5 ms·

> Every single case was dismissed on procedural grounds. So, the procedures should have been followed. This is such a simple thing to say, and easy to underst

> Every single case was dismissed on procedural grounds. So, the procedures should have been followed. This is such a simple thing to say, and easy to understand. Except you seem to not accept that. Why not? And the Supreme Court case, they said, even if they'd listened to the case, there would have been no remedy. Meaning, it would have been pointless to listen, but they think by law they should have listened. This says to me that the people filing these cases do not understand the procedures, do not understand the possible remedies, were not acting in good faith. Why doesn't it say that to you?

disgrunt 6y ago
Maybe there isn't actually a procedure for this situation? If the highest court in the land says even if the claims turn out to be true there is still no remedy to be had. In other words, even if the election was provably stolen, they won't overturn the result. So what procedure should have been followed? You're accusing attorneys of not acting in good faith or sheer incompetence for not having a firm understanding of an entirely novel legal scenario. The Texas case was, according to reports, hotly debated in private by SCOTUS before they made their decision. Shame you weren't there to educate them on proper procedure.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  Yes, I am accusing attorneys of not acting in good faith. One of them literally called for the execution of the Vice President of the United States. [1] Another called for "trial by combat." [2] How tolerant am I supposed to be? > Maybe there isn't actually a procedure for this situation? For the 60 court cases? Yes, there are. > If the highest court in the land says even if the claims turn out to be true there is still no remedy to be had. Actually, that was the dissenting opinion. The decision was that the petition lacked standing. > In other words, even if the election was provably stolen They had 60 chances to prove it was stolen. I have little sympathy for someone who believes that somehow 60 different court cases were simultaneously wrongly decided. Move on to changing the laws, winning the next election. This one is decided. > Shame you weren't there to educate them on proper procedure. I think they came to the right decision. You're the one who wants to educate them. [1] : https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-allies-attack-lin-wood-after-pence-execution-tweets-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-allies-attack-lin-wood... [2] : https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/watch-giuliani-demand-trial-by-combat-to-settle-election.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/watch-giuliani-deman...
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    > Another called for "trial by combat." Giuliani used the words "trial by combat" but it's not an accurate description of what he was calling for. There's a lot to blame Giuliani (and others) for here, but let's try to be precise.
    - VikingCoder 6y ago
      "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
      - dllthomas 6y ago
        That seems the other way around. In that case, the context made it clear that what could be notionally defended as an expression of frustration was in fact a call to act. In this case, out of context, "let's have trial by combat" seems worse than when placed in the context that marks it as clearly metaphorical - he had just explained what he meant by it. It's absolutely heated rhetoric, and one example of many - on the part of Giuliani, Trump, and others - that together built a context that led to violence. It is absolutely appropriate to blame them for that. That doesn't make labeling it a call for "trial by combat" a good representation of what happened in that moment.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Procedure for voting fraud is to punish the guilty (harshly; it's a federal crime) and correct the exploit. It's never been to toss legitimate votes for suspicion of illegitimacy. If anything, the system is biased heavily to enfranchise voters at the boundary of legitimacy, because claims of illegitimacy were historically used to keep undesirable classes of people from exercising their rights.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Maybe there isn't actually a procedure for this situation? There is, for at least the vast majority of the issues. E.g., for the allegedly not-legislatively-authorized election-process issues that have been the center of many of the challenges, the process is to challenge the change when you have notice of the process before the election, the failure, despite knowledge of the facts motivating the challenges, to do that in favor of doing post-election and often post-certification challenges is the source of both laches and mootness dismissals of those claims.
Fjolsvith 6y ago
It says that since every legal due process was denied, there will be no excuse for complaint in the upcoming events. No one can stop what's coming.
- shadowgovt 6y ago
  Denying these cases for lack of standing was due process. The fact Team Trump didn't like that outcome is irrelevant. This is him demanding to see voting's manager, in legal filling form. > No one can stop what's coming Looks like a couple people got stopped permanently on Jan 6. If more want to fuck around, I'm sure they can also find out. The Secret Service has a very focused mission and does not play games.
  - dllthomas 6y ago
    > The Secret Service has a very focused mission and does not play games. Nitpick, but "protect the President and also investigate counterfeiting" is not best described as "very focused" :-P
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  The idea that “due process” means you are entitled to have courts ignore the law (including Constitutional limits on judicial power like the case or controversy clause in which standing is rooted) is like the idea that the First Amendment entitles you to commandeer other private parties’ resources against their preferences to relay your speech. So it's unsurprising that it comes from literally the same people.
- VikingCoder 6y ago
  Court cases were denied. Due process was followed. And everyone knows your last statement is a treasonous threat of violence. Stop reading QAnon, their predictions have all failed, their evidence is all false.

disgrunt 6y ago

Maybe there isn't actually a procedure for this situation? If the highest court in the land says even if the claims turn out to be true there is still no remedy to be had. In other words, even if the election was provably stolen, they won't overturn the result. So what procedure should have been followed? You're accusing attorneys of not acting in good faith or sheer incompetence for not having a firm understanding of an entirely novel legal scenario. The Texas case was, according to reports, hotly debated in private by SCOTUS before they made their decision. Shame you weren't there to educate them on proper procedure.

VikingCoder 6y ago
Yes, I am accusing attorneys of not acting in good faith. One of them literally called for the execution of the Vice President of the United States. [1] Another called for "trial by combat." [2] How tolerant am I supposed to be? > Maybe there isn't actually a procedure for this situation? For the 60 court cases? Yes, there are. > If the highest court in the land says even if the claims turn out to be true there is still no remedy to be had. Actually, that was the dissenting opinion. The decision was that the petition lacked standing. > In other words, even if the election was provably stolen They had 60 chances to prove it was stolen. I have little sympathy for someone who believes that somehow 60 different court cases were simultaneously wrongly decided. Move on to changing the laws, winning the next election. This one is decided. > Shame you weren't there to educate them on proper procedure. I think they came to the right decision. You're the one who wants to educate them. [1] : https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-allies-attack-lin-wood-after-pence-execution-tweets-2021-1 https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-allies-attack-lin-wood... [2] : https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/watch-giuliani-demand-trial-by-combat-to-settle-election.html https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/01/watch-giuliani-deman...
- dllthomas 6y ago
  > Another called for "trial by combat." Giuliani used the words "trial by combat" but it's not an accurate description of what he was calling for. There's a lot to blame Giuliani (and others) for here, but let's try to be precise.
  - VikingCoder 6y ago
    "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_turbulent_priest%3F https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_no_one_rid_me_of_this_tur...
    - dllthomas 6y ago
      That seems the other way around. In that case, the context made it clear that what could be notionally defended as an expression of frustration was in fact a call to act. In this case, out of context, "let's have trial by combat" seems worse than when placed in the context that marks it as clearly metaphorical - he had just explained what he meant by it. It's absolutely heated rhetoric, and one example of many - on the part of Giuliani, Trump, and others - that together built a context that led to violence. It is absolutely appropriate to blame them for that. That doesn't make labeling it a call for "trial by combat" a good representation of what happened in that moment.
shadowgovt 6y ago
Procedure for voting fraud is to punish the guilty (harshly; it's a federal crime) and correct the exploit. It's never been to toss legitimate votes for suspicion of illegitimacy. If anything, the system is biased heavily to enfranchise voters at the boundary of legitimacy, because claims of illegitimacy were historically used to keep undesirable classes of people from exercising their rights.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Maybe there isn't actually a procedure for this situation? There is, for at least the vast majority of the issues. E.g., for the allegedly not-legislatively-authorized election-process issues that have been the center of many of the challenges, the process is to challenge the change when you have notice of the process before the election, the failure, despite knowledge of the facts motivating the challenges, to do that in favor of doing post-election and often post-certification challenges is the source of both laches and mootness dismissals of those claims.

Fjolsvith 6y ago

It says that since every legal due process was denied, there will be no excuse for complaint in the upcoming events. No one can stop what's coming.

shadowgovt 6y ago
Denying these cases for lack of standing was due process. The fact Team Trump didn't like that outcome is irrelevant. This is him demanding to see voting's manager, in legal filling form. > No one can stop what's coming Looks like a couple people got stopped permanently on Jan 6. If more want to fuck around, I'm sure they can also find out. The Secret Service has a very focused mission and does not play games.
- dllthomas 6y ago
  > The Secret Service has a very focused mission and does not play games. Nitpick, but "protect the President and also investigate counterfeiting" is not best described as "very focused" :-P
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
dragonwriter 6y ago
The idea that “due process” means you are entitled to have courts ignore the law (including Constitutional limits on judicial power like the case or controversy clause in which standing is rooted) is like the idea that the First Amendment entitles you to commandeer other private parties’ resources against their preferences to relay your speech. So it's unsurprising that it comes from literally the same people.
VikingCoder 6y ago
Court cases were denied. Due process was followed. And everyone knows your last statement is a treasonous threat of violence. Stop reading QAnon, their predictions have all failed, their evidence is all false.