• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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.

They're not supporting you.... it seems to me the other way around - you're just parroting them.

I can't debate the Supreme Court, Rich. No matter how hard I try or what salient points I make, Bill Rehnquist isn't going to come back from the dead and respond to me. And the ones who are still living probably aren't going to be much more inclined to do so either. Nor is the text going to jump off the page and defend itself.

For me to engage in a debate, someone needs to take a seat at the table opposite and make the case for themselves. Deal themselves a hand. I can make an argument.... I'm just not going to put in the effort if there's no real engagement from the other side.
 
They're not supporting you.... it seems to me the other way around - you're just parroting them.

I can't debate the Supreme Court, Rich. No matter how hard I try or what salient points I make, Bill Rehnquist isn't going to come back from the dead and respond to me. And the ones who are still living probably aren't going to be much more inclined to do so either. Nor is the text going to jump off the page and defend itself.

For me to engage in a debate, someone needs to take a seat at the table opposite and make the case for themselves. Deal themselves a hand. I can make an argument.... I'm just not going to put in the effort if there's no real engagement from the other side.


I can see from your desperation that you really don't understand this debating concept. It's clear you never studied arts at college level

Leaving aside your somewhat disparaging comments about "parroting" others, the basics of debate is to build a case of supporting evidence
When writing a paper on a certain topic you list and discuss events or the writings of well respected commentators who support the preposition that you're arguing for
This isn't "parroting" what they say/said it's QUOTING them


Now there's a logical fallacy called "an appeal to authority". It is where you use someone's opinion to support your own.
eg: The recent wave of protests across the USA were by socialist revolutionaries looking to destroy America, and Donald Trump says so" - is an appeal to authority because Trump is not in any position to know
You quote, not parrot, respected individuals who are qualified to be an authority on the subject


eg: if you go to a talk on the future of NASCAR racing, the speaker might start something like:
"Hello I am Mr X and I was a NASCAR driver for 20 years and now I work in Ford's engine development department...". That is their AUTHORITY to be speaking to you
It's not "Hello, I am Mr Y and I once saw a NASCAR race on TV" - so quoting Mr Y in a debate in "an appeal to authority" fallacy, whereas quoting Mr X is not


There was a now banned poster on here called Samwise. He kept posting that in his opinion a state(s) could secede from the union because there was no clause in the Constitution that specifically said "No state can secede once it joins the union"
It was pointed out to him over and over that it was just his opinion and his alone
And the the union government didn't think the states could secede in 1861 and fought a war over the issue
Also constitutional scholars over the years, notably former Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, Joseph Story said that the language of the Constitution made this prohibited
Moreover he was backed up by virtually every constitutional scholar since


So no, you don't debate dead men, you can however use their writings to back your argument (assuming that they carry sufficient AUTHORITY to be so used)

Right now you are like Samwise and arguing against a Supreme Court ruling based just on your opinion


That is not debating that is simply parroting contradiction
So if you are to continue, don't just say what you think (any college professor will tell a student never to voice personal opinion in a paper as no-one gives a damn about what YOU think), substantiate it with evidence of some kind

Only then will your posts rise from opinion, into an argument.
 
Last edited:
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.

As per the Constitution, the state legislatures, not the courts, decide how a state's electors are selected.
In 2000, the Florida legislature determined Bush had won. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the recount. That is why the the Supreme Court stopped the recount. The Florida court lacked the authority.
 
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?

In the USA, a president is elected via 50 separate elections.
The states control it.
Barr can't "order" a recount in a particular state. That is up to the state.
Ironically, the concern here about Barr and Trump would be more 'valid' in the sense it would be feasible for it to occur in a country that did not have the electoral college or if it used the National Voter Cpmpact.
In other words, even though the fears about Trump and Barr on this issue are nonsense, the electoral college avoids the specific problem that is fretted about.
 
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?

The pundits are right when they say the democrats accuse the republicans of doing what they themselves are actually doing.
 
Welcome to the ****hole country.
 
I can see from your desperation that you really don't understand this debating concept. It's clear you never studied arts at college level

Leaving aside your somewhat disparaging comments about "parroting" others, the basics of debate is to build a case of supporting evidence
When writing a paper on a certain topic you list and discuss events or the writings of well respected commentators who support the preposition that you're arguing for
This isn't "parroting" what they say/said it's QUOTING them


Now there's a logical fallacy called "an appeal to authority". It is where you use someone's opinion to support your own.
eg: The recent wave of protests across the USA were by socialist revolutionaries looking to destroy America, and Donald Trump says so" - is an appeal to authority because Trump is not in any position to know
You quote, not parrot, respected individuals who are qualified to be an authority on the subject


eg: if you go to a talk on the future of NASCAR racing, the speaker might start something like:
"Hello I am Mr X and I was a NASCAR driver for 20 years and now I work in Ford's engine development department...". That is their AUTHORITY to be speaking to you
It's not "Hello, I am Mr Y and I once saw a NASCAR race on TV" - so quoting Mr Y in a debate in "an appeal to authority" fallacy, whereas quoting Mr X is not


There was a now banned poster on here called Samwise. He kept posting that in his opinion a state(s) could secede from the union because there was no clause in the Constitution that specifically said "No state can secede once it joins the union"
It was pointed out to him over and over that it was just his opinion and his alone
And the the union government didn't think the states could secede in 1861 and fought a war over the issue
Also constitutional scholars over the years, notably former Chief Justice to the Supreme Court, Joseph Story said that the language of the Constitution made this prohibited
Moreover he was backed up by virtually every constitutional scholar since


So no, you don't debate dead men, you can however use their writings to back your argument (assuming that they carry sufficient AUTHORITY to be so used)

Right now you are like Samwise and arguing against a Supreme Court ruling based just on your opinion


That is not debating that is simply parroting contradiction
So if you are to continue, don't just say what you think (any college professor will tell a student never to voice personal opinion in a paper as no-one gives a damn about what YOU think), substantiate it with evidence of some kind

Only then will your posts rise from opinion, into an argument.

Can't think of anything more vacuous than engaging in a debate about debating, Rich. Maybe you should start a thread and get a few like-minded people to join you in that discussion?
 
As per the Constitution, the state legislatures, not the courts, decide how a state's electors are selected.
In 2000, the Florida legislature determined Bush had won. The Florida Supreme Court disagreed and ordered the recount. That is why the the Supreme Court stopped the recount. The Florida court lacked the authority.

The FLSC is the final arbiter of Florida State Law, Athan... the legislature may make the laws, but the judiciary determines how they are to be applied.
 
Can't think of anything more vacuous than engaging in a debate about debating, Rich. Maybe you should start a thread and get a few like-minded people to join you in that discussion?

What a comeback after 4 days


Guess your momma helped you write it.
 
Back
Top Bottom