US Election Week 2020

[The Minsky Moment]

Does the Supreme Court deal with every single case that someone wants them to deal with? Can you swamp the Supreme Court with obviously bogus cases?

No the Supreme Court takes very few cases.  They pick their own appeal docket and it is very restrictive

They are more likely to take a case with the President's name on it.  But I don't think they will take  this one.

[The Brain]

Does the Supreme Court deal with every single case that someone wants them to deal with? Can you swamp the Supreme Court with obviously bogus cases?

No the Supreme Court takes very few cases.  They pick their own appeal docket and it is very restrictive

They are more likely to take a case with the President's name on it.  But I don't think they will take  this one.

Yeah. I don't get the impression that there is an important legal question here that would benefit from a SC decision. The cases just seem to be garden variety poop. Touching them at all would seem to cheapen the SC.

[The Minsky Moment]

There's a legal ruling on standing but it doesn't raise any really novel issue that would normally interest the Court.

[viper37]

Have you been lurking for 11 years and only now decided to post something?

Well...Umm...Yeah that's about it.

I used to play eu2 and registered so I could play in a few games here before the site crashed. Since then I've been lurking because the people on this site generally share my interests. You guys post a lot of interesting news I might not catch otherwise. Also, it is one of the few places on the internet where people on both sides of American politics talk to each other with something resembling civility. Plus who doesn't enjoy a good pun? I don't post much (at all) because someone usually has my opinion covered and I already spend enough time just reading this site 

Civility and Languish... What strange times we live in!

Welcome lurker, please do post more often

[crazy canuck]

Have you been lurking for 11 years and only now decided to post something?

Well...Umm...Yeah that's about it.

I used to play eu2 and registered so I could play in a few games here before the site crashed. Since then I've been lurking because the people on this site generally share my interests. You guys post a lot of interesting news I might not catch otherwise. Also, it is one of the few places on the internet where people on both sides of American politics talk to each other with something resembling civility. Plus who doesn't enjoy a good pun? I don't post much (at all) because someone usually has my opinion covered and I already spend enough time just reading this site 

[Sheilbh]

Well, if their end game is taking it all to the Supreme Court and all these state cases are only the necessary steps to do so then yes, but they're getting slapped everywhere. How likely is that the Supreme Court (barring extreme partisanship from the judges) will be more receptive to their case than lower courts?

Obviously they don't have evidence because it's fake. But what I find weird is the way Trump's lawyers keep talking about this because, I'd be astonished if the US is different than us on this, but the Supreme Court doesn't make findings of fact or her evidence. They decide points of law. So even if they win in the Supreme Court all they get to do is go back to the lower courts with a different legal standard, but still no evidence.

I said before but I think the only way this strategy actually works is if the GOP lost the senate, it was close in the Presidential election (so one or two states, narrowly) and it goes to the court. But this is far too big a loss for this approach.

What's the relevance of the Federal Safe Harbour date because it definitely feels like he's trying to get past that.

[Solmyr]

Does the Supreme Court deal with every single case that someone wants them to deal with? Can you swamp the Supreme Court with obviously bogus cases?

No the Supreme Court takes very few cases.  They pick their own appeal docket and it is very restrictive

They are more likely to take a case with the President's name on it.  But I don't think they will take  this one.

Yeah. I don't get the impression that there is an important legal question here that would benefit from a SC decision. The cases just seem to be garden variety poop. Touching them at all would seem to cheapen the SC.

Touching Brett Kavanaugh cheapened the SC already.

[Sheilbh]

The best people:


Apparently Powell had been on TV accusing Kemp, the Georgia SoS and their families of taking bribes from voting machine manufacturers.

I don't fully know what it means to be "practicing law on your own"

Also I wonder what all this internal Republican row in Georgia will do for turn-out. Life I feel this can't be helping getting Trump voters out.

[Zanza]

She literally referenced a plot  by Hugo Chavez and the CIA being behind certification in Georgia. Fit for psychiatry, not a court.

Of course there is this eight day old tweet:

[OttoVonBismarck]

Well, if their end game is taking it all to the Supreme Court and all these state cases are only the necessary steps to do so then yes, but they're getting slapped everywhere. How likely is that the Supreme Court (barring extreme partisanship from the judges) will be more receptive to their case than lower courts?

Obviously they don't have evidence because it's fake. But what I find weird is the way Trump's lawyers keep talking about this because, I'd be astonished if the US is different than us on this, but the Supreme Court doesn't make findings of fact or her evidence. They decide points of law. So even if they win in the Supreme Court all they get to do is go back to the lower courts with a different legal standard, but still no evidence.

I said before but I think the only way this strategy actually works is if the GOP lost the senate, it was close in the Presidential election (so one or two states, narrowly) and it goes to the court. But this is far too big a loss for this approach.

What's the relevance of the Federal Safe Harbour date because it definitely feels like he's trying to get past that.

So the way I read it is that the move away from these cases by serious law firms, which I suspect was probably mutual between the Trump campaign and those firms, was more or less when Trump's team realized there was no real "legal victory" possible. What they've moved onto now is a propaganda campaign mixed with frivolous lawsuits, that they hope results in some things that can "disrupt" the election, like for example the Republican SecState and Governor in Georgia delaying certification (which they desperately wanted, and did not get), a random bad ruling by an appellate court that delays certification to review the matter, or something like the Michigan State canvassing board delaying certification. The procedural effort would not expect actual procedural victories, but to just delay the process until past the Safe Harbor Date, which would give State legislatures some political and legal legitimacy to just appoint their own slates of electors to "avoid their state being disenfranchised in the electoral college."

The biggest obstacle to this process thus far is in none of these frivolous suits have judges ordered any sort of halt to an ongoing certification process. Without such a ruling the whole game is difficult to play out. The most likely next few days will see Trump appeals in Pennsylvania dismissed and efforts to block certification in Michigan fail, if Pennsylvania and Michigan then end up certifying tomorrow Biden will be at 279 or so "secured" electoral votes, and Trump would see his micrometer thin path basically completely shut to closed. That's likely why he and his surrogates are behaving so badly in Michigan, they realize if they can delay Michigan then even with PA, Biden will not be over 270 certified states and they have breathing room to fight. How much breathing room is questionable, because NV will certify on the 24th and get Biden to 269 secured EVs and most people agree Trump has basically no procedural, political, or legal way to slow Nevada down. Then Arizona certifies on the 30th where he faces similar lack of real options. It's not inconceivable to me he can muck things up in Michigan and result in a delayed certification, depending on how these canvassing board people act after being leaned on (and they are being leaned on), and how that process is resolved in court and with other actors in Michigan who could then step in (like the Governor and State legislature, who can replace canvassing board members.) If I was betting on it though I'd wager PA and MI certify tomorrow and it's all done at that point. But if he succeeds in mucking up MI he likely has just bought himself a final week, because when AZ certifies on the 30th Biden will be over 270 secured EVs even without resolving MI or WI (which certifies 12/1.)

[Admiral Yi]

If I read you correctly Biscuit, I somewhat disagree.  I don't think the goal from the beginning was to lose while "muddying the waters."  I think the goal was to win, first by finding a way to get the courts to reject mail in ballots, and when that looked like it was failing, to create enough of a frenzy among Trumptards about alleged fraud to sway state legislatures to overrule the state ballots.  The invitation to Michigan reps to the White House makes much more sense as an attempt to steal an election than an attempt to muddy the waters.

[FunkMonk]

The best people:


Apparently Powell had been on TV accusing Kemp, the Georgia SoS and their families of taking bribes from voting machine manufacturers.

I don't fully know what it means to be "practicing law on your own"

Also I wonder what all this internal Republican row in Georgia will do for turn-out. Life I feel this can't be helping getting Trump voters out.

The party (Mitch) must have had a conniption when she attacked Kemp and Loeffler. Talk about a Venezuelan-Communist conspiracy all you want but if you risk the Senate majority you're out.

[Razgovory]

The best people:


Apparently Powell had been on TV accusing Kemp, the Georgia SoS and their families of taking bribes from voting machine manufacturers.

I don't fully know what it means to be "practicing law on your own"

Also I wonder what all this internal Republican row in Georgia will do for turn-out. Life I feel this can't be helping getting Trump voters out.

This breaks the 11th commandment, "Thou shalt not speak ill of another Republican".  Bribery is a pretty damn big charge to make, it's not something you should make lightly.  Frankly it's out of bounds.

[Sheilbh]

A commandment always best shown the in the breach

Meanwhile Powell has issued a statement:

[OttoVonBismarck]

If I read you correctly Biscuit, I somewhat disagree.  I don't think the goal from the beginning was to lose while "muddying the waters."  I think the goal was to win, first by finding a way to get the courts to reject mail in ballots, and when that looked like it was failing, to create enough of a frenzy among Trumptards about alleged fraud to sway state legislatures to overrule the state ballots.  The invitation to Michigan reps to the White House makes much more sense as an attempt to steal an election than an attempt to muddy the waters.

That's literally what I said--I said them swapping out the blue chip law firms was because they had internally concluded they would not win via litigation, so they had to move to plan B, which was to fuck with the procedural process of certification so long that the Safe Harbor deadline hits. I never said the goal was the lose FWIW, so not sure where that comes from. I think pre-election Trump for a combination of ignorance and naivete thought the legal process and his friendly judges would function much simpler. When it became obvious there wasn't just going to be a bunch of quick Republican judicial reversals of clear election outcomes, they ditched the blue chip firms (who would not want to be associated with a less legally legitimate process) and moved to the Giuliani lead effort--whose goal is certainly still to ultimate seat Trump to a second term, but this time by muck up certification so much it cannot happen, in which case in theory many of these Republican states with GOP legislatures could just crown Trump.

Note that I think both Plan A and Plan B are pretty bad plans, in terms of % likelihood of working.