few different ways — a defect which caused the mail-in ballot to be rejected and void.
Among the problems that would void a ballot was if the ballot itself was not enclosed in an inner “security-sleave” within the ballot envelope. The mail-in ballot would also be rejected if the voter did not sign and date the “declaration” printed on the ballot envelope prior to mailing it to the Board of Elections.
“Pre-canvassing” of mail-in ballots is defined in in the Pennsylvania election law as allowing ballot envelopes to be opened, the ballot removed, and the votes tabulated. The difference between “pre-canvassing” and “canvassing” is that the Election Board may not make any public announcement of the results of pre-canvassing.
By statute in Pennsylvania, “pre-canvassing cannot begin prior to 7:00 am on election day. Title 25 P.S. Sec. 3146.8(g)(1.1) states:
The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o’clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting. A county board of elections shall provide at least forty-eight hours’ notice of a pre-canvass meeting by publicly posting a notice of a pre-canvass meeting on its publicly accessible Internet website. One authorized representative of each candidate in an election and one representative from each political party shall be permitted to remain in the room in which the absentee ballots and mail-in ballots are pre-canvassed. No person observing, attending or participating in a pre-canvass meeting may disclose the results of any portion of any pre-canvass meeting prior to the close of the polls.
The complaint filed by the Trump Campaign alleges that County Boards of Election pre-canvassed ballots prior to 7:00 am on election day. In doing so they were able to identify voters whose ballots were defective and would be rejected. Elections officials then then disclosed that information to voters and others which resulted in the voter being allowed to cast a provisional ballot on election day.
The motion to intervene filed by the NAACP and others confirms with testimonials from voters that this illegal conduct did take place.
Joseph Ayeni is a seventy-seven year old African American voter whose ballot was rejected for failure to include a secrecy envelope…. He was called on Election Day by election officials about this problem and cast a provisional ballot that day…
….
Meril Lara is a twenty-six year old Hispanic Philadelphia County voter who voted provisionally after receiving an email notification from election officials that her ballot was rejected for failure to include a secrecy envelope….
Ricardo Morales is a forty-eight year old Hispanic Philadelphia County voter whose mail-in ballot was cancelled or rejected, likely due to a signature error…. His full, Hispanic name has 4 names but he signed using the anglicized version, which has only two names…. SEIU texted him to let him know his ballot had been rejected on Election Day (he is a member of the American Federation of Musicians), so he voted provisionally….
Natalie Price is a seventy-three year old Montgomery County voter who votes in every election and who voted by mail-in ballot in order to avoid exposure to COVID-19, which she is at high risk for due to her age…. Ms. Price received her mail-in ballot several weeks ago and returned it right away, even making sure that a postal worker time-stamped it….. On November 1st and 2nd, Ms. Price received three calls from the Democratic Party informing her that her ballot had been rejected (though they weren’t sure why)….. The first site Ms. Price visited in Norristown to attempt to cure her ballot was drop-off only; she went to a second site where she learned that her ballot had been marked as defective because she did not hand-write her name and address on the ballot…. Ms. Price was not aware that she needed to hand-write her name and address in non-cursive print because that information was preprinted on the envelope and it seemed redundant to write it again…. Her ballot was signed, dated, and otherwise complied with all other ballot instructions…. Ms. Price would be devastated if her vote were thrown out, especially after she drove to a different town in the pouring rain to cure her ballot….
….
Taylor Stover is a twenty-six year old African American Philadelphia County voter whose ballot was rejected due to a problem with her signature…. She voted provisionally on Election Day because she says “[t]his is the most consequential election that I have experienced and I want my ballot to count.”
The declarations of the individuals identified show that officials in Philadelphia County and Montgomery County released information about pre-canvassing information — that ballots were being rejected, including the names of the voters involved — to third parties, and did so after illegally pre-canvassing ballots prior to 7:00 am on election day. Ms. Price declares that she received three calls from the Democrat Party on November 1 and 2 telling her that her ballot was being rejected.
Mr. Morales said he was advised by his union that his ballot had been rejected. Others said they were advised by unnamed “election officials” that their ballots were being rejected.
These declarations establish as a factual matter that the allegations of the complaint are true — the remaining question is simply how extensive were these violations? That is a question that can only be answered through discovery.
The seven County Boards are going to be forced to produce information about the number of ballots that were rejected, the reasons for the rejection, and the rate of rejection in terms of the total number of mail-in ballots received. That rejection rate is then going to be compared to the rejection rates of counties all across Pennsylvania. If the rejection rate is substantially lower in the seven counties named as defendants, the election officials in those counties are going to have to explain their application of the election laws in rejecting ballots.