Jump to content

A Real Election Challenge Has Emerged


Guest cherzeca
 Share

Recommended Posts

Guest cherzeca

until now, we have had Guiliuani and Powell showboating, leading a parade of election claims that haven't amounted to a hill of beans. but now, with Texas' emergency scotus motion, the sh*t is about to get real:  https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed

 

from an investor's POV, if scotus accepts the motion, I would think there would be a market downdraft, unhappy at the attendant uncertainty

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 167
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest cherzeca

until now, we have had Guiliuani and Powell showboating, leading a parade of election claims that haven't amounted to a hill of beans. but now, with Texas' emergency scotus motion, the sh*t is about to get real:  https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed

 

from an investor's POV, if scotus accepts the motion, I would think there would be a market downdraft, unhappy at the attendant uncertainty

 

until now, trump administration election challenges have been ineffectual, a sort of traveling minstrel show featuring Rudy and Sidney. this has now changed. Texas has filed an action with SCOTUS seeking to have the electoral college votes of Pa., Mich., Ga. and Wisc be appointed by the appropriate states legislatures, as opposed to those votes of EC voters certified by the secretaries of state based upon the election.

 

Texas alleges that the elections conducted in the defendant states violated the Electors Clause of the US constitution, which provides that “state legislatures” shall prescribe voting procedures for potus election. Texas claims that those defendant states violated this US constitutional requirement when the states, acting other than through their respective legislatures, changed the electoral processes within the states. This is a claim of ultra vires elections in those states.

 

Under Bush v Gore, SCOTUS found that federal law (the Electors Clause) is implicated when states conduct elections in violation of their own state law….that even though the violation is of state law, since it implicates the validity of the potus election, SCOTUS was presented with a federal question that it had the jurisdiction and the obligation to decide.

 

Moreover, under the US constitution, SCOTUS has exclusive original jurisdiction involving a case by a state against one or more states.

 

So SCOTUS MUST decide whether the Texas motion states a claim for which SCOTUS can grant relief…and given the Bush v Gore precedent, I believe SCOTUS WILL have to decide the case on the merits.

 

the EC meets by federal statute 12/14/20. the potus inauguration by US constitution is 1/20/21. Texas is asking for straightforward relief…an order requiring that the defendant state legislatures appoint the EC voters in the respective states (this is the 18-19th century practice). of course, their votes for potus may be different than what would obtain if the current slates of EC votes vote in the EC as per election results.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

why isn't this in the Politics section?

 

I agree.

 

imo this is the most important development affecting investors over the next two months...but the site administrator can do what he wants

 

edit:  just bought some spy 1/21 puts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here and laughing my ass off. Today is the safe harbor day for elections and that suit is a joke. Also notice how the Texas solicitor general is not on the suit and the attorney of record is Texas' nutjob AG?

 

This is the most important event affecting investors over the next two months? Boy you're really gonna be surprised when the supreme court declines to hear the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

What specific events are you expecting to occur as a result of this that would cause a crash in equities?    Do the electors note vote and seal the deal on December 14th?

 

if scotus agrees with Texas, that Ga, Wisc, Mi, and Pa conducted elections pursuant to processes in violation of their own state laws, scotus could order that the EC voters be appointed by the state legislatures as opposed by a slate of EC voters pursuant to election results.  this may be advantageous for Trump. 12/14 is not a hard date, though 1/20/21 is a hard date

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

I'm sitting here and laughing my ass off. Today is the safe harbor day for elections and that suit is a joke. Also notice how the Texas solicitor general is not on the suit and the attorney of record is Texas' nutjob AG?

 

This is the most important event affecting investors over the next two months? Boy you're really gonna be surprised when the supreme court declines to hear the case.

 

curious where you went to law school?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here and laughing my ass off. Today is the safe harbor day for elections and that suit is a joke. Also notice how the Texas solicitor general is not on the suit and the attorney of record is Texas' nutjob AG?

 

This is the most important event affecting investors over the next two months? Boy you're really gonna be surprised when the supreme court declines to hear the case.

 

curious where you went to law school?

 

He doesn't need to go to law school.  When you are a liberal and the media is on your side it is very easy to be arrogant and think you know it all.  After all you are woke and others are not.  Don't worry, if the SC decides to hear this case he will be the first one screaming that it isn't fair that Trump nominees are deciding the election (or some such legal theory).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here and laughing my ass off. Today is the safe harbor day for elections and that suit is a joke. Also notice how the Texas solicitor general is not on the suit and the attorney of record is Texas' nutjob AG?

 

This is the most important event affecting investors over the next two months? Boy you're really gonna be surprised when the supreme court declines to hear the case.

 

curious where you went to law school?

 

He doesn't need to go to law school.  When you are a liberal and the media is on your side it is very easy to be arrogant and think you know it all.  After all you are woke and others are not.  Don't worry, if the SC decides to hear this case he will be the first one screaming that it isn't fair that Trump nominees are deciding the election (or some such legal theory).

 

In my experience, both sides have completely lost their minds.  If you align to either political party at this point you're essentially insane. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm just curious what evidence or standing Texas has to bring this to SCOTUS that has been missing from Trump's lawsuits?

 

Is Texas aware of some inconsistency or voter fraud that would make this a reasonable request? If so, how did Texas find it without Trump and Co. knowing since they've been turning over every rock looking for any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to throw those results out?

 

I just don't know why I'd give Texas and more credence than I give Trump's suits b/c it all seems B.S. to me without a any credible support. Few presidents get re-elected in a recession. Few presidents get re-elected with approval ratings as low as his. He's done a lot to alienate a large number of voters who supported him in 2016 (primarily moderates and women) and doesn't really have any real accomplishments to show for it other than the tax cuts.

 

Full disclosure - I'm independent who typically votes right or third party, but did vote Democrat for the first time this year because Trump 1) doesn't represent conservative ideals and 2) his extremism borders dangerously close to fascism and I just can't abide that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

I'm just curious what evidence or standing Texas has to bring this to SCOTUS that has been missing from Trump's lawsuits?

 

Is Texas aware of some inconsistency or voter fraud that would make this a reasonable request? If so, how did Texas find it without Trump and Co. knowing since they've been turning over every rock looking for any excuse, no matter how ridiculous, to throw those results out?

 

I just don't know why I'd give Texas and more credence than I give Trump's suits b/c it all seems B.S. to me without a any credible support. Few presidents get re-elected in a recession. Few presidents get re-elected with approval ratings as low as his. He's done a lot to alienate a large number of voters who supported him in 2016 (primarily moderates and women) and doesn't really have any real accomplishments to show for it other than the tax cuts.

 

Full disclosure - I'm independent who typically votes right or third party, but did vote Democrat for the first time this year because Trump 1) doesn't represent conservative ideals and 2) his extremism borders dangerously close to fascism and I just can't abide that

 

you ask a good question, and there is scotus precedent to support the action, that a state may bring an election challenge in a case like this.  from the Texas complaint:

 

"14. Plaintiff States and their voters are entitled to a presidential election in which the votes from each of the states are counted only if the ballots are cast and counted in a manner that complies with the pre-existing laws of each state. See Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780, 795 (1983) (“for the President and the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials who represent all the voters in the Nation.”). Voters who cast lawful ballots cannot have their votes diminished by states that administered their 2020 presidential elections in a manner where it is impossible to distinguish a lawful ballot from an unlawful ballot."  and

 

"18. In a presidential election, “the impact of the votes cast in each State is affected by the votes cast for the various candidates in other States.” Anderson, 460 U.S. at 795. The constitutional failures of Defendant States injure Plaintiff States because “‘the right of suffrage can be denied by a debasement or dilution of the weight of a citizen’s vote just as effectively as by wholly prohibiting the free exercise of the franchise.’” Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 105 (2000) (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 555 (1964)) (Bush II). In other words, Plaintiff State is acting to protect the interests of its respective citizens in the fair and constitutional conduct of elections used to appoint presidential electors.

19. This Court’s Article III decisions indicate that only a state can bring certain claims. Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437, 442 (2007) (distinguishing citizen plaintiffs from citizen relators who sued in the name of a state); cf. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 520 (2007) (courts owe states “special solicitude in standing analysis”). Moreover, redressability likely would undermine a suit against a single state officer or State because no one State’s electoral votes will make a difference in the election outcome. This action against multiple State defendants is the only adequate remedy for Plaintiff States, and this Court is the only court that can accommodate such a suit."

 

now scotus may disagree, but that is the argument to your point

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

All of the discussion over the election challenge has been in the politics section.  This is only in the investment section because of an opinion asserted that it is "a real challenge".

 

Some people thought some of the other cases were real ones too.

 

well scotus had docketed this action, so this will be heard by scotus...which I guess makes it real.  https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22o155.html

 

but if admin wants to move this, fine with me.  if you liked bush v gore, you wil love this case...this has to move the markets imo...but again, this may just be politics to you all

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cherzeca

Georgia’s Republican AG says it is meritless as it pertains to Georgia.

 

well he will have to answer the Texas complaint with a scotus brief, so that won't be the last word from him LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here and laughing my ass off. Today is the safe harbor day for elections and that suit is a joke. Also notice how the Texas solicitor general is not on the suit and the attorney of record is Texas' nutjob AG?

 

This is the most important event affecting investors over the next two months? Boy you're really gonna be surprised when the supreme court declines to hear the case.

 

curious where you went to law school?

 

He doesn't need to go to law school.  When you are a liberal and the media is on your side it is very easy to be arrogant and think you know it all.  After all you are woke and others are not.  Don't worry, if the SC decides to hear this case he will be the first one screaming that it isn't fair that Trump nominees are deciding the election (or some such legal theory).

 

In my experience, both sides have completely lost their minds.  If you align to either political party at this point you're essentially insane.

 

Bro  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/2020/12/08/texas-ag-paxton-challenges-election-result-in-four-key-battleground-states/

 

These people are intent on bringing our democracy to its knees, all for a morally, and literally bankrupt con man.

 

Now, let's see if this thread get moved where it belongs, to the garbage can-tegory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These people are intent on bringing our democracy to its knees, all for a morally, and literally bankrupt con man.

This is not a political contribution, it's simply a written reflection as a result of your post.

Recently, i've seen a peripheral business relationship sour on me. So, it's damage control time and remedial actions. Everything will be fine within a few weeks but there will be a messy spell.

A damning aspect is that i didn't see it coming. But, as i write this, the red flags are so obvious.

signed: a foreign observer who likely doesn't get it and who watches with dismay the challenge that is emerging.

-----

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...