COuld Barr stop the vote counting after the election and throw it to SCOTUS to decide?

[independentusa]

Barr has shown he will do what is needed to protect Trump and that may have left Barr open to legal action if Trump is beaten in November. So could Barr take legal action to stop the vote counting under the pretext of alleged voter fraud or some other legal reason and throw the election into the SCOTUS to decide the election? There is already a precedent for the SCOTUS taking action in an election when they decided the outcome of the 2000 election. I know this sounds far out, but after seeing what Trump and Barr have done to politicize our DOJ and the judicial system, I wonder if this could happen and if Trump followers would be okay with such an action?

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Barr has shown he will do what is needed to protect Trump and that may have left Barr open to legal action if Trump is beaten in November. So could Barr take legal action to stop the vote counting under the pretext of alleged voter fraud or some other legal reason and throw the election into the SCOTUS to decide the election? There is already a precedent for the SCOTUS taking action in an election when they decided the outcome of the 2000 election. I know this sounds far out, but after seeing what Trump and Barr have done to politicize our DOJ and the judicial system, I wonder if this could happen and if Trump followers would be okay with such an action?

He will not get the chance.

 

[jamesbyoung]

If Barr tries anything of the sort, nearly ten million Americans will come DC within 48 hours to visit with him.

 

[Chomsky]

I don't see how he could stop it?

 

[trouble13]

I don't see how he could stop it?

I dont think it falls under federal juristriction. Its up to each state to certify the election. Not sure what happens if they take too long doing it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Tangmo]

In 2000 in Bush v Gore Scotus ordered Florida to stop recounting votes and report the totals as of the stop order which Scotus issued when Bush happened to be ahead.

Scotus based its interposition on the federal law that each state must report its electoral vote numbers to the Congress by a certain date specified in law, so the Congress in Joint Session Assembled can record the ECV of each state and declare the winner (or no winner) of the minimum 270. The absolute deadline date for each state to report was something like December 16 in year 2000 (maybe it was the 18th). I haven't looked at the federal law date of this year 2020.

Indeed Putin Barr and Trump are free to try to manipulate this process in any way Scotus may approve. In 2000 the 5-4 Scotus majority claimed equal protection of the law in its stop the recount order to Florida. The Scotus stop order froze the popular vote for Bush, then Florida electors met in the state capital Tallahassee to give Bush all the states ECV. The state certified this and sent the document to Congress by the required reporting date, as the federal law requires. Congress Assembled must declare a final result winner or no winner -- no winner of 270 and the election goes to the House to decide where each state gets one vote.

Five will get you ten Barr et al are already scheming on this and that perhaps several states may be targeted by Barr Nov. 3rd based on how the vote counting goes in specific states after the polling stations close in a given state. Bad Guys have possession of the presidency that they'll never have again after this election so the Bad Guys will do everything they can to remain in possession of it -- indefinitely.

 

[Rich2018]

Barr has shown he will do what is needed to protect Trump and that may have left Barr open to legal action if Trump is beaten in November. So could Barr take legal action to stop the vote counting under the pretext of alleged voter fraud or some other legal reason and throw the election into the SCOTUS to decide the election? There is already a precedent for the SCOTUS taking action in an election when they decided the outcome of the 2000 election. I know this sounds far out, but after seeing what Trump and Barr have done to politicize our DOJ and the judicial system, I wonder if this could happen and if Trump followers would be okay with such an action?

He has certainly been guilty of perverting the course of justice during his tenure.

 

[Chomsky]

I dont think it falls under federal juristriction. Its up to each state to certify the election. Not sure what happens if they take too long doing it

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

At least in legal terms, that's where I'm at.

 

[Gator]

Barr has shown he will do what is needed to protect Trump and that may have left Barr open to legal action if Trump is beaten in November. So could Barr take legal action to stop the vote counting under the pretext of alleged voter fraud or some other legal reason and throw the election into the SCOTUS to decide the election? There is already a precedent for the SCOTUS taking action in an election when they decided the outcome of the 2000 election. I know this sounds far out, but after seeing what Trump and Barr have done to politicize our DOJ and the judicial system, I wonder if this could happen and if Trump followers would be okay with such an action?

No, he will not.

 

[Rawley]

In 2000 the 5-4 Scotus majority claimed equal protection of the law in its stop the recount order to Florida.

The Court voted 7-1 that Florida's recount violated Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Rich2018]

No, he will not.

So you think Barr draw's a line a breaking the law ?

 

[Gator]

So you think Barr draw's a line a breaking the law ?

I don't think he has any authority to stop state vote counting.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't think he has any authority to stop state vote counting.

No, neither he not Trump has the authority.

 

[TomFitz]

In 2000 in Bush v Gore Scotus ordered Florida to stop recounting votes and report the totals as of the stop order which Scotus issued when Bush happened to be ahead.

Scotus based its interposition on the federal law that each state must report its electoral vote numbers to the Congress by a certain date specified in law, so the Congress in Joint Session Assembled can record the ECV of each state and declare the winner (or no winner) of the minimum 270. The absolute deadline date for each state to report was something like December 16 in year 2000 (maybe it was the 18th). I haven't looked at the federal law date of this year 2020.

Indeed Putin Barr and Trump are free to try to manipulate this process in any way Scotus may approve. In 2000 the 5-4 Scotus majority claimed equal protection of the law in its stop the recount order to Florida. The Scotus stop order froze the popular vote for Bush, then Florida electors met in the state capital Tallahassee to give Bush all the states ECV. The state certified this and sent the document to Congress by the required reporting date, as the federal law requires. Congress Assembled must declare a final result winner or no winner -- no winner of 270 and the election goes to the House to decide where each state gets one vote.

Five will get you ten Barr et al are already scheming on this and that perhaps several states may be targeted by Barr Nov. 3rd based on how the vote counting goes in specific states after the polling stations close in a given state. Bad Guys have possession of the presidency that they'll never have again after this election so the Bad Guys will do everything they can to remain in possession of it -- indefinitely.

I have little doubt that they are gaming out ‘options now.

 

[Rich2018]

I have little doubt that they are gaming out ‘options now.

...and sounding out who would support them if the November election was lost...and they uncovered information that the election had been "rigged".

 

[Gator]

No, neither he not Trump has the authority.

Agreed. And I don't think Trump or Barr have any scheme to stop the election. They don't think they will lose.

 

[Blackstone]

Barr has shown he will do what is needed to protect Trump and that may have left Barr open to legal action if Trump is beaten in November. So could Barr take legal action to stop the vote counting under the pretext of alleged voter fraud or some other legal reason and throw the election into the SCOTUS to decide the election? There is already a precedent for the SCOTUS taking action in an election when they decided the outcome of the 2000 election. I know this sounds far out, but after seeing what Trump and Barr have done to politicize our DOJ and the judicial system, I wonder if this could happen and if Trump followers would be okay with such an action?

Funny how so many people see the world upside down.

Obama and Biden politicized the Justice Department (and then some). Unlike Loretta Lynch, Barr has not committed any crime as Attorney General, much less attempted to protect his boss in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election.

Neverland must be a wonderful place in which to live. You're obviously enjoyed it.

 

[Rich2018]

Funny how so many people see the world upside down.

Obama and Biden politicized the Justice Department (and then some). Unlike Loretta Lynch, Barr has not committed any crime as Attorney General, much less attempted to protect his boss in an attempt to influence the outcome of an election.

Neverland must be a wonderful place in which to live. You're obviously enjoyed it.

Explain how "Obama and Biden politicized the Justice Department"

 

[Cordelier]

The Court voted 7-1 that Florida's recount violated Equal Protection of the 14th Amendment.

It was a flawed decision... the Florida Supreme Court should have been given "full faith and credit" in accordance with Article IV §1 of the Constitution.

 

[Rich2018]

It was a flawed decision... the Florida Supreme Court should have been given "full faith and credit" in accordance with Article IV §1 of the Constitution.

Says who ?


Do you mean in just your opinion ?

 

[Cordelier]

Says who ?


Do you mean in just your opinion ?

Well, yeah... who else's opinion did you expect me to have?

 

[Rich2018]

Well, yeah... who else's opinion did you expect me to have?

I don't know...thought maybe you could cite a source that gives support to your claim


But at least we're clear, it's just YOUR opinion.

 

[Cordelier]

I don't know...thought maybe you could cite a source that gives support to your claim


But at least we're clear, it's just YOUR opinion.

Well, I figured the Constitutional text would speak for itself.... "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the... judicial Proceedings of every other State." (Art. IV §1). So where in this whole schmozzle was "faith faith and credit" given to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court? There was a dispute about how the recount would be resolved, it pertained only to the State of Florida, and the Supreme Court of Florida made their decision. The table was set. All they had to do was follow the gameplan laid out by the FLSC. Instead, the Supreme Court comes in and wastes valuable time arguing and deciding this bloated dead whale of a decision, and to add insult to injury... adds that since there's now no time left for the recount, the matter is closed.

Bull****. They should have just kept out of it. Full faith and credit.

I realize there were constitutionally-imposed time limits and all the rest. But you know what? So did the Justices of the FLSC, and they took all of the pertinent facts into account when they wrote their decision. Their plan should have been given a chance to work. Simple as that.

 

[smallvoice]

Barr has shown he will do what is needed to protect Trump and that may have left Barr open to legal action if Trump is beaten in November. So could Barr take legal action to stop the vote counting under the pretext of alleged voter fraud or some other legal reason and throw the election into the SCOTUS to decide the election? There is already a precedent for the SCOTUS taking action in an election when they decided the outcome of the 2000 election. I know this sounds far out, but after seeing what Trump and Barr have done to politicize our DOJ and the judicial system, I wonder if this could happen and if Trump followers would be okay with such an action?

Well let's take a look at your claims.

1. Barr has done nothing to "protect" Trump.
2. There will be no "legal action" no matter what happens in November.
3. Barr has no reason, nor intention, of stopping the vote count. You are sounding paranoid.
4. The 2000 election was an appropriate use of the SC. Florida screwed up their vote count, and it had to be decided by outsiders.
5.Trump has done nothing out of the ordinary ro "politicize" the DOJ. You should be used to that kind of executive relationship: you have JFK and Bobby to evaluate if you want a shaky relationship example.
6. Trump supporters will do what is right, and lawful. Not so sure about the House after their last debacle. Will they be OK?

 

[smallvoice]

In 2000 in Bush v Gore Scotus ordered Florida to stop recounting votes and report the totals as of the stop order which Scotus issued when Bush happened to be ahead.

Scotus based its interposition on the federal law that each state must report its electoral vote numbers to the Congress by a certain date specified in law, so the Congress in Joint Session Assembled can record the ECV of each state and declare the winner (or no winner) of the minimum 270. The absolute deadline date for each state to report was something like December 16 in year 2000 (maybe it was the 18th). I haven't looked at the federal law date of this year 2020.

Indeed Putin Barr and Trump are free to try to manipulate this process in any way Scotus may approve. In 2000 the 5-4 Scotus majority claimed equal protection of the law in its stop the recount order to Florida. The Scotus stop order froze the popular vote for Bush, then Florida electors met in the state capital Tallahassee to give Bush all the states ECV. The state certified this and sent the document to Congress by the required reporting date, as the federal law requires. Congress Assembled must declare a final result winner or no winner -- no winner of 270 and the election goes to the House to decide where each state gets one vote.

Five will get you ten Barr et al are already scheming on this and that perhaps several states may be targeted by Barr Nov. 3rd based on how the vote counting goes in specific states after the polling stations close in a given state. Bad Guys have possession of the presidency that they'll never have again after this election so the Bad Guys will do everything they can to remain in possession of it -- indefinitely.

Stupid position there, "Old Guard". What did you guard, the outhouse?