Liberty Quote
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
— Ronald Reagan-
Recent Comments
- min on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- rickw on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Nelson_Kidd-Players on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- rickw on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on The economic consequences of Covid
- rickw on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Nelson_Kidd-Players on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Cassie of Sydney on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Mark M on The economic consequences of Covid
- feelthebern on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- PeterM on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- miltonf on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on Happy Australia Day
- rickw on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Cassie of Sydney on Happy Australia Day
- miltonf on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on The economic consequences of Covid
- Cassie of Sydney on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Yarpos on Happy Australia Day
- Dot on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Mark M on The economic consequences of Covid
- calli on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Cassie of Sydney on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Crossie on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- feelthebern on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Dot on Open Forum: January 23, 2021
-
Recent Posts
- The economic consequences of Covid
- Bruce’s Bull
- Happy Australia Day
- Red Kerry embarrasses a Liberal government one last time
- Leave the gong – take the cannoli
- New US protectionism confirmed
- Unit Stands Down
- If there were a military coup in the United States it would look just like this
- Insurrection: ABC incites left-wing extremists to endanger lives
- The left are not hypocrites, they are totalitarian loons with an agenda
- Midgets overlooked
- American Jothic
- It’s official “the politics of carbon is ended”!
- German showing the way to the green transition – UPDATED
- Winston Smith’s World
- Administration incites terrorist attack on Ohio cathedral
- Bigotry
- It’s just the start with worse to come
- The Basement Insurrection
- Do the states have robust plans to pursue net zero?
- Unity: when leftists can hate and harm anybody unopposed
- The State vs. Pineapple
- 24 hours after Biden was sworn in as Confederate President…
- Open Forum: January 23, 2021
- Music Maestro: January 22, 2021
- Vaping and combustible cigarettes are substitutes
- Not because she, say, allowed 820 people to die of coronavirus
- Jack Dorsey backs assassination of Donald Trump
- Biden restores re-education
- Australia will share the adverse economic fallout from Biden’s energy policies
Archives
Pages
Blogroll
- 38 South
- ABC The Drum
- AEI Ideas
- Alex
- all right, all right
- Andrew Bolt
- Andrew McIntyre
- Andrew Norton – New
- Andrew Norton – Old
- Arnold Kling
- Aussie Macro Moments
- Becker – Posner
- Bill Mitchell – billy blog
- Bob McGee
- Cafe Hayek
- Calculated Risk
- Calling Bullshit
- Captain Capitalism
- Carpe Diem (New)
- Carpe Diem (Old)
- Causes of the crisis
- Chalk Bunny
- Charles Richardson
- Chicago University – Pro Market
- Chris Snowdon
- Club Troppo
- Confessions of a College Professor
- Consumer Choice Center
- Continental Telegraph
- Conversable Economist
- Coordination Problem
- Core Economics
- Cryptoeconomics
- Dan Wang
- Daniel Greenfield
- David Hart
- Diane Coyle
- Dick Puddlecote
- Econ Journal Watch
- EconAcademics
- Econbrowser
- EconLog
- Econofact
- Econometrics Beat
- Economic Education Initiative
- Essential Hayek
- Fama/French
- Fault Lines
- Fiscal Times
- Foundation for Economic Education
- Freedom and Prosperity Academy
- Greg Mankiw
- Grey Enlightenment
- Guido Fawkes
- Harry Clarke (Temporary)
- Head Rambles
- Homer Paxton
- How does your MP vote
- Institutional Economics
- International Liberty
- Islam and Liberty Network
- Jim Rose
- John Cochrane
- John Lott
- John Quiggin
- John Taylor
- Journal of Economic Perspectives
- Julie Borowski
- Keith Hennessey
- Legal Insurrection
- Liberty Law Blog
- Liberty Works
- Loaded Dogma
- Macrobusiness
- Mannkal Foundation
- Marginal Revolution
- Marius Kloppers
- Mark the Ballot
- Mark the Graph
- markedlymacrotoo
- Market Urbanism
- Master Resource
- Matt Ridley
- Menzies House
- Michael Oakeshott Association
- Michael Smith
- Michel Rauchs
- Miranda Devine
- Money Illusion
- MyGovCost
- Natural Order – Christopher Lingle
- New Economist
- Notes on Liberty
- Offsetting Behaviour
- Oliver Hartwich
- On Line Opinion
- Opinion Dominion
- Paul Johnson Archives
- Peter Fenwick
- Peter Martin
- Philippa Martyr
- Piled Higher and Deeper
- Pointman
- Political Calculations
- Potemkin's Village
- Poverty Cure
- Prick with a fork
- Principles of Forecasting
- Quadrant Online
- Queensland Economy Watch
- Quillette
- Raph Koster
- Reflections on Liberty and Power
- Retraction Watch
- Rhino economics
- ricardian ambivalence
- Robert Murphy
- Roger Kerr (archive)
- Rosemary Fryth
- Skepticlawyer
- Sound Money
- Spiked
- Sports Economist
- Statista
- Stop Gillard's Carbon Tax
- Streetwise Professor
- Stubborn Mule
- Taking Liberties (Simon Clark)
- Tax Foundation
- Tax Rambling
- TaxProf
- The Baseline Scenario
- The Black Steam Train
- The Marcus Review
- The Moronic Lodge
- The TaxPayers' Alliance
- The Visible Hand
- The Wentworth Report
- Think Markets
- Thomas the Think Engine
- Tim Blair
- Tim Worstall
- Truth on the Market
- Vox CEPR Policy Portal
- William Briggs – Statistician
Meta
And their partisan blackout of coverage?
@ John Commenus-
Oh no Rex, that’s impossible to do, Monty and numbers have been telling us.
Indeed- The news people would be all over it…
I wonder if they will maintain their strength of convictions in the courts if Trump wins the only case that counts?
Welp, based on Flatus’ latest eructation:
Was this the kraken? Bit of a fizzer really…
I’d say that continued findings favourable to the bugmen’s ideology will be defended as impartial and correct and properly applied justice.
If SCOTUS or any lower court cases are upheld, then it will be loudly decried as Populist, Fascist, unjust and the final death of jurisprudence in the West, and an excuse to engage in more of the same violent tantrum-throwing we have witnessed since Election Day 2016…
Hi Aussies!
Get fucked.
Hi Graeme!
@ The Continental Op-
Your American Needs work, tongzhi
Much too obvious.
Much too Chinee…
#TaiwanNumberOne
#ChinaNumberTen
#ChinggisLives
#WinnieThePooh
Hi Graeme!
Crap!
#BeirutWasAccidentalChangeMyMind
I’ve been part of the “Deep State” for over 30 years
You sound like you’re part of the Creep State.
Ƶĩppʯ (ȊꞪꞨV)
#3683628, posted on December 8, 2020 at 10:44 pm
If Trump does get shunted and assuming the evil pricks don’t put him in jail, and he starts his own news outlet this guy should get the call up.
Great performance from AOC
Zippy,
You said checkmate about the Texas intervention. How so?
I see the gravitas but can’t see the legal?
” Your American Needs work, tongzhi”
I see this place entertains clumsy CGTV agitators.
If it’s not the CCP it’s the TCO.
Armadillo:
I’m not the one filing them – ask Trumps team why they bother?
FMD. Are you retarded?
Armadillo:
That’s probably one to ask Trumps team too.
Jesus H Christ on a rubbery yellow crutch! Can’t you see these threads have been totally trolled from the start by the likes of Tailgunner and Armadillo? Totally taking the piss out of all your desperate conspiracy theories.
Felix now thinks you can just lodge any case direct to the SCOTUS.
FMD.
Ringshot,
As a partner for one of those huge NYC white shoes firms we would have thought you’d know why they started in the lower courts.
If your Pell prediction is any guide it could end up with a 9/O in scotus, you wanker.
Recall how you told us the non- Weinberg opinions were well thought out and intelligent sounding.
You complete imbecile, your face planting rivals Marcus Lobotomus -Adonis.
Armadillo:
Not at all. But it kinda helps to win at least one or two on the way to SCOTUS. Few cases win at SCOTUS having lost all the way there. Especially when they lose so definitively.
JC:
Not still Pell? Really?
Didn’t make any Pell prediction. Sorry.
I said the same about Weinbergs. Was I wrong there too?
Ringshot.
Time to front up. In your expert opinion, was there any targeted fraud. Yes or no?
Trump is still the President, and he will remain so.
The left are absolutely desperate at the moment. It’s not a “conspiracy theory” at all. We all saw the entire fiasco from day one. Everything.
The day of reckoning is upon your lot, and judgement day will be harsh.
Ringshot
Stop lying. You suggested Weinberg’s opinion was crowded out by the two mutton heads ..because 2 beats 1 .
You laughingstock, Ringshot. You compete idiot.
Not at all. But it kinda helps to win at least one or two on the way to SCOTUS.
Assuming you’re not piss taking, which you’re not, as you’re a smug troll, you’re a fucking moron bush lawyer.
You have NFI what you are even talking about. None.
And more so. The imbecile is implying that if you win in a lower court, you should also appeal to Scotus.
Monster is less of an idiot and monst is an idiot of the first order.
Ringshit just give up. You’re a dead-set spastic. Everybody’s laughing at you mate. Go home.
Ringshit’s incomplete Justice Studies degree makes him qualified to comment on legal matters across all jurisdictions.
Did you know he’s never been proven innocent of the charge of being a catamite and chicken-fornicator?
Hey, just dropped again to remind y’all of how the real world sees you.
LOL. Masterclass in how to insult two idiots at the same time.
Along with fondling cats’ private parts. He’s never been proven innocent of cat fondling.
> y’all
dilate
Grigs, no-one here cares.
Egg posted this earlier. Must viewing, Baris and Barnes:
I think you will find that its actually mOnts smelly sock puppet.
Get a life Albi.
I’ve spent months at sea with big fucken albatross hanging around. They are silent, patient and very effective predators.
Totally unlike you. Have you thought of changing your online name to Puffinfart?
Go to bed, Graeme
Hahahahahaha! Good one!
Are there any media outlets running this story that aren’t directly quoting Breitbart?
Do you know that Albatross… aren’t Kosher?
You’ll never see the Rothschilds hooking in to a big dinner of Roasted Albatross, no sir.
And goodnight to y’all trumplickers.
Sad socks say so much.
You’ll never see the Rothschilds hooking in to a big dinner of Roasted Albatross, no sir.
No- The Mossads are scared of them.
Buy an Albatross, Graeme, and feed it goblins.
The resulting shits in your trouser cupboard will chase all the Sayeret Matkals out- You’ll never have to worry about them crank-calling your phone ever again!
” You’ll never see the Rothschilds hooking in to a big dinner of Roasted Albatross, no sir. No- The Mossads are scared of them. Buy an Albatross, Graeme, and feed it goblins. The resulting shits in your trouser cupboard will chase all the Sayeret Matkals out- You’ll never have to worry about them crank-calling your phone ever again!”
I’m still struggling to find anywhere in law that is says “voter fraud is OK as long as it doesn’t affect the overall result of the election”.
Is it in state law? Is it in the Constitution? Am I missing something here?
It seems to me that this is something that’s just been “put out there”. It’s something the Cats “legal eagles” might like to address. Where did the notion come from?
It seems a rather bizarre situation unfounded in any law that I know of. Is a little bit of stealing OK?
Pretty sure that if I drive off from the local service station without paying for fuel, the beak isn’t going to shrugg his shoulders and say “No worries mate, you didn’t send the servo broke, on your way then”.
Wow, Graeme can embed!
What else can it do, aside from probably the poorest imitation of a threatrical ‘Muricun’ it could do without having another aneurysm?
It seems a rather bizarre situation unfounded in any law that I know of. Is a little bit of stealing OK?
So long as it serves The Cause, Comrade…
Which is why Flatus, Gripe, mUnter and this Graeme/Grig/Whatever are so dismissive and contemptuous.
We oppose the Cause. We must be silenced…
Ruby said she was going to do interviews, and then changed her mind until she could “lawyer up”.
If you put “two and two together”, you can probably see where Trump is heading.
Trump was the “Law and Order” President. He still is. He had the backing of every law enforcement agency in the country.
Judges are not above the law. Nor are election officials. The swamp is deep.
Classic Trumpani
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhGIOeAciE
“Wait, I was gonna make expresso.”
Except the one that really counts. The FBI.
mOnster came here tonight with a fantasy that Kavanaugh or someone would flip on Trump. That’s the way the left view life. Power, influence, bribes and corruption.
It tells you everything you need to know.
Interesting post over on the conservative tree house
TX v State Motion 2020-12-07 FINAL
Uploaded byBreitbart News
https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed
Nope. The alphabet agencies have plenty of patriots. The final purge of traitors will come from MIS. China is the trigger.
You know which Cat really won big on Trump right from day one?
User Mundi with 81:1.
In the early days that was just the odds you’d expect for an old nag with no track record. And then, boom.
https://collider.com/queens-gambit-sam-spade-scott-frank-clive-owen
I’m dubious about this. The overall talent pool is is good but really Clive Owen as Sam Spade? There are so many US actors who could do it better.
Grigs if you are going to try to use a perfectly good Mel Brooks film to try and irritate us, stick with the last musical sequence of The History of the World, Part One.
If you survive to post it without losing your shit, we know you are just a fuckwit, and this is not a Birdstrike.
Now zorf.
Arma
I’m not suggesting Mundi wasn’t truthful, but I think it’s prudent these days to only credit those people whose wins can be time stamped. There are far too many bullshitters here now.
Hidden friends. Heros in disguise.
JC,
Okay, well, it never occurred to me that someone would lie about something like that, because I cannot see what they would possibly gain by doing so. Maybe there is some notoriety to be earned amongst gamblers, but to anyone else spending money on something absurdly unlikely to pay would be seen as a sign of insanity not wisdom.
Wow.
Hey Rex Anger aka Mark from Canberra aka Mk50 aka whatever, have you thought of settling on a long term trusted net de plume that doesn’t involve plagiarism?
How do I know this? Deep state baby. Easy to pick out the bullshitters.
Whoops
Colonel posted that, not you.
Aerma, there are people with serious personality defects. Get a load of this wanker who will remain anonymous.. He actually lied about the div received. he didn’t realize that if you tell someone what you received as a div and you know the actual announced div, you don’t have to be a genius to calculate the share holding. He denied the shareholding!
I won’t say who it was, but Ronery can take a bow. To make dishonest claims like that when you’re wearing a disguise ( blog name), is really fucked up.
How do I know this? Deep state baby. Easy to pick out the bullshitters.
Lolwut?
Who the hell even is Mk50? Let alone Mark from Canberra?
He’s Marcus Adonis.
@ JC-
Who the hell even is Mk50? Let alone Mark from Canberra?
He’s Marcus Adonis.
As in the fuckwit that suddenly crashed in here, calling itself the Continental Op?
Damn, and here I was thinking we had a Birdstrike…
Old news but alludes to the SCOTUS mechanisms
Justice Alito Slow-Walks Rep. Kelly’s Pennsylvania Emergency Petition, Requiring a Response from the State on Dec. 9, After the Safe Harbor Deadline: What Does It All Mean?
Although it is not yet reflected on the docket, Justice Alito has reportedly set a deadline of December 9 for the state of PA to respond to Rep. Kelly’s petition seeking to nullify the vote in Pennsylvania (a petition I expect to easily fail).
Justice Alito could have simply denied the petition, which is what I had expected given its lack of merit, but he asked for a response and after receiving the response he can either decide the matter himself or send it to the Court. He gave a relatively long deadline for a response, and the specific date of Dec. 9 is significant.
The timing here matters. Any final determination of the slate of electors made in a state by the so-called “safe harbor deadline” under the federal Electoral Count Act is entitled to be conclusively accepted as valid by Congress. This year that deadline is Dec. 8. The electors themselves vote on December 14. By setting the deadline for a response as December 9, this means that the Supreme Court won’t act until well after the safe harbor deadline has closed, making it even less likely that the Supreme Court would overturn the results in Pennsylvania.
The Court could conceivably act between Dec. 9 and Dec. 14 and the matter would not be technically moot. (I think it would be moot after Dec. 14 has passed). But back in Bush v. Gore, a key reason the Court refused to remand the case to the Florida Supreme Court to order a recount was the idea that Florida wanted to take advantage of the safe harbor deadline, which was the very day the Court decided Bush v. Gore. The Supreme Court would not easily mess with deciding something about electors after that date under the best of circumstances.
Speaking more generally, courts are going to be very reluctant to mess with the safe harbor deadline. That’s why today’s ruling in the Wisconsin Supreme Court refusing to take up the Trump Campaign’s election challenge and directing it back to the lower courts is so significant too. Every day that passes makes any judicial action less and less likely.
To be clear, I don’t see a path for Trump to use court cases to overturn the election results in even one state, much less the three states he would need at a minimum to get a different result in the electoral college. But as the clock ticks down, those tiny chances fade into nothing.
My entire business was built around people like Mundi, and also the Hillarys of this world.
I maintain that Biden was the worst short priced favourite I have ever seen in my entire bookmaking career. Hillary I could understand. Biden? Nope. It just wasn’t right. Nothing was right about it, especially the polling (which proved to be wildly inaccurate). You just know it in your gut.
It’s still not right, and we are slowly going to find out why that’s true. Everyone knows it was rigged.
If you just look at the betting markets, even the punters knew it was wrong. The issue is that there was massive amounts of money coming in for Biden. That’s where the true story lies. Who knew what?
Follow the money.
Campaign Lawyer: Legislatures in Swing States Will Switch Electors to Trump
BY ZACHARY STIEBER December 8, 2020
President Donald Trump’s campaign is confident that at least one state legislature will take back the power to select electors and change to supporting Trump, campaign lawyer Jenna Ellis said Monday.
While the campaign is continuing to press forward with lawsuits in swing states, Ellis said she and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani have been focused on going to state legislatures and alerting them that they have the constitutionally delegated authority to make sure that they select their delegates.
“So when all of these rules and laws in their states have been ignored, it’s actually their constitutional obligation, responsibility, and exclusive power to make sure that they take back their delegates and they don’t allow these false certifications to simply move forward,” Ellis said during a virtual appearance on Fox Business.
The campaign is confident that the state legislature in Georgia will do so, and hope the legislatures in Arizona, Pennsylvania, and Arizona will follow.
“We’re very confident that at least in Georgia and hopefully also in Arizona, in Pennsylvania, and also in Michigan, that these state legislatures will really take election integrity very seriously, they will reclaim their delegates before the 14th, and that they will then do their own election integrity independent investigation, and then they will certify to the Electoral College the delegates that actually reflects the will of the people, not these false, corrupt results,” she said.
State lawmakers in Georgia were pushing on Monday to get enough votes on a petition to call a special session with an eye towards taking back the power to select electors.
“What we’re seeking to do is have a special session to review this and then determine whether or not the election was valid,” Republican state Sen. William Ligon told The Epoch Times. “And if it was not valid, then the legislature… will have to vote for who the electors will be.”
Republicans have a 103–75 majority in the Georgia House of Representatives and a 35–21 majority in the Georgia Senate.
In Arizona, a group of 28 members and members-elect of the state legislature called to decertify the election, citing irregularities and fraud allegations.
Rep. Walter Blackman, a Republican, told a crowd while announcing the effort that the election was stolen.
“The Democrats are trying to take our vote away again. They’re not just trying to take away black American votes, they’re trying to take away American votes,” he said.
Arizona House Speaker Rusty Bowers, a Republican, doesn’t agree with the effort to take back control of choosing electors. The GOP controls the Arizona House 31–29 and holds a 17–13 majority in the state Senate.
The Arizona Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a Republican lawsuit challenging the certification of election results.
A group of 11 Pennsylvania lawmakers recently filed a lawsuit seeking to have a judge order Gov. Tom Wolf, a Democrat, to withdraw certification of election results. A larger group called on Congress to dispute the state’s 20 electors when the Joint Session of Congress meets on Jan. 6.
Republicans have a 113–90 majority in the Pennsylvania House and a 28–21 majority in the state Senate.
Trump’s campaign asked Michigan’s top court on Monday to rule the state’s election process violated the Michigan Constitution and Giuliani urged lawmakers during a state House committee hearing this month to step in because of alleged fraud.
The GOP controls both the House and the Senate in Michigan.
Some believe time to contest the election results runs out on Dec. 8, known as the so-called safe harbor deadline.
“States have until Dec. 8th, known as the ‘Safe Harbor’ deadline, to resolve any electoral contests,” Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.) said last month.
But the deadline, which is understood to free a state from further contest-of-election challenges if it settles legal disputes and certifies its results at least six days before the Dec. 14 Electoral College meetings, is not set in stone, nor are any other deadlines, an election integrity watchdog group argued last week.
The only constitutionally set date in the election process is Jan. 20, when the next president of the United States will be sworn in, according to the Amistad Project of the nonpartisan Thomas More Society.
Tom Ozimek contributed to this report.
Follow Zachary on Twitter: @zackstieber
Interesting you responded to a question I never asked.
I’m anticipating a flustered ad hominem response. Again.
Dershowitz Says Supreme Court May Rule to Let Legislators Pick Alternate Electors
BY TOM OZIMEK December 7, 2020
Attorney Alan Dershowitz said on Dec. 6 that he believes the Supreme Court may get involved in adjudicating on whether state legislators have the power to pick alternate Electoral College electors who would vote for President Donald Trump if legislatures determine there was voter fraud, even after an initial slate of electors has cast its votes on Dec. 14.
Dershowitz made the remarks in an interview with Fox News in which he was first asked about claims made by Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, who said there was a pattern of fraudulent activity that swayed the election in favor of Democrat Joe Biden.
“There certainly is probable cause for investigating and looking further. Giuliani has made very serious accusations. The question is which institution is designed constitutionally to look into it? Is it the state legislature? Is it the courts? Is the clock running in such a way that there won’t be time to look into this?” Dershowitz said.
His reference to time running out presumably refers to the Dec. 14 Electoral College meeting, at which electors cast their presidential votes.
“The American public wants to know, is Giuliani correct or isn’t he correct? I don’t know whether we’ll find that out in time for the meeting of the Electoral College votes,” Dershowitz said.
Attorney Ken Starr, who also took part in the interview, said that a “bit of a nightmare” scenario has taken place in the form of claims of voter fraud relating to absentee and mail-in ballots and other irregularities.
“So what do we now do about it?” Starr said. “I think, to be honest, we’re running out of time, because the Electoral College meets on Dec. 14, so it’s going to take an extraordinary action by legislatures and so forth. And Rudy has rightly pointed to legislatures because therein lies the ultimate—other than the Supreme Court of the United States—ability to have an effect on the just-concluded election.”
In the interview, Dershowitz was asked about evidence Giuliani has presented, including surveillance footage and around 1,000 affidavits alleging various election-related irregularities and malfeasance.
“These are retail evidence that have to be determined to be true by cross-examination and witnesses,” Dershowitz replied.
Elections officials in states facing allegations of voter fraud and other election-related legal challenges brought by the Trump legal team and others have insisted that there’s no widespread voter fraud. Attorney General William Barr said on Dec. 1 that the Justice Department has, to date, “not seen fraud on a scale that could have effected a different outcome in the election.”
Dershowitz said the key question would be whether state legislatures, if they determine that significant voter fraud has indeed taken place, have the power to pick an alternate slate of Electoral College electors even after electors have cast their presidential votes.
“The core constitutional question that Ken correctly pointed to is clearly state legislatures have the power before the voters vote to pick the electors,” he said. “The unanswered constitutional question is do they have the powers—state legislatures—to pick electors after the voters vote if they conclude that the voters’ count has been in some way been fraudulent or wrong?
“That is a constitutional question we don’t know the answer to, and the Supreme Court may get to decide that question if a state legislature decides to determine who the electors should be and changes the electors from Biden to Trump—that will be the key constitutional question.”
Asked if he thinks that, if it decides to take up the case, the U.S. Supreme Court would be likely to rule that it was unconstitutional for Pennsylvania to extend the deadline past Election Day for receiving mail-in ballots, Dershowitz replied, “I think so.”
“I think that there’s a 5–4 vote now in the Supreme Court, and Justice Alito seemed to suggest that that would cancel out the votes in Pennsylvania that were received after the close of Election Day,” Dershowitz said. “Whether that’s right or wrong, that’s the way I predict the Supreme Court would decide the case if it decided to take the case.”
Dershowitz also suggested the establishment of a nonpartisan panel that would examine and make recommendations on claims of fraud and other related issues in future elections.
Meanwhile, an election integrity watchdog said the current Electoral College deadlines not only have “zero constitutional basis,” but are preventing states from fulfilling their legal and ethical obligations to ensure free and fair elections.
The Amistad Project of the nonpartisan Thomas More Society released a study (pdf) on Dec. 4, making the case that the only constitutionally set date in the election process is Jan. 20, when the next president of the United States will be sworn in. All other dates, including the “safe harbor” deadline, the Electoral College vote on Dec. 14, and even the congressional vote count on Jan. 6, are dates set by federal law, which the document argues are “arbitrary” and founded on obsolete concerns.
The study also argued that there is “significant flexibility and precedent in U.S. law for changing the date that electors are appointed, changing the date electors convene to vote, and changing the date electors have their vote certified by Congress,” which, if acted upon, could provide more leeway than the current deadlines for Trump to prove his case of election fraud.
Follow Tom on Twitter: @OZImekTOM
It’s been two minutes since y’all responded to my comments. Losers!
That’s some very low energy trolling, Op.
A little bit of cheating is OK. That’s what the left want you to swallow.
It would get you gutted like a rabbit in a poker game.
OK, high energy trolling now.
Pretty much everything I’ve seen on this site is this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZD24VY0YWdQ
Heads exploding because you’ve lost your daddy.
It’s why the media have withdrawn from “show us the evidence” to “we won’t show you the evidence”.
Censorship.
These people a fucked, pure and simple. It’s over for them. Finished.
The proof that the MSM conspired with the DNC and foreign Governments is on its way.
I commented when Israel congratulated Biden as President there was something not right.
Hidden Friends. Heroes in disguise.
And they aren’t the only ones.
Durham.
CCP Expert – We Can’t Fix Trump Via Wall Street, But with Biden
Compare daddies, Op. Our Daddy is a bit of a rude arsehole, while yours is mentally infirm.
Very low energy again.
I don’t need daddies and/or politicians. You apparently do. A big old man spanking you.
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1336320768888635396?s=21
Well you do, Op. There’s no getting around it , not matter how hard you try. It’s binary. Not wanting Trump means you end up with Hiden.
Open the fucking box Alito. Do it.
I reject your binary approach JC.
I want Oprah for President and the patriarch from Pawnbrokers as Vice President.
Texas Asks Supreme Court to Rule Election in Four Battleground States Unconstitutional
BY IVAN PENTCHOUKOV December 8, 2020
The state of Texas on Tuesday filed an election lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin, alleging that the states unconstitutionally changed election laws, treated voters unequally, and triggered significant voting irregularities by relaxing ballot-integrity measures.
“Plaintiff State respectfully submits that the foregoing types of electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election in their degree of departure from both state and federal law,” the Supreme Court motion (pdf) states. “Moreover, these flaws cumulatively preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election and threaten to cloud all future elections.”
The lawsuit seeks a determination by the court that the four battleground states conducted the 2020 election in violation of the Constitution. Texas is asking the Supreme Court to prohibit the counting of the Electoral College votes cast by the four states. For the states which have already appointed electors, the lawsuit asks the court to direct the state legislatures to appoint new electors in line with the Constitution.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed the challenge on the day of the so-called safe-harbor deadline. The cumulative electoral votes in the four states are enough to determine the outcome of the 2020 election.
“Trust in the integrity of our election processes is sacrosanct and binds our citizenry and the States in this Union together. Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin destroyed that trust and compromised the security and integrity of the 2020 election,” Paxton said in a statement.
“The states violated statutes enacted by their duly elected legislatures, thereby violating the Constitution. By ignoring both state and federal law, these states have not only tainted the integrity of their own citizens’ vote, but of Texas and every other state that held lawful elections,” he added. “Their failure to abide by the rule of law casts a dark shadow of doubt over the outcome of the entire election. We now ask that the Supreme Court step in to correct this egregious error.”
The Trump campaign and third-party groups have pending legal challenges in all of the states, but to date, only a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans has escalated to the nation’s highest court. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito ordered briefs for that case to be submitted by Tuesday morning, signaling that a decision on a temporary restraining order is imminent.
The primary argument by the plaintiff centers on the enactment of election laws, rules, and procedures in the four states which allegedly breached the Constitution’s divestment of the power to appoint electors to state legislatures.
For example, the secretaries of state in Pennsylvania and Georgia “abrogated” state statutes requiring “signature verification for absentee or mail-in ballots,” the lawsuit states.
In Wisconsin, the state’s election commission “and other local officials unconstitutionally modified Wisconsin election laws—each time taking steps that weakened, or did away with, established security procedures” established “to ensure absentee ballot integrity.” The Wisconsin Election Commission, for example, undertook a campaign to set up ballot drop boxes throughout the states, including unmanned ones.
Follow Ivan on Twitter: @ivanpentchoukov
“the patriarch from Pawnbrokers as Vice President.”
Or Secretary of State.
https://twitter.com/re5iGam/status/1336166124283564034?s=19
Some witching hour Comms & decodes.
This thread is crazy.
The Christmas tree photo was posted anonymously on 8kun with no explanation.
Wow PAs Pandora’s Box brief to the SCOTUS is persuasive, it basically says don’t overturn the Governor’s certification of the election because you will undermine trust in elections and the constitution. I would have thought the retort is pretty simple, letting people cheat in elections undermines trust in our elections and Constitution. In other words, now that I have cheated it would look real bad for SCOTUS to call me out for cheating. Um, that’s not a legal argument, that’s a Hail Mary pass!
Re the PA brief, as Monty and The Media would say, where is the evidence that overturning a fraudulent election would undermine confidence in elections and the constitution. Or should that be interpreted more correctly as a threat to the SCOTUS? Nice Court you got there, it would be a pity if ANTIFA came and broke it up!
Gunner, it’s a photo of a Christmas Tree. So what?
Jenna Ellis tests positve for the China flu.
Biological warfare?
The last thing to be released from Pandora’s Box was Hope.
No wonder they don’t want it opened.
John, read the thread.
It’s Comms from someone inside the White House
The other red states have to join this Texas SCOTUS case.
It’s about to blow wide open!
Not surprising Ellis caught it next. No one seems to know if a degree of immunity is conferred once infected and recovered. You’d think it would be the first thing tested.
Doesn’t bode well for Biden’s crew of cottonwooled misfits.
I’ve been part of the “Deep State” for over 30 years
LOL! Anyone claiming that publicly, never was. First rule of the Deep State – never talk about the Deep State.
The Texas lawsuit alleges the chances of Biden winning the four states in question, considering Trump’s lead in each when counting stopped, at 1 in a quadrillion.
🤣🤣🤣
The Epoch Times
@EpochTimes
·
9m
“We need to pass landmark election reform including voter ID, residency verification…citizenship confirmation.”
President Donald Trump plans to pass landmark #ElectionReforms along with a comprehensive overhaul of #ElectionSecurity systems in the US.
That’s what you call chutzpah, like the kid who killed his parents and then pleaded for leniency because now he is an orphan.
Trump 18/[email protected]
Flying home!
Undoubtedly. Notice how there are no infections on the other side, at least none reported.
Absolutely audacious. The temerity of these people is astonishing.
I hope the Texas lawsuit succeeds, but that the SCOTUS invalidates the elections in those states entirely. That would require a re-run of the election for all the down ballot races and the POTUS would be decided in the House.
I assume if the elections are voided then none of GA, MI, PA or WI get a vote in the House as they will have no delegation. Consequently there would be 26 GOP states v 20 Dem states (+ DC). Upshot is Trump would win.
But in a fair and free re-run election I reckon GOP adds at leads James in MI and Perdue at least to the Senate and possibly Loefler if Collins bows out and there are about 8 House seats in those states within a few percent that the GOP would also likely pick up meaning they would also flip the House.
Now that would setup 2021 as a great year – the year that MAGA smashed China.
SCOTUS is in an unenviable tightrope situation here. Yes, it’s something of a Pandora’s box if they go to contingent election (but, strictly speaking, not unprecedented – last used in 1824). On the other hand, they would not want to allow scrutineers to be blocked with impunity.
That old box of horrors was opened when the many…many conspirators decided to fiddle the 2020 election.
Now they’re trying to shut the lid on the last inhabitant.
On reflection, a rather silly way to frame the application. Hopefully (😀) SCOTUS sees it that way too.
m0nty
#3683583, posted on December 8, 2020 at 10:01 pm
I don’t think it’s going to work, egg. The smart play by the swing judges (at least one of Gorsuch/Kavanaugh plus Roberts) is to betray Trump. SCOTUS justices are noted throughout history for their adeptness at playing politics. Ditch Trump, let McConnell run the GOP, block Biden’s agenda, the Republican establishment abides.
I am shocked, shocked to the core. munty proposes that the Supreme Court justices should make a political decision based on their personal politics, not on the law and the Constitution.
Hasn’t the fat fascist fool been screeching since 3 November how appalling and unjust such actions by judges would be, and praising lower court judges for maintaining their integrity?
He is getting desperate now. Aaaannyyy daaay nooow!
Monty has gone from there is no evidence of fraud to I hope the judges ignore the evidence of fraud, play politics to betray Trump in order to give me what I want.
If Monty was really sure that there was no evidence then he would simple argue that the judges follow the law and ask for the evidence to be produced.
But Monty doesn’t, because everyone knows there was massive fraud, even morons like Monty know there was massive fraud. It’s just that some of us would like to see the fraudulent punished whereas Monty would like to see the fraudulent rewarded.
Has anyone else noticed that Biden cannot pronounce ‘President’?
When he says it, it sounds like ‘Prez-ient’.
I don’t mean this to imply any particular mental failing. Just that it sounds sloppy. (Sloppy Joe!)
There is no credible evidence, John C. That has been proven in dozens of court cases, thrown out due to lack of evidence.
The Texas lawsuit involves no evidence, just a point of law. That is the only game that matters.
https://twitter.com/nigella_i5e/status/1336412051137302533?s=19
Louisiana.
It’s Happening!!!
impeach the bitch
That’s good TG
antifa are bunch of soy brats that drank the cultural marxist kool aide
https://twitter.com/ww_news_/status/1336410263126478848?s=21
Kyle Becker
@kylenabecker
·
3m
More on Texas’s lawsuit from an attorney. It is fairly safe to infer that SCOTUS will be highly compelled to take this urgent lawsuit in the court:
Quote Tweet
Robert Barnes
@Barnes_Law
· 1h
The ONLY court that can hear the #TexasLawSuit is the Supreme Court of the United States. When a case is between two or more states, the Supreme Court holds both original and exclusive jurisdiction, and no lower court may hear such cases. SCOTUS does not have discretion to ignore
Not really a win … it was dismissed as “moot” i.e. does not make any difference (presumably because of the pardon). Not sure Flynn can sue on that basis.
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1336407243743498246?s=21
It’s a start… if there are another dozen or so states joining / supporting… that will really help to diffuse any accusations of partisanship. Sth Dakota next? Florida?
Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING US Supreme Court rejects challenge to Biden’s win in Pennsylvania
https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1336427079370502144
because they took the texas case
and victoria?
Suspected Chinese spy reportedly slept with, courted US officials to gain intel
Thanks Zippy
“The unanimous order blamed petitioners for a “complete failure to act with due diligence in commencing their facial constitutional challenge, which was ascertainable upon Act 77’s enactment.”
It added that some of the petitioners had urged their supporters to cast their ballots using the new main-in procedure.”
So the Supreme Court made the same point no one could justify here last night when I made it.
How do I write the “wah wah waaah” trombone sound?
And i note that what little non wingnut commentary around on the Texas “fight the other states” case gives it near zero prospects of success.
Prepare yourselves for loss.
Jo Nova today
It seems that SCOTUS will hear Texas law suit that Is the reason the PA law suit was turned down . From what I have heard and understood they can make a decision on the State against States without doing any damage to them selves that is on a purely constitutional issue . The other left them open for retribution if Dems . win . I’ m sure there will be a legal eagle out there in the Cattery who knows enough about the laws in the States to comment.
https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/944230517/supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-reverse-pennsylvania-election-results
that little ‘i’ freudian slip
Preparing the suckers?
“I’ m sure there will be a legal eagle out there in the Cattery who knows enough about the laws in the States to comment.”
No.. The evidence of their predictive powers should tell you the opposite.
Ken Paxton, the Texas AG trying to steal the election using a bogus claim of voter fraud, has been under criminal indictment since 2015 on charges of… fraud.
The writers of this series have long since given up.
No matter what else, Biden’s declaration of his intent to vastly expand the SCOTUS should prevent any wet conservatives (Hi, Justice Roberts!) from thinking about giving in to a little progressive flirtation.
The expansion is designed to neuter any judges who give a damn about the constitution, and where ego is concerned would also reduce the importance of their role.
Evil wins.
Michigan AG (Democrat) fires back at Paxton.
Nessel: Election lawsuit by Texas AG a ‘publicity stunt’ that is ‘beneath the dignity’ of people of Texas
bwahahaha
Texas Democrats take their shot.
Hoping for a Presidential Pardon: Federally Indicted Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton Entertains Trump’s False Election Claims With a New Lawsuit
Jupes, Because they have accepted Texas and Louisiana, soon to be joined by Florida
Don’t mess with Texas!
😎😎
Problem is SCOTUS looks like it’s backing the deep state. It has in it’s first go.
Looks like the demonrats thought they had scotus tied up before rbg surrendered her seat and that they could violate the constitution with impunity. Really exemplifies the character of the left, a total lack of morals, something our trolls seem to have in common.
There a a few on this thread who would buy one of OAC’s t_ shirts . As with everything political follow the money. Grip supports Biden it seems did he comment on what the wChinese professor said ?
https://twitter.com/WeTheInevitable/status/1336402680575561732?s=19
Hehe
Two of my Twitter guys got RT by GEOTUS.