What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020? (1 Viewer)

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?

  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was rampant - enough to impact the outcome.

    Votes: 8 1.7%
  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was real - enough to maybe impact the outcome.

    Votes: 4 0.8%
  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was minimal - not enough to make a real impact

    Votes: 65 13.7%
  • I voted for Biden and I think Voter Fraud was virtually non existent - no impact at all

    Votes: 269 56.9%
  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was rampant - enough to impact the outcome.

    Votes: 26 5.5%
  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was real - enough to maybe impact the outcome.

    Votes: 23 4.9%
  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was minimal - not enough to make a real impact

    Votes: 14 3.0%
  • I voted for Trump and I think Voter Fraud was virtually non existent - no impact at all

    Votes: 8 1.7%
  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was rampant - enough to impact the ou

    Votes: 7 1.5%
  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was real - enough to maybe impact the

    Votes: 11 2.3%
  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was minimal - not enough to make a re

    Votes: 20 4.2%
  • I voted for a 3rd party or didn't vote and I think Voter Fraud was virtually non existent - no impac

    Votes: 18 3.8%

  • Total voters
    473
I don’t think any of the GOP interveners actually think the election was stolen and they most certainly do not believe that the Supreme Court is going to give this ridiculous filing the time of day.  They know it is an assault on democracy and has no chance.  

They are doing this for an audience of one, who they know has absolute control of the party and is going to run again in 2024 to try and stay out of jail.  And they know their political future depends on fealty to the King.    Because those he rules would follow him off a cliff.  

Kiss the ring.  

 
Watching Newsmax. They mentioned 10 times in 3 minutes that this is far from over. The GOP will still pursue SCOTUS avenues in the individual states. Derschowitz says they’re done. He believes that SCOTUS wants nothing to do with the election cases and will not reverse any outcomes. 

 
I saw a lot of expectations that Alito and Thomas would be open to hearing for the reasons they stated. 
The Supreme Court mostly hears appeals after lower courts have ruled on an issue. With rare exceptions, plaintiffs don't file their original complaints in the United States Supreme Court.

States suing each other is one of the rare exceptions. The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" in such cases.

Thomas and Alito believe that when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over some matter, the plaintiff should at least be allowed to file a complaint before it gets tossed.

The other seven Justices said, in effect: "We've seen your proposed complaint, which was attached to your motion, and it would just be a waste of time to let you file it because it's clear that you lack standing. So we're not even going to let you file it."

I'm not sure that Thomas and Alito are wrong. Maybe plaintiffs shouldn't have to file a motion in order to file a complaint alleging original jurisdiction; maybe they should just file their complaint without leave to do so. But that's just a petty procedural thing. There's no practical difference between "We've seen your proposed complaint and it's defective, so we're not going to let you file it" (the majority view) and "We've seen your proposed complaint and it's not going anywhere, but you can at least file it before we dismiss it" (the Alito-Thomas view). Technically, Alito and Thomas didn't explicitly promise to dismiss the complaint if it had been allowed to be filed, but they weren't going to grant an injunction, and if they had actually disagreed with the others on the standing issue, they would have said so.

This procedural view of original jurisdiction held by Alito and Thomas has been articulated by them before, so they're just being consistent here.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What other option is there? 
Well, just after the decision was released Trump tweeted out a new campaign video alleging fraud and urging people to call their legislators and ask them to “do something” about it.

So looks like he’s going to just try to get the state legislatures to outright ignore the law and try to award him electors.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: JAA
I kind of think it’s funny how quickly they dismissed all those other suits.  These people spent all this money and time on amicus briefs and got a “all the other motions are moot” :lmao:

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
I'm not sure that Thomas and Alito are wrong. Maybe plaintiffs shouldn't have to file a motion in order to file a complaint alleging original jurisdiction; maybe they should just file their complaint without leave to do so. But that's just a silly procedural thing. There's no practical difference between "We've seen your proposed complaint and it's defective, so we're not going to let you file it" (the majority view) and "We've seen your proposed complaint and it's not going anywhere, but you can at least file it before we dismiss it" (the Alito-Thomas view). Technically, Alito and Thomas didn't explicitly promise to dismiss the complaint if it had been allowed to be filed, but they weren't going to grant an injunction, and if they disagreed on the standing issue, they would have said so.

This procedural view held by Alito and Thomas has been articulated by them before, so they're just being consistent here.
At least they were clear they wouldn't grant relief as GroveDiesel said. (Just saw reply now after posting this; great minds)

So looks like he’s going to just try to get the state legislatures to outright ignore the law and try to award him electors.
I do think he will make another run at the legislatures. And, maybe try to get a senator to join Mo Brooks to force a vote on Jan 6. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I kind of think it’s funny how quickly they dismissed all those other suits.  These people spent all this money and time on amicus briefs and got a “all the other motions are moot” :lmao:
Just like how Trump University students were getting “classes”, Trump donors are getting “briefs”

 
https://twitter.com/adamkelsey/status/1337549501507264515?s=21

The @TexasGOP is out with a statement in the wake of the Supreme Court decision, all but calling for secession:

“Perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a Union of states that will abide by the constitution.”
Go ahead. 
Didn't Texas pretty much handle their election the same way the four defendant states did? Get the hell out of here with that rubbish Texas GOP.  Traitorous language.

 
Been watching Newsmax. Besides what I already posted, they suggest the state legislatures in the battleground states fight the results and send a second set of electors to Congress and let them determine which set to go with (or potentially havIng states with no electoral votes assigned). They also suggested there could be tons of faithless electors. 

But they are really trying to beat the drum that there will be SCOTUS cases in more states than the 4 listed in the Texas lawsuit. And they are trying to spin today’s dismissal by SCOTUS as a a positive because they were not denied based on the merits, only on standing. So they still think they have a winner. 

 
The Supreme Court mostly hears appeals after lower courts have ruled on an issue. With rare exceptions, plaintiffs don't file their original complaints in the United States Supreme Court.

States suing each other is one of the rare exceptions. The Supreme Court has "original jurisdiction" in such cases.

Thomas and Alito believe that when the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over some matter, the plaintiff should at least be allowed to file a complaint before it gets tossed.

The other seven Justices said, in effect: "We've seen your proposed complaint, which was attached to your motion, and it would just be a waste of time to let you file it because it's clear that you lack standing. So we're not even going to let you file it."

I'm not sure that Thomas and Alito are wrong. Maybe plaintiffs shouldn't have to file a motion in order to file a complaint alleging original jurisdiction; maybe they should just file their complaint without leave to do so. But that's just a petty procedural thing. There's no practical difference between "We've seen your proposed complaint and it's defective, so we're not going to let you file it" (the majority view) and "We've seen your proposed complaint and it's not going anywhere, but you can at least file it before we dismiss it" (the Alito-Thomas view). Technically, Alito and Thomas didn't explicitly promise to dismiss the complaint if it had been allowed to be filed, but they weren't going to grant an injunction, and if they had actually disagreed with the others on the standing issue, they would have said so.

This procedural view of original jurisdiction held by Alito and Thomas has been articulated by them before, so they're just being consistent here.
They’ve expressed this view on state v state cases a few times before (https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/144orig_6479.pdf).  The theory is that, because scotus jurisdiction is such cases is not only original but also exclusive, the court must accept all state v state original petitions because not doing so leaves the petitioner with no venue. 
 

For what it’s worth (not much) I agree with Thomas and Alito on this wish the court would have taken this case. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Trump shoulda packed the court when he had the chance.
For real, if he'd added Rudy Giuliani, Sidney Powell, Lin Wood, Alan Dershowitz, Jenn Ellis, Tucker Carlson, Mike Flynn, Lou Dobbs, Laura Ingraham, and Devin Nunes to the Supreme Court with Mitch McConnell's blessing, he could have had a 10-9 majority anointing him as President for life (to be succeeded by Don Jr.).

In hindsight, I'm kind of surprised he didn't try that.

(And he totally wasted three picks on Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Users who are viewing this thread

Top