The Trump campaign is reportedly 'discussing contingency plans to bypass election results'
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Politics
The Trump campaign is reportedly 'discussing contingency plans to bypass election results'
President Trump's campaign is discussing "contingency plans" that would involve bypassing the result of November's election, reports The Atlantic .
The report delves into possible scenarios if Trump apparently loses the 2020 presidential election but doesn't concede, noting that although we're used to electors being selected based on the popular vote, "nothing in the Constitution says it has to be that way." Citing Republican Party sources, The Atlantic says that Trump's campaign is "discussing contingency plans to bypass election results and appoint loyal electors in battleground states where Republicans hold the legislative majority."
The campaign would reportedly assert that this step was necessary due to claims of supposed voter fraud, which experts have noted is extraordinarily rare, ahead of the "safe harbor" deadline to appoint 538 electors on Dec. 8.
"Trump would ask state legislators to set aside the popular vote and exercise their power to choose a slate of electors directly," The Atlantic reports. "The longer Trump succeeds in keeping the vote count in doubt, the more pressure legislators will feel to act before the safe-harbor deadline expires."
A Trump campaign legal adviser who spoke to The Atlantic said that in this scenario, "the state legislatures will say, 'All right, we've been given this constitutional power. We don't think the results of our own state are accurate, so here's our slate of electors that we think properly reflect the results of our state." Lawrence Tabas, chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, also told The Atlantic he has discussed the direct appointment of electors with the Trump campaign, saying, "I've mentioned it to them, and I hope they're thinking about it too." The Trump campaign said it is "fighting for a free and fair election."
This potential scenario is just one part of the broader piece in which experts warn "conditions are ripe for a constitutional crisis." Read more at The Atlantic .
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
502 visitors
trumpturd knows he's losing.
The Trout is giggling so hard she's gonna throw herself on the riverbank
Control yourself - serious meditation is needed.
Consider the sound of one tiny, tiny little Trump hand clapping in the middle of a Siberian forest... Ommmmmmmmmmmm...
Ok....I'm done. Time to go eat some flies
I almost swallowed my gum reading that bs statement. Telling people to vote twice is not playing fair. Letting his toadie PMG dismantle sorting machines and having mail boxes removed to slow up the mail is not playing fair. Threatening to send in the police and military to intimidate voters is not playing fair. Trump would not know fair if it bit him on his big ass.
I gotta tell you I didn't hear him tell people to vote twice. It's a good thing, too, because I think my head would have exploded
There is video of it on You Tube. I will let you find it if you wish because I don't want your head to explode here.
Donald Trump tells supporters to vote twice - by mail and in person
Trout and Paula, here you go. Trout, don't you let this ignoramus 'hurt' your mind. Just vote, vote early, and vote meticulously as a form of 'repair' for having watched this video. And thank (God!) for Youtube. What a 'life-saver' it is!
Note how easily this ignoramus projects onto democrats his stupe! Trump republicans have no shame. No shame. They are Trump (brand).
Did you hear that noise?
There is gray matter leaking out of my ears...my brain exploded
I caught just a hint of something. It cause me to swiftly turn and look. My dear, please: "Are you okay?!!"
Yeah. I cleaned my ears. Everything's cool
Oh good. So there you have it, ignoramus is doing that thing he does yet again. Laying it all out there so people can acclimate to it. It's called, "gumming up the works!" and then come alongside and ask: "How did this happen?" "Let's ask (my) the newly installed federal judges and supremes to 'fix' it!"
Donald has been pulling these stunts as long as he's been in skin. Wake up, Liberals! Donald and his enablers are going to "do you" if you don't get up and get after it! This time he will "do you" with your eyes open if you don't push him off of you!
With apologies to Guys and Dolls, sing to the melody of 'Follow the Fold'.
If Trump and his disciples consider doing that, then there is justification in the Democrats considering impeachment and packing the SCOTUS. If Trump succeeds with this plan, then America is no longer a democracy, a voting Republic, or whatever, it is a dictatorship of the minority, and even mimics communism.
You should probably familiarize yourself with the Constitution before offering uninformed opinions.
Here's it how works. A vacancy opens. The President nominates a replacement. The Senate confirms, or doesn't. Which part is giving you trouble?
My comment wasn't clear enough. My statement about not being a democracy was not with respect to appointing a judge as I have already been made aware here what the Constitution says about it, it was with respect to the topic of this seed, the ignoring of the people's vote and appointing Trump supporting electors.
So your explanation to what happened to the Garland nomination would be....?
LOL.. No reply to what I actually meant, rather than what was misinterpreted. Figures.
The Senate didn’t confirm. It’s happened plenty of times before, and will probably happen again.
There was no confirmation hearing.... no vote. [Deleted]
I just hope they stall the nomination just like they did with Obama's choice.
you might change your hope to wishing Trump's pick isn't confirmed
There is so much shit hitting the fan they're having issues addressing them individually.
I understood what you meant.
OO! OO! Pick me! I know the answer!
This is how they will explain it. It's actually a good answer, but it still won't explain the hypocrisy.
Obama was a lame duck even tho he made that nomination several months before the election. Our current POUTUS is up for re-election, no lame duck status, therefore they believe he has the right...no...not just the right!...but a DUTY! to appoint the next justice. Besides, they think the asshole is going to win. They're counting on it.
Turtles are known to be damn liars.
Now...now...that's not fair. The cute little box turtles in my flower beds never lie. Of course, I don't understand what they're saying....
I knew I could speak for the right wingers. I'm not as dumb as some people think
The part where there is open rancor between the senate; the staunchest branch of the congress! It is the reason for the granting of six year terms. Trump supporters support it being a den of thieves politically. Shame. It was once worth its salt. Now, it is a combat zone with senators figuratively pissing in the corners and spitting on the seats. The intrigue in that place is shamefully ridiculous. All that is left is for all out fisticuffs and chairs broken across each others heads. It's coming.
You have nature in your yard? What is that like? "Friends" or pests?
And here I thought that turtle could provide good health and long life.
The only ones I consider pests are the raccoons. But I have deer, fox, possum, armadillos, squirrels, lots of different kinds of birds, even hummingbirds, and coyotes
We have (had) racoons. They "latrined" on the roof of my home, and I had to pay someone to come clean it up! Then, a good friend gardener and myself trapped one (by accident). That is, we did not tell that rascal to put its butt in his yard. . . in his trap! Anyway, we had to let it go (back over the fence) by law or pay out of his nose for removal services!
We do have a few squirrels, hummingbirds. Coyotes on a hillside across town thank you very much. And gratefully no snakes that travel this far. Although, we do have creek nearby. Hmmm. Anyway, no snakes! Can't stand that.
"True....a Constitutional duty to do so as soon as possible."
Nope.
If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS and the Senate by making Puerto Rico and DC states then America is no longer a democracy, a voting Republic, or whatever, it is a one-party dictatorship mimicking communism. That's the Democrats dream.
Do you actually believe that would be the result?
You bet I do.
If the Democrats pack the SCOTUS
The Democrats are not in charge. Last time I checked.
Check again after the election or wait and check on 20 January, 2021
And how would they be able to do that exactly?
You are grossly mistaken.
That I hope changes in January.
Ah yes, whiny right wing projection at its best.
If Democrats don't gain control we will be heading for a one-party dictatorship mimicking fascism
This must all be a feint---Trump's real contingency plan is how he can pull off a skedaddle to a safe harbor before those 31 sealed indictments are shoved down his whiney throat.
A secret tunnel under the White House to Marine One where it flies to Andrews where it takes him some place with no extradition treaty. I hear Venezuela is nice in November
Except the crew of Marine One have abandoned their posts. lol
Maybe Donny Jr can fly it
"reportedly"
that is too funny
[removed]
No way on the planet would rational human beings predominantly conclude that Trump could bypass the election results and remain PotUS. To think that is possible in modern day USA is beyond ridiculous.
Who said he would try?
Trump is...... Keep up.
You have a link to that? I have already debunked the "there won't be a transfer frankly" cherry pick as Trump not thinking about a peaceful transfer because as with all candidates, you don't admit to defeat prior to even being elected. Prior to that statement, he also said "We'll have to see what happens". In other words, let's see how the election shakes out and then we can talk peaceful transition of power.
Links shminks . . . .
I am commenting on the hypothetical posed by this seed.
Trump's loosing and he knows it...... A looser will only bitch about the rules (like counting votes) to make excuses.
So simple question Jim.... You want to live in a representative democracy, or are you voting to transform America into an autocracy?
Although the question is stupid, yes, a representative republic. There is no indication, HARD justification, for even thinking we are headed in the autocracy direction..........well except in the usual Never Trump world of chicken little TDS sufferers. This should explain those type people quite well...............
And for further clarification, see TiG's comments on the matter (He is quite articulate in his posts and explains it better than I). IT. AIN'T. GONNA. HAPPEN in this United States of America.
Sorry just don't see it that way. Yes, there are some rabid asses who would like, maybe (although I doubt it) like to see an autocracy, the majority of citizens aren't that stupid and don't want to even get CLOSE to that form of GovCo. Here all this time raz I didn't think you were close to even thinking that way. You have always been a level head when the world gets out of plumb. I guess people evolve but that premise is sadly chicken little based.
Peace old friend.
Anybody that openly talks about not counting votes is an autocrat Jim. Do you want to count people's votes?
Keep in mind, that Trump's own voter fraud commission found nothing to support "widespread 3-5 million fraudulent votes" Trump continues to claim in the 2016 election.
COUNT THE DAMN VOTES.... or we are another step down the road to a banana republic autocracy.
But we DO want to make sure that EVERY vote cast was done by a legal citizen of the US, and that there were no fraudulent votes.
Made them look though didn't he.......as well as others. There may have been some loaded pants when he established the commission.
No, being a businessman he throws shit out there to spark thought.........and you can bet there will be plenty of emphasis and making sure everything is on the up and up with the vote. He put it, as he has several thing, front and center.
Just like his birth certificate bullshit. It raised a few eyebrows even though everyone knew Mr. Obama was born to a US citizen mother. Had there been, as some of the conspiracy nuts thought, any proof that his mother denounced her citizenship and been a Kenyan, he may have had a shot.................maybe a slingshot. LOL
So perfection is your thing? /s
Evidence of the massive wastes of time that Trump enablers propagate around here. They know. Some Trump supporters are just BS-ers, fakers, and shillers. Listen: Some Trump supporters know they are cheating, stealing, and lying (for Trump). It is in the 2020 Trump election strategy playbook! The masterplan is to takeover the government and never yield the majority back!
And throwing out all the mail-in ballots as Trump suggests does what..... with respect the to disenfranchisement of legal voters Greg?
Riiiiiiggggghhhhhtttt...!
Like ensuring that the US Postal service is hamstringed just prior to an election when mail-in ballots are going to be at an all time high.
The only loaded pants here are trumpturds' - a depends full of shit.
What would stop him?
Not his SCOTUS.
He would need the state legislatures in states where he lost to bypass the will of the people and done in enough states to achieve an electoral victory. This requires the cooperation of likely hundreds of presumably rational people whose political careers would be in great jeopardy.
He would then need the results to be confirmed by Congress. Congress can object to the results on cause and can exclude electoral votes.
No way this would happen in today's USA unless we are dealing with an extremely close election and a single state and even then I do not see this passing Congress.
The truncated Yahoo version of the Atlantic article doesn't do it justice. It goes into how that scenario would work and what would motivate the GOP legislators to do what Trump asks.
Yet that takes BOTH Houses of Congress and I have no doubt of the sycophancy of the Senate to Trump. Remember, the President of the Senate is Pence.
I really don't see where your confidence in Congress is coming from. The Senate has proven that they will do and say anything to defend and support Trump. The GOP's platform is merely a full throated endorsement of Trump. They're all in, country be damned.
What then do you wish to add to show how the GOP state legislators would be willing to compromise their political careers by directly violating the will of the people in their state?
Yes, BOTH the House and Senate are indeed involved. So if the Senate were to turn a blind eye to this (which, again, is unlikely), the House clearly would never allow it.
I frankly cannot imagine why you think this scheme has any chance at all. Even if the Senate ignored the overt attempt to violate the will of the people and essentially overturn the results of an election (knowing full well their own reelection fate from that) the House would never allow this. The D party would be all over this with lawsuits, etc. And if any of this activity made its way to the SCotUS, the conservative majority does not mean a majority of justices would simply rule in favor of Trump. That presumes all the conservative justices are pure partisans with no constitutional / legal ethics. That is simply not true.
And the MSM will be all over this from the onset putting immense pressure on the agents engaging in this scheme by informing the public of every detail.
I thought I made that clear by pointing you to the full Atlantic article. It says it better than I ever could.
BOTH the House and the Senate must CONCUR to reject electoral votes, which means that the House can't stop it on their own.
The SCOTUS has already ruled on the issue in both McPherson and Bush v Gore which states: "State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself"
Which would matter if there was even one iota of evidence that those 'agents' give a shit. I see little to no evidence that they do.
And I asked you to summarize your impression of the article so that I did not have to try to guess what part(s) you found which explain why state legislators would risk their own political futures by violating the will of the people in their state. I am thus guessing this is what you found to be significant:
Is it your position that the state legislators would use the excuse that the election results are bogus or undecided as they reason they usurp letting the people decide the electoral votes for the state? If so, I do not see this happening. But, again, I do not know what you found convincing ...
Correct, but BOTH the House and the Senate are part of the deciding body and can raise and vote on objections. If the Senate rejects the objection and the House supports it, it will fail, but the disagreement between the two bodies of Congress will be profound. The House's support of an objection serves as a foundation for all remedial measures including lawsuits. The disagreement will be all over the MSM, et.al. and in a case like this, the American people will almost certainly be quite engaged and informed. Senators know this. They know that allowing a state legislature to violate the will of the people will not be popular with the people and thus each of them are compromising their own political careers due to a highly visible exposure that I am confident the American people will find appalling.
Net:
Not going to happen. As I noted, this takes the cooperation of far too many people who are willing to compromise their political careers for Donald Trump.
The fact that a State legislature can constitutionally usurp the will of the people is not in question. If this hypothetical were unconstitutional it would have never been proffered.
My comment was that I disagree with your assertion that any lawsuit that makes its way to the SCotUS would be treated in a partisan manner by the SCotUS simply because the court has a conservative ideology majority. The justices on the SCotUS are not everyday political partisans and will very likely not compromise their integrity simply to allow a Trump scheme to steal the presidency. Questions do not get more visible or important than this. I do not see that happening.
In contrast, I see no evidence that the many agents who must be complicit in this scheme would actually do so. I have, in this thread, detailed why I think they would not be willing to risk their political careers to support a highly visible and controversial scheme by Trump to steal the presidency.
And I pointed you to the Atlantic article and stated that it said it better than I ever could. Is there a reason why you are guessing rather than reading it?
Why not this part of the truncated article:
I've pointed out the highlighted part elsewhere. You may also want to use the links to the Atlantic.
You did so by including this:
My comment pointed out the fact that the SCOTUS had ALREADY ruled on that Constitutional question and therefore could easily point to those cases to support their ruling for Trump.
How 'many' would alarm you?
I would think that the fact that the chair of the Pennsylvania Republican Party is on record should be a GIANT red flag. The history of the Republican legislature in Wisconsin leads me to believe that they would be all in too.
That's 30 electoral votes from Biden to Trump.
Those 30 electoral votes could represent over 2 MILLION disenfranchised voters.
BTW, GOP legislatures have done everything in their power to fight mask mandates and just about anything else that Governors have tried to do to mitigate the spread of the virus [see Wisconsin]. If their constituents don't care about that, I doubt they'll care about much else they do.
In the comment to which you are replying, I quoted a passage from deep within the article . Why would you think I did not read the article??
The guesswork is that I do not know which parts of the article you found to be persuasive reasons as to why a state legislator would compromise their political futures to support a scheme to keep Trump in office.
This is why I asked you to state your summary position. You are the only person who can determine what parts of an article were most persuasive to you regarding the question on the table. Neither of us would want me to presume your position.
That established, I will comment on your quote:
As for that part that you put in boldface , I have no idea how this would convince you that the state legislators would compromise their political careers for Trump. However, look at the sentence I marked in blue . I could see that influencing you since at least it speaks of the legislators and offers a reason. The reason offered is that the legislators find that the state results are corrupt and are taking corrective action.
Assuming you find that persuasive, my comment is this. If the legislators did indeed discover that the election results were corrupt then I would support their corrective action and I think they would garner support from their constituents. Now, note, this is not the case of the hypothetical. The hypothetical is that this is part of a scheme . So it would not be the case of a voting process failure that requires corrective action. It would be a case of fraud and the legislators would be complicit in fraud. I just do not see how you would be persuaded to think they would knowingly engage in this scheme given the likelihood that it will be exposed and their political careers will be compromised.
But, again, I may be off base because maybe you do not find the part in blue to be persuasive. I do not know.
I am not sure how else to say this so I will simply repeat. The constitutionality of a state legislator selecting its own electors has never been in question by me. So the fact that the SCotUS ruled on that constitutional question is immaterial; it is not being contested. Again, as I noted, if the state legislators did not have constitutional authority to select the electors then this entire hypothetical is null and void. Summary: yes state legislatures have the constitutional right to pick electors and the SCotUS would very likely uphold that right. Never suggested otherwise.
Let's now close this
out; it is not and never was a question in dispute.
When I spoke of the justices in the SCotUS abiding by the CotUS I was speaking in general terms about their professional integrity. You suggested that the SCotUS is biased towards Trump. My response to that is that I believe the justices are NOT pure partisans and value their constitutional / legal ethics. The context of my response was explicitly your statement regarding bias.
The position of the PRP chair is noteworthy but it falls very short of convincing me that the members of the state legislatures would compromise their political careers for Trump. We apparently have very different bars here.
I wish to make two points and admittedly I have not fully read the long version for its completeness. I have listened to the discussion laid out from last evening and Morning Joe through some of the MSNBC shows so far.
Now then, even Trump seems to understand that several of the justices are 'straightshooters' to their judicial worldview. However, these recent 'shooters' have been selected because of their "originalist" judicial tendencies. Thus, even the prior swing vote jurist on the court, its chief justice, tends to call out the administration for its attitude of presumptive 'speaking' to the court principally. If a constitutional basis can be established and it clasp hands with standing and other elements of law - it can win over the conservatives who will not consider the matter morally or consciously. In other words, the jurists may deal with the matter with precision and coldly.
By the time this goes before the Supreme Court, the conservative court, the house and senate votes will have already been casted and the races decided. At the earliest, corrective retribution will be outstanding for two more years. (If I follow what you mean by loss of seats and careers.)
'Catch me up' on where I may be reading your comment wrong!
Our differences seem to be that you think that legislators will believe there will be consequences and I don't think they do.
I gave the history of Wisconsin's GOP legislature as an example. There have been no consequences to the crap they've been doing for a decade.
Then your use of 'no constitutional ethics' was confusing. At this point it doesn't matter what you meant.
I disagree and IMHO a review of recent rulings bares that out.
Obviously.
All I am saying is that the justices on the SCotUS will naturally assume positions that are constitutional and best consider legal precedent (where established). While they will each naturally be swayed by their ideological (and otherwise) biases (given they are human beings), I do not see any of them knowingly prioritizing ideology such that they compromise constitutionality and/or established legal precedent.
That was well-stated.
I think some others believe that Justices will not rule based on law, even though they would be hard-pressed to present any evidence to the contrary.
Even dissenting voices can be based on laws, just perhaps a different interpretation of them by the majority. Ginsburg showed that quite adeptly.
You are correct, I do believe the legislators will recognize a political risk to their careers to engage in such a scheme.
This ...
... is the best I have regarding clarity. I will make one last attempt. I am talking about lawsuits, etc. brought by the D party. I was and am simply saying that I do not believe the conservative justices would compromise constitutional and legal ethics (established precedent,etc.) in order to rule in Trump's favor on matters (unspecified as of yet) brought before them. And this is all in the backdrop of your opening objection:
In short, I do not believe the SCotUS is going to act as Trump's SCotUS.
Acknowledged.
Okay. As we can see Trump has his 'bank' of lawyers strumming the strings of our aged-old constitution notes we have forgotten as we moved on through time. Trump is asking his lawyers to up-turn the Constitution and shake out it 'innards' for inspection. What turns up is gaps to be re-interpretated—conservatively. By a newly minted conservative court. (See Mitt Romney call it just that this week .) Why Mitt can't just go with what is morally right for all people, well I digress. The point is we are going to get hit smack in the political 'face' with hard-core conservative outlooks on the law. Apparently, something we have not experienced since conservatives have been playing 'nice' for decades. Get ready for a Trump conservative take on the constitution and the "refreshing" to our Rule of Law.
Legal precedent is about to go bye-bye in a hail of smoke labeled "not original" - That is, never approved by the proper number of states, according to the constitution!
Nearly all conservatives have long argued for a return (a reset) to the constitution before lawyers got involved in carving it up and inserting gray areas where certain population groups lived out their entire existences in repression and suppression . After the manner Trump has carried out full-frontal aggression on U.S. statues and international policy; conservatives will aggressively run-up cases to the federal system which they viewed as hostile to them. (See Romney video.) This is their big opportunity. There is no sufficiency in numbers to mock their efforts. Of course, and unless, their own jurists stab them in the back. (And that is how they will see that last too.)
I would like to NOT generalize to all matters since I was talking specifically about the court compromising its core ethics in order to favor Trump.
A conservative court can be expected to favor conservative ideology once constitutional and legal precedent factors have been considered and acted upon. The remaining wiggle room will be pure judgment and judgment by human beings invariably includes ideology (and other biases).
My position per this thread, again, is that I do not believe the SCotUS will compromise its constitutional and legal ethics for Trump.
We will have to standby and see what the 'end' will be. Because certain conservative justices (i.e., Thomas, for one) rarely has any use for a 'middle ground view' of the constitution. It is as if he, Thomas seriously believes that the founding fathers did not take account (leave any quarter) of any of its liberal constituents at this document writing and assimilation.
Granted. We all now wish the constitution was a 'pure' document. Actually, it was a document projecting grand designs on its "subjects." However, there were people then that frothed at each other, and it generationally continues churning the legal waters to this day. That is, there are people among us who wish a firmly established patriarchy and Christendom and they call that a "return to our nation's inception." It is not! But, some of these folks continue unrelentingly falling and rising up again in their off-spring.
Would Thomas hold true to the constitution and legal precedent as best he understands same? Or would he compromise either of these in favor of ideology?
That's a good question. Unfortunately, I have to admit, I rarely read his opinions or dissents—usually taking it as if I read Scalia's opinion or dissent, it is "ditto" for Thomas!
That said. Thomas, as are all the justices, are singled out for possible supreme court lifetime positions to be more than the sum total of tomes on case law and jurisprudence. In our nation, we are a great mixed people—deliberately. Though we strive to perfect each other, where we fail and the gaps between people widen, our system of justice is intended to make this group or that group whole or at the least "connected" (legit) to the rest of us.Consequently, Thomas, was expected to be a type of Thurgood Marshall, expressing insights in law that helped make black people 'whole' or 'connected,' even as Sotomayor would inject flecks of latina/o understanding and sufficient 'flavor,' as done by flavors of catholic, a jew, a woman, or whomsoever.
Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology. Evidenced by him ignoring that Scalia's orginalist mindset on constitutional outgrowth, which Thomas assents to, would permanently leave a black Americans as second-class citizen, that is, as 'legal after-thoughts.' Similarly as is the case for women and those other types in my first paragraph. (No one considers whether White Male Protestants are anything other than first-class constitutionally.)
How does that square with Thomas voting with Ginsburg 49% of the time, with Thomas voting with Elena Kagan 50% of the time, with Thomas voting with Sotomayor 44% of the time, with Thomas voting with Breyer 52% of the time during the October 2019 term?
Please, expand on your theory about Thomas relegating himself to conservative idealogy. Is it your posit that those "liberal" Justices relegated themselves to conservative idealogy, too?
That comes from the same racist groupthink that attacked Thomas as Scalia's puppet. Thomas has been willing to side with four liberals to give them a win. It's the Democratic justices who never break from the party mindset to provide a decisive vote in contentious cases. It's the democratic justices who are fungible ideological votes.
Point of clarification: Where did I express anything of Thomas' voting record? In 2019? What does that have to do with Scalia? He was not around in 2019, having died in 2016. Do you have stats for then?
Or this from 2019 in The Nation ?
Note: I don't follow the career of Thomas (maybe I should and could going forward). I will look deeper into his as time progresses. However, he is of the Scalia "orginalist" doctrine.
Easy for you say,. . .Sean. After all, all I see is rhetoric and no information to digest. Would it be too much labor for conservatives to put link to comment backing up their statements in proper and sufficient context ?
Well since about 40% of the cases were 8-0 or 9-0, that takes care of the lions share.
Care to go figure out the percentage of case that Thomas broke with the conservatives?
Seriously, Thomas was the MOST conservative Judge on the court in 2019.
Actually, it comes from the facts. Statistics prove that Thomas now the most conservative Justice.
That’s not responsive.
It's factual rebuttal.
No, it’s not. Try again, and think what the words used mean.
When you wrote THIS:
you seem to think that conservative ideology is forefront, not the law. I just proved you wrong is all. If conservative ideaology is at the forefront of his decisions, he would never vote with liberal Justices. And they certainly wouldn't be voting with Thomas!
I do not have stats for earlier years, but I could research them as easily as you--that is how I quoted real facts and stats, not platitudes about conservative idealogy with no basis in fact.
Perhaps it would behoove you to look at his whole career as a member of SCOTUS before declaring him anything, then.
A very strange thing to post after previously declaring this:
It can't be both ways.
Which adeptly negates the poster's posit that Thomas is "Clarence Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology".
Unless you posit that in about 40% of the cases, liberal Justices relegated themselves to a conservative idealogy.
It just can't be both.
I know where to look, if I choose to. Same place I got the numbers I posted before. if you ate asking me to do research for you, forget it.
So what? Someone was also the most liberal Justice on the court in 2019. So what?
I didn't claim he wasn't conservative.
Even your own numbers you quoted show that Justices decide cases based on law. Some want to simply think that BECAUSE a Justice is conservative, they don't or won't apply the law.
That was kind of the whole point I was making.
Suppose YOU support your claim Sean.
You claimed that the idea that Thomas relegates himself to conservative ideology comes from 'racist group think'.
So you should be able to point to statistics, or at least racist analysis of Thomas' rulings that prove your posit.
Please proceed.
No Tex. What it 'adeptly' does is prove that in at least 40% of the cases, ideology wasn't a factor.
That's the kind of comment that illustrates a lack of cogent analysis and an inability to recognize that not everything can be viewed though an either or lens.
Translation: So rarely as to be infinitesimal.
It refutes your argument that Thomas DOESN'T relegating himself to conservative idealogy.
THAT'S what.
Yet you've tried and failed to prove that he hasn't 'relegated himself to conservative ideology' even though you admit that you know where the statistics are to prove that his HAS.
No Tex. All the numbers that I quoted show is how often all the Justices who heard the case agreed.
I haven't seen that argument being made in this thread.
MY argument is that while Thomas may 'apply the law', he does so from a clearly documented conservative ideology. It's ridiculous to argue otherwise.
Please show me some of those 9-0 cases and how Thomas' conservatism made him vote the way he did.
If ideology isn't a factor in those cases, why do you assume it is in other cases?
What do you base the claim that ideology played no part in those cases on?
Do you recognize that two people can read laws, hear cases, and come to two different decisions, and that it may very well have absolutely nothing to do with ideology?
Well gee Tex, I would but you've set the standard here:
Goose, gander.
So you'll just have to go look them up and READ them for yourself.
I 'assume' nothing Tex. As you should know by now, I actually READ SCOTUS opinions. Both majority AND dissenting.
Yes, do you?
yes as evidenced by anyone who actually read and understood my post would show.
I suppose we just see SCOTUS differently.
Well judging from the fact that you claimed that Thomas' voting with liberal judges somehow proved his neutral ideology, no.
IMHO, we value facts differently.
Ah, I see a problem there. I never claimed that.
I see that we do, like the above shows.
Just read the damn article. I provided you. You support Clarence Thomas, I reckon, for the same reasons you support Donald Trump. Is Donald Trump a liberal? I suppose both Clarence and Donald garner your "allegiance" because they do a lot of nice things for you and your worldview.
Well, not so for mine. And as Dulay (shout out!) pointed out and I paraphrase, even a stopped clock is right several times a day. Moreover, with the limited number of cases involved in any given season on the court, it is possible for liberals and conservatives to agree from differing worldviews.
Lastly, I was talking about constitutional originalist thinking. The question for you is this:
Is Clarence Thomas an 'originalist' or not?
All that other clanging around you do besides, is irrelevant.
What can't be both ways?
Not in so many words but you sure as hell tired to prove it and you failed miserably.
If by the above you mean the fact that you asked for information that you claimed to already have access too and you claimed that my numbers show something that they don't, YES, the above does show that.
I have not stated that a conservative justice won't "apply" the law. I will continue to state (as liberal justices do) that the supporters of constitutional originalist thinking are an attempt to avoid courts 'righting' inequities in our system, due to weak congressional sessions. That is, differing congresses iare inept in passing and improving proper laws that work and take account of the needs and lives of the citizenry, and the high court's conservatives wish to sit on their damn hands doing nothing to hear the pleads of the citizens to act in congress' stead. Even when the deficiencies are numerous and recognizable.
That should not be! More later on this one, if you come back that is.
(It's that tired old argument about the constitution being "static" or "living.")
I read the opinion piece you offered. Kind of ballsy to assume I didn't, but, whatever.
I can't stop you from making erroneous guesses.
No. Are we switching to Trump now, away from SCOTUS?
I can't stop you from making erroneous guesses.
Don't know, don't care, and don't understand the fascination with it, personally.
I don't accept you as sole arbitrator of relevance. Sorry!
[deleted]
When you claim I stated something I didn't, it is no surprise that you get other stuff wrong, too.
Please quote me claiming your numbers show something they don't. Otherwise I will assume you are merely guessing.
Okay, we disagree. I don't believe the courts are for legislating, I believe that is Congress' job. Maybe you have heard differently.
I consider it the Court's job to rule on cases before it, based on laws.
Then stop wasting time. You chimed in @9.2.17 so sure of your statements, and now you are balking?! Give it a rest (if you can).
I fully glean what you believe. Courts do not legislate. What courts do is judge the rightness or wrongness of a case using the inherent 'powers' in the constitution and case law. The hopeful effect which is to correct a deficiency/ies. Keep up. Incidentally, only a staunched conservative deploying a talking point would state a nuanced position that courts "legislate."
My time to waste, and you are not the boss of me! (Chuckle)
I chimed in. Isn't that what public forums are for? People to voice their opinions?
I am balking, as you put it, to rehash stuff already said and there for you to read. Either you figure it out or you don't. It isn't my job to connect everything for you. Doesn't really matter to me one way or the other. Not my circus, not my monkeys.
That certainly looks to be up for debate.
I know that. Was that unclear from my comment?
Again, we disagree. I believe the Court rules based on law, not what is considered right or wrong. Ruling based on right or wrong instead of the law leads to attempts to legislate from the bench.
Meh.
When YOU claim that I stated that YOU stated something when I didn't, ditto.
R-i-g-h-t.
To think that it was possible for Trump to be elected POTUS was beyond ridiculous.
I agree. But that does not make this scheme likely to succeed.
What will happen if Biden refuses to concede? What should be the time limit on late, lost, or "found" votes?
Each states has legislated that and Federal law requires that they certify their electors by Dec. 8th.
Done.