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

[Rich2018]

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)....

Would that be the same Constitution that:

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

Just so we're clear - it's just in your opinion that, that was a flawed decision. (and I suppose the one justice to vote against the ruling).

 

[Cordelier]

Would that be the same Constitution that:




Just so we're clear - it's just in your opinion that, that was a flawed decision. (and I suppose the one justice to vote against the ruling).

No, it's my opinion that the Supreme Court shouldn't have taken up the case in the first place. Comity demanded that the FLSC decision should have been operative for conducting the recount. I would have rejected the 14th Amendment argument out of hand because it didn't meet the ripeness threshhold.

 

[Rich2018]

No, it's my opinion that the Supreme Court shouldn't have taken up the case in the first place.

That's so interesting

Maybe you should write a book and list your opinions ?

Especially those that conflict with expert opinion

Comity demanded that the FLSC decision should have been operative for conducting the recount. I would have rejected the 14th Amendment argument out of hand because it didn't meet the threshhold.

Says who ?

 

[Tangmo]

Well let's take a look at your claims.

The 2000 election was an appropriate use of the SC. Florida screwed up their vote count, and it had to be decided by outsiders.

The 2016 election was decided by outsiders inside the Kremlin.

Making America Russia Instead and that you support absolutely.

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

The Constitution that Minister of Justice Barr and you Putin Trump Rowers hate absolutely.

 

[smallvoice]

The 2016 election was decided by outsiders inside the Kremlin.

Making America Russia Instead and that you support absolutely.









The Constitution that Minister of Justice Barr and you Putin Trump Rowers hate absolutely.

The House was unable to confirm your claim, do you have more evidence? The Senate confirmed their findings.

You make no progress with your frothing.

 

[Cordelier]

That's so interesting

Maybe you should write a book and list your opinions ?

Especially those that conflict with expert opinion





Says who ?

*LOL* I'm thinking it'd be a multi-volume work.

Says who? Well, I've already cited Art. IV of the Constitution... that covers comity. Ripeness is covered by Justice Louis Brandeis in Ashwander Rule #2. I could also add Rule #5. Neither Bush nor Gore were Florida voters, and therefore neither had standing to make a 14th Amendment complaint.

 

[2distracted]

Op really doesn't know what real (not fake) news-watchers know...about Obummer using govt office for political benefit...corruptly?

This country is in big trouble with that kind of abysmal ignorance

 

[Tangmo]

The House was unable to confirm your claim, do you have more evidence? The Senate confirmed their findings.

You make no progress with your frothing.

You're referencing The House Divided that cannot stand so you'll need to sit back down thx.

There are plenty of findings by the Intelligence Committees to name but one area of jurisdiction, to include in the Senate of course.

My concern is that Barr is worse than Trump in certain matters, mostly because Barr is a lawyer-huckster while Trump is simply a huckster. So while Trump simply ignores the Constitution Barr The Shadow shoplifts throughout it...daily.

 

[Rich2018]

*LOL* I'm thinking it'd be a multi-volume work.

"I wouldn't say he was big headed but his first book was titled "Where God Went Wrong"..."

Says who? Well, I've already cited Art. IV of the Constitution...

The Constitution isn't a "Who"

It's a "what"


So know you've been schooled on grammar, let me ask again:

Says WHO ?

I could also add Rule #5. Neither Bush nor Gore were Florida voters, and therefore neither had standing to make a 14th Amendment complaint.

Says who ?

 

[CaughtInThe]

Trump and Barr are like a mafia. Whatever dirty and nasty things they're doing, they're already doing. And we probably won't hear about a ton of it.

That's what makes the mafia so savvy. You don't know what they're doing.

 

[Cordelier]

"I wouldn't say he was big headed but his first book was titled "Where God Went Wrong"..."




The Constitution isn't a "Who"

It's a "what"


So know you've been schooled on grammar, let me ask again:

Says WHO ?





Says who ?

I've laid out my argument... if you've got a counter-argument, then go ahead and make it. My bottom line is that there was no clear and compelling reason for the Supreme Court to intervene... and there were plenty of reasons for it to deny cert. The FLSC had matters in hand, and if their decision had been allowed to stand, it would have resulted in definitive solution which would have been infinitely more acceptable to the country than the SCOTUS decision was. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that justice rushed is justice crushed. If there were 14th Amendment issues arising from different voting systems, the time to resolve them should have been after the dust settled, not in the short and vital window between the casting and counting of ballots.

 

[Cordelier]

"I wouldn't say he was big headed but his first book was titled "Where God Went Wrong"..."

I don't question reality. I just try to look at it from a different angle.

 

[Rich2018]

I've laid out my argument...

No, you've just stated your opinion

You have not made any argument. Your personal opinion is unsubstantiated and unsupported by anyone ("anyone" is also a "who" and not a "what" since you clearly don't know the difference)

if you've got a counter-argument, then go ahead and make it....

How about the size of the court ruling (a ruling made made experts in interpreting law) ?

That's supportive argument (see the difference?)

Against the personal opinion of some guy from the internet

My bottom line is that there was no clear and compelling reason for the Supreme Court to intervene...

In your opinion


The justices of the Supreme Court disagreed.
Who should I believe ?

The FLSC had matters in hand, and if their decision had been allowed to stand, it would have resulted in definitive solution which would have been infinitely more acceptable to the country than the SCOTUS decision was. The plain and simple fact of the matter is that justice rushed is justice crushed. If there were 14th Amendment issues arising from different voting systems, the time to resolve them should have been after the dust settled, not in the short and vital window between the casting and counting of ballots.

Again is this just your opinion or have you found anyone (again a "who" not a "what") that supports your opinion and therefore turns it into an argument ?

 

[Cordelier]

No, you've just stated your opinion

You have not made any argument. Your personal opinion is unsubstantiated and unsupported by anyone ("anyone" is also a "who" and not a "what" since you clearly don't know the difference)





How about the size of the court ruling (a ruling made made experts in interpreting law) ?

That's supportive argument (see the difference?)

Against the personal opinion of some guy from the internet




In your opinion


The justices of the Supreme Court disagreed.
Who should I believe ?




Again is this just your opinion or have you found anyone (again a "who" not a "what") that supports your opinion and therefore turns it into an argument ?

How about this, Rich?... I'm going to suggest that you have your semantic tantrum with someone else. I'm looking for a debate with someone who can hold up their side of the argument.

 

[Casper]

Trump and Barr are like a mafia. Whatever dirty and nasty things they're doing, they're already doing. And we probably won't hear about a ton of it.

That's what makes the mafia so savvy. You don't know what they're doing.

Thankfully most end up in Prison or Dead, sounds good to me.

 

[Integrityrespec]

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?

Maybe you should cite the accounts of Barr doing what you claim. I haven't noticed any illegal action by Barr, can you provide some?

 

[Rich2018]

How about this, Rich?... I'm going to suggest that you have your semantic tantrum with someone else. I'm looking for a debate with someone who can hold up their side of the argument.

No, you're looking to state your opinion and masquerade it as debate


Are you aware of anyone who supports your opinion ?

Right now you're just saying the SC was wrong, and the opinion of some guy off the internet is a very poor second to the Supreme Court, unless of course your personal opinion is supported in some way.
(which you have not shown that it is).

 

[Cordelier]

No, you're looking to state your opinion and masquerade it as debate


Are you aware of anyone who supports your opinion ?

Right now you're just saying the SC was wrong, and the opinion of some guy off the internet is a very poor second to the Supreme Court, unless of course your personal opinion is supported in some way.
(which you have not shown that it is).

:yawn:

 

[Rich2018]

:yawn:

I'll take that as a "no"

You short attention span undermined you (and your complete absence of an argument - only pure opinion).

 

[Cordelier]

I'll take that as a "no"

You short attention span undermined you (and your complete absence of an argument - only pure opinion).

I don't know if you've noticed, Rich... but you're the one in this conversation who didn't bring anything to the table.

 

[Rich2018]

I don't know if you've noticed, Rich... but you're the one in this conversation who didn't bring anything to the table.

Other than express skepticism regarding your opinion....and to point out that there are several opinions out there that also disbelieve you and none, as far as I can see, that agrees with you.

 

[Cordelier]

Other than express skepticism regarding your opinion....and to point out that there are several opinions out there that also disbelieve you and none, as far as I can see, that agrees with you.

An opinion is the equivalent of drawing a pair in poker.... it doesn't usually win the hand, unless everyone else folds.

So why should I bother playing up my hand if you've already folded?

 

[Rich2018]

An opinion is the equivalent of drawing a pair in poker.... it doesn't usually win the hand, unless everyone else folds.

So why should I bother playing up my hand if you've already folded?

Because expressing skepticism is not on a par with folding a poker hand.

 

[Cordelier]

Because expressing skepticism is not on a par with folding a poker hand.

You're right... it's more on a par with being a spectator.

I don't play to the peanut galley, Rich. If you want to talk, you need to deal yourself a hand.

 

[Rich2018]

You're right... it's more on a par with being a spectator.

I don't play to the peanut galley, Rich. If you want to talk, you need to deal yourself a hand.

I could deal myself the same kind of opinion "hand" as you and just say in my opinion I don't agree

But then again I would have the bulk of the Supreme Court supporting me

You have no-one.