Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

How Much Voter Fraud Happened In 2020?


Joe Bryant

How much voter fraud do you think happened in 2020?  

464 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

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.  

  • Like 1
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Witz said:

 

Brad Heath Retweeted

Lawrence Hurley

@lawrencehurley

BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects Texas-led effort to toss out election results in four key states that Biden won

6:31 PM · Dec 11, 2020·TweetDeck

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/lawrencehurley/status/1337540459938377729

Not insane wins!!!

Edited by 2Squirrels1Nut
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Brad Heath

@bradheath

Here's the Supreme Court order rejecting Texas' attempt to throw out the results of the presidential election in four other states. The court declines to hear it; the only dispute is a technical one over the manner by which it is killed. It's over. https://supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/bradheath/status/1337540950348996608

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Marc E. Elias

@marceelias

BREAKING: Supreme Court DENIES Texas effort to invalidate GA, MI, PA, WI election results. 7 justices deny for lack of standing. 2 Would grant motion for petition but deny relief. No justice sides with TX/Trump. Trump/allies are 1-57 in court.

ALERT: VICTORY IN SCOTUS

democracydocket.com

6:46 PM · Dec 11, 2020·Twitter Web App

955

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/marceelias/status/1337544289740599298

  • Love 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

So 9-0 on refusing to grant any relief, but only 7-2 on the specific reason why (or at least on the procedural timing).

I saw a lot of expectations that Alito and Thomas would be open to letting them file for the reasons they stated. 

Edited by Mystery Achiever
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shader said:

What other option is there? 

I agree that there isn't any reasonable option but I'm guessing we all get treated to some kind of foot on the gas make believe. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mystery Achiever said:

I saw a lot of expectations that Alito and Thomas would be open to hearing for the reasons they stated. 

Honestly, in some ways it’s actually good that Alito and Thomas decided they way they did because they made it clear that the suit didn’t just fail for lack of standing, it was going to fail beyond that. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Mystery Achiever said:

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.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, shader said:

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 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, shader said:

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:

To be fair, from the quality of those briefs, I don’t think any of them actually spent all that much time.

  • Like 1
  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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)

7 minutes ago, GroveDiesel said:

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. 

Edited by Mystery Achiever
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Quote

 

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. 

Edited by phandango
  • Like 3
  • Sad 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:
3 hours ago, shader said:

The question people have to ask themselves is whether they will accept the SC's decision, whatever it is.  I have a pretty good idea what the answer to that will be.  

Trump and his supporters won't.

Everyone else will.

Time to find out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, shader said:

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”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, phandango said:

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

Quote

 

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Laughing 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Maurile Tremblay said:

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. 

Edited by CletiusMaximus
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

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.)

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Love 1
  • Laughing 2
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...