6 ms·

When one person you meet in a day is an asshole - you met an asshole. When every person you meet in a day is an asshole - you're the asshole. Right now - you'

When one person you meet in a day is an asshole - you met an asshole. When every person you meet in a day is an asshole - you're the asshole. Right now - you're the asshole. Every party involved, from the courts, to the (republican) GA government, to the media, to the pollworkers, to me, is telling you this was audited to hell and back, but you don't give a shit. Instead you post a video that was actually discussed in the call you're so concerned about, where the Secretary of state clearly says the edited version you posted was designed to make it look fishy, and after review of the full footage by auditors and the media, there wasn't anything there. You're not arguing in good faith. You're either ignorant or intentionally deceitful, and I want no more part of it.

djsumdog 6y ago
You are assuming my faith. That's honestly shitty. I'm not an asshole, I'm tied of misinformation. The courts are cowards. The 7th Circuit decided the case without testimony on merits, but claimed they had standing. The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the Texas case, and didn't hear the merits. They dismisses concerns from millions of people with three sentences. I wrote an entire post on this the day before the madness broke out. If you want a different perspective I suggest you read it: https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-human-mind/ https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h... I've lived in three countries, I've lived in left cities (Seattle and Chicago) for over six years, yet I grew up in the deep Red South. I'm an independent. The last time I voted was in 2008 and I wrote in "Mike Gravel" (D-Alaska) for president. I didn't vote in this election. I know I have biases, but I also really try hard to see all sides. I grew up next to republicans and I know many who are amazing people. I am sick of the fractures and selective memory I'm seeing right now. I also wrote about this in 2017. I think I called everything I've seen over the past four years: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-fallout-of-american-anger/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-fallout-of-american-a...
- horsawlarway 6y ago
  Funny how every time someone answers you with any sort of evidence, you don't bother responding to it in a later comment. Instead you move on to another "issue". Can we at least agree the video you posted above was doctored, and demonstrably false? Because otherwise I'm not assuming your faith at all. You put your deceit on clear display.
- jcranmer 6y ago
  > The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the Texas case, and didn't hear the merits. Texas had no standing. They couldn't have standing. They alleged that Pennsylvania law violated Pennsylvania constitution. The people who decide whether or not that statement is true is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which did decide that the alleged violation was not in fact a violation of the state constitution. Even federal courts, when they do hear allegations about state law, are required to give extreme deference to state supreme courts in their interpretation of the matter. Texas has no more right to question Pennsylvania's conduct under Pennsylvania legal rules than Iran has to question US conduct under US legal rules. To not dismiss the case would be to say that the rule of the law is literally less important than people's feelings. Do you really want to live in a country that does not care about the rule of the law?
  - djsumdog 6y ago
    Standing: If A violated the rights of B, person C watching it cannot sue on A's behalf. The Texas standing was always going to be an issue, yes. What right does Texas have to make PA enforce their own laws? PA can choose not to enforce their laws if they want. But Texas, and six other states, claimed this would have diluted their own votes for the Federal Government. I do not believe the standing issue here, because there is literally no other court for Texas to sue in. This wasn't really an issue of standing. It was an issue of cowardice.
    - jcranmer 6y ago
      > claimed this would have diluted their own votes for the Federal Government. Texas gets x votes of the 538 electoral votes. It gets that no matter how Pennsylvania chooses its electors; the number of electoral votes is fixed as a matter of reckoning by the census. So how can Texas's electoral votes possibly be diluted? It should also be noted that the legal theory of "vote dilution" is applied to a very narrow set of cases where one can bring suit, essentially only gerrymandering cases. It has never, to my knowledge, been applied to a case where it was claimed that an invalid or fraudulent vote causes vote dilution for everyone who casts their votes properly. I actually believe a few courts have considered that claim and expressly denied that claim, although that has not made it to the Supreme Court before. > there is literally no other court for Texas to sue in. This wasn't really an issue of standing. You've not-so-cleverly dodged the issue I brought up: the law does not give Texas any possible legal standing to sue Pennsylvania. Period. Full-stop. End-of-question. To demand that the court hear Texas's plea is to demand that the court violate the rule of the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that to have standing, you have to demonstrate a particular injury, which cannot be a generalized grievance. Texas did not, and cannot, demonstrate any injury. Hell, Texas compounds its error by complaining about other states undertaking the same actions it took itself (as the DC-et-al brief so kindly points out [1]), which is compounding the bad faith with which it filed its brief. Texas had no injury. It tried to BS its way to one, and its BS was called out as such in all the respondent brief, and Texas's reply brief basically amounted to "nuh-uh" without really attacking the gravamen of any reply. I agree with Tom Goldstein here that SCOTUS should have abandoned its practice of dismissing this kind of case with a one-sentence per curiam order and actually release the kind of dismissal opinion that is routine in all other courts laying out just why the case was never going to be heard. Texas doesn't have a right to sue PA for not following its own laws. That right is granted only to PA residents--and some residents did sue the PA government in this regard on the law in question, and that lawsuit already failed by the time Texas filed its suit, a fact you again choose to ignore. [1] Yes, I read every single brief in that case. So I know what the actual gravamen of Texas's claims were, and it was very clear from the first brief that Texas filed that the case was going to be dismissed with no dissent, as it was [2]. I may not be a lawyer, but what's going on here isn't exactly delving very deep into the weeds of specialized law: this is basic, Law 101 standing stuff. [2] Thomas and Alito noted that they dissented only insofar as they think the pseudo-cert motion for intra-state disputes must be heard. They would have still dismissed the case for the same reason as the other 7 justices, and they commented as much. This dissenting on grounds of pseudo-cert process not being constitutional was also 100% predicted, with the only question being if Barrett would agree with them here (she did not).

djsumdog 6y ago

You are assuming my faith. That's honestly shitty. I'm not an asshole, I'm tied of misinformation. The courts are cowards. The 7th Circuit decided the case without testimony on merits, but claimed they had standing. The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the Texas case, and didn't hear the merits. They dismisses concerns from millions of people with three sentences. I wrote an entire post on this the day before the madness broke out. If you want a different perspective I suggest you read it: https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-human-mind/ https://battlepenguin.com/philosophy/the-fracturing-of-the-h... I've lived in three countries, I've lived in left cities (Seattle and Chicago) for over six years, yet I grew up in the deep Red South. I'm an independent. The last time I voted was in 2008 and I wrote in "Mike Gravel" (D-Alaska) for president. I didn't vote in this election. I know I have biases, but I also really try hard to see all sides. I grew up next to republicans and I know many who are amazing people. I am sick of the fractures and selective memory I'm seeing right now. I also wrote about this in 2017. I think I called everything I've seen over the past four years: https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-fallout-of-american-anger/ https://battlepenguin.com/politics/the-fallout-of-american-a...

horsawlarway 6y ago
Funny how every time someone answers you with any sort of evidence, you don't bother responding to it in a later comment. Instead you move on to another "issue". Can we at least agree the video you posted above was doctored, and demonstrably false? Because otherwise I'm not assuming your faith at all. You put your deceit on clear display.
jcranmer 6y ago
> The SCOTUS claimed there was no standing in the Texas case, and didn't hear the merits. Texas had no standing. They couldn't have standing. They alleged that Pennsylvania law violated Pennsylvania constitution. The people who decide whether or not that statement is true is the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which did decide that the alleged violation was not in fact a violation of the state constitution. Even federal courts, when they do hear allegations about state law, are required to give extreme deference to state supreme courts in their interpretation of the matter. Texas has no more right to question Pennsylvania's conduct under Pennsylvania legal rules than Iran has to question US conduct under US legal rules. To not dismiss the case would be to say that the rule of the law is literally less important than people's feelings. Do you really want to live in a country that does not care about the rule of the law?
- djsumdog 6y ago
  Standing: If A violated the rights of B, person C watching it cannot sue on A's behalf. The Texas standing was always going to be an issue, yes. What right does Texas have to make PA enforce their own laws? PA can choose not to enforce their laws if they want. But Texas, and six other states, claimed this would have diluted their own votes for the Federal Government. I do not believe the standing issue here, because there is literally no other court for Texas to sue in. This wasn't really an issue of standing. It was an issue of cowardice.
  - jcranmer 6y ago
    > claimed this would have diluted their own votes for the Federal Government. Texas gets x votes of the 538 electoral votes. It gets that no matter how Pennsylvania chooses its electors; the number of electoral votes is fixed as a matter of reckoning by the census. So how can Texas's electoral votes possibly be diluted? It should also be noted that the legal theory of "vote dilution" is applied to a very narrow set of cases where one can bring suit, essentially only gerrymandering cases. It has never, to my knowledge, been applied to a case where it was claimed that an invalid or fraudulent vote causes vote dilution for everyone who casts their votes properly. I actually believe a few courts have considered that claim and expressly denied that claim, although that has not made it to the Supreme Court before. > there is literally no other court for Texas to sue in. This wasn't really an issue of standing. You've not-so-cleverly dodged the issue I brought up: the law does not give Texas any possible legal standing to sue Pennsylvania. Period. Full-stop. End-of-question. To demand that the court hear Texas's plea is to demand that the court violate the rule of the law. The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that to have standing, you have to demonstrate a particular injury, which cannot be a generalized grievance. Texas did not, and cannot, demonstrate any injury. Hell, Texas compounds its error by complaining about other states undertaking the same actions it took itself (as the DC-et-al brief so kindly points out [1]), which is compounding the bad faith with which it filed its brief. Texas had no injury. It tried to BS its way to one, and its BS was called out as such in all the respondent brief, and Texas's reply brief basically amounted to "nuh-uh" without really attacking the gravamen of any reply. I agree with Tom Goldstein here that SCOTUS should have abandoned its practice of dismissing this kind of case with a one-sentence per curiam order and actually release the kind of dismissal opinion that is routine in all other courts laying out just why the case was never going to be heard. Texas doesn't have a right to sue PA for not following its own laws. That right is granted only to PA residents--and some residents did sue the PA government in this regard on the law in question, and that lawsuit already failed by the time Texas filed its suit, a fact you again choose to ignore. [1] Yes, I read every single brief in that case. So I know what the actual gravamen of Texas's claims were, and it was very clear from the first brief that Texas filed that the case was going to be dismissed with no dissent, as it was [2]. I may not be a lawyer, but what's going on here isn't exactly delving very deep into the weeds of specialized law: this is basic, Law 101 standing stuff. [2] Thomas and Alito noted that they dissented only insofar as they think the pseudo-cert motion for intra-state disputes must be heard. They would have still dismissed the case for the same reason as the other 7 justices, and they commented as much. This dissenting on grounds of pseudo-cert process not being constitutional was also 100% predicted, with the only question being if Barrett would agree with them here (she did not).