3 ms·

The counterargument has been heard. There are only so many times you can audit an election before you give up because the facts are not the point: there are pl

The counterargument has been heard. There are only so many times you can audit an election before you give up because the facts are not the point: there are plenty of people in the US who saw Trump as a savior because he's a mean spirited asshole who is afraid of a majority-minority country, and so they cannot comprehend how someone who was so popular to so many would have lost an election by such a large margin. Their brains are broken by a constant stream of alternate reality idiocy Several judges punted on standing and laches but also said that even if they heard the case, it would not end up in the favor of the plaintiff because they were silly issues to bring up. The GOP attorneys were basically arguing that the letter of the law says that only state legislatures have the right to do anything with regards to elections. They also asked the courts to grant state legislatures powers that they do not normally possess. These are complete nonsense and always has been. State legislatures don't actually do anything. They pass laws that direct how the rest of government operates, along with the limits of discretion those other branches have. Everybody who paid ANY attention in this past election knows that their own states did these same things. Texas sent that lawsuit to the US Supreme Court. It was idiotic on standing issues alone, but also because they only challenged the actions of states that did not vote for Trump. Texas itself had an executive who changed the rules during the election. North Carolina also did this. They KNOW this. But it's easier to believe that the election was stolen than it is to believe that the country chose someone who is the antithesis of the guy you supported, and so that's what they do.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
Laches isn't a "punt". Laches is, the courts don't like being used as a machine for your lawsuit to hold the public hostage. You don't get to see grounds for suing, do nothing, then once the results of the lawsuit will do maximum damage to the public, then sue. The courts are not interested in letting you use them for, essentially, blackmail. If you knew months before the election that the rules were being changed, why not file a lawsuit then? Why wait until after the election, when you've got the deadline of the Electoral College vote, and your lawsuit is going to literally disenfranchise every voter in the state? Laches isn't a punt. It's sanity in the face of insane lawsuits trying to game the court system.
- MisterBastahrd 6y ago
  I used the wrong word, but it remains that the judges didn't normally rule on the actual arguments of the case, which were ridiculous in their own right.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Strong disagree. The judges dismissed mainly (totally) on two grounds - laches, and failure to state a legal case. If you're just whining, the court isn't going to hear you. Get out of here with that stuff and stop wasting our time, says the court. They aren't your chance to stand up and rant about stuff. And laches is, you didn't like the rules? Sue before the election; you had plenty of time. You wait until after? No, we're not going to let you hold the election hostage. Suing after looks like you didn't like the results you got under the rules, but you didn't have a problem with the rules going in. Why should the courts let you throw out everybody's vote because you didn't like the results? Why do you not think that is ridiculous?
    - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
      LOL. "The record establishes that Wisconsin's selection of its 2020 Presidential Electors was conducted in the very manner established by the Wisconsin Legislature, by general ballot at the general election... plaintiff has not shown a significant departure from the Wisconsin Legislature's chosen election scheme ... This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of law be followed.' It has been" Try again, my dude. Just because you paid attention to one singular case doesn't mean that judges didn't rule on the merit of the case anywhere.
      - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
        First: I am not "my dude" to you (or to anyone). Second: I misread your comment as saying that it was ridiculous for the judges to not rule on the merits. I agree with you that the (alleged) merits of the cases were ridiculous.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

Laches isn't a "punt". Laches is, the courts don't like being used as a machine for your lawsuit to hold the public hostage. You don't get to see grounds for suing, do nothing, then once the results of the lawsuit will do maximum damage to the public, then sue. The courts are not interested in letting you use them for, essentially, blackmail. If you knew months before the election that the rules were being changed, why not file a lawsuit then? Why wait until after the election, when you've got the deadline of the Electoral College vote, and your lawsuit is going to literally disenfranchise every voter in the state? Laches isn't a punt. It's sanity in the face of insane lawsuits trying to game the court system.

MisterBastahrd 6y ago
I used the wrong word, but it remains that the judges didn't normally rule on the actual arguments of the case, which were ridiculous in their own right.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Strong disagree. The judges dismissed mainly (totally) on two grounds - laches, and failure to state a legal case. If you're just whining, the court isn't going to hear you. Get out of here with that stuff and stop wasting our time, says the court. They aren't your chance to stand up and rant about stuff. And laches is, you didn't like the rules? Sue before the election; you had plenty of time. You wait until after? No, we're not going to let you hold the election hostage. Suing after looks like you didn't like the results you got under the rules, but you didn't have a problem with the rules going in. Why should the courts let you throw out everybody's vote because you didn't like the results? Why do you not think that is ridiculous?
  - MisterBastahrd 6y ago
    LOL. "The record establishes that Wisconsin's selection of its 2020 Presidential Electors was conducted in the very manner established by the Wisconsin Legislature, by general ballot at the general election... plaintiff has not shown a significant departure from the Wisconsin Legislature's chosen election scheme ... This Court has allowed plaintiff the chance to make his case and he has lost on the merits. In his reply brief, plaintiff 'asks that the Rule of law be followed.' It has been" Try again, my dude. Just because you paid attention to one singular case doesn't mean that judges didn't rule on the merit of the case anywhere.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      First: I am not "my dude" to you (or to anyone). Second: I misread your comment as saying that it was ridiculous for the judges to not rule on the merits. I agree with you that the (alleged) merits of the cases were ridiculous.