I think what’s not in question is that several state executives changed their election rules against their constitution. Is that not correct?

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire yes that is the accusation. but the courts question is whether that is illegal according to the constitution. at least several states believe that it is.

I’m trying to understand the argument that going against what is stated in the constitution can be constitutional, other than “not willing to overturn the will of the people”.

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire well there are a couple of defences they could use

I’d like to see an understand one

well two similar cases were presented to lower courts, one in GA and one in PA. both were dismissed on the grounds of latches, i.e. waiting too long to complain about the change in the law, and the other one was because they lacked standing to bring the claim

https://www.instagram.com/tv/CIopQ8-nkid/?igshid=b9aikj3nlwqu

If it’s proven that vote counters had the ability to add and change votes in dominion machines, should all votes tabulated on dominion machines be tossed?

At the very least yes

i dont think the case being presented involves the voting machines

All dominion votes dem or rep should be tossed and Biden and trumpet should join the ticket Jan 5

Yeah I remember that from robs video. Seems pretty unfair.

also the states dont have to even hold elections, historically many never did

I think it could be worked into the Texas argument regarding unequal counting of votes.

Nope just that states violated the constitution in relaxing the standards for mail in ballots resulting in wide disenfranchising of the American people

Right, but that would have to be their constitutional process.

@Wadejohnson they could argue that it is because of special circumstances i.e. COVID

Which would set the precedent that “name a special circumstance and you can break your rules”

@AdvanceManExtraordinaire they could argue that the special circumstances were set by the president

Imagine if state republicans in 2004 all of a sudden said only property owners could vote because of special circumstances regarding the threat of terrorism.

the good news is that SCOUS has ordered elections to be thrown out, even for tiny amounts of fraud, but not for presidential elections

imagine

in my own opinion, i think biden will concede before it matters anyway

and Kamala Harris has not given up her senate seat yet either, so maybe she is not so confident either

For me the most important thing is the precedent set for future elections. Adding 3 originalists could be the saving grace of the country lol

I am sure they have contingency plans. That ny times article in the summer wrote about the “war games” they role played to plan for this very moment.

I still don't fully understand the whole Kamala having a senate seat and not leaving thing.... i mean i'm sure she'd leave if they went to the white house, but if she stays how's that possible? who would take her spot if she left? I'm confused. ha

@GlimmerMan they would have to have a runoff no?

Idk would they?

I don't think laches is a convincing argument when PA took 6 years to review an election based change and ruled on its legality. I also don't think special circumstances allow you to do illegal things. If that were the case, you would have seen it quite frequently done without any reference to the law.

@AquaCat me neither, i am trying to play devils advocate

Ah, ok.

That makes more sense. I am waiting for a good argument myself.

Also, as far as the Kamala Harris thing goes, I am pretty sure an election would be held for her seat.

there is a lot of investigation into hunter biden at the moment, if that should incriminate Joe Biden in any way he might just step down or make a deal to retire. even recently he himself said he would make up some illness if he disagreed with obama

but that is just speculation on my part

Yeah, I've been noticing that as well Phil. I wonder how long it will take the FBI to have something.

another argument is how does texas et al. quantify the damage done to them

even if they agree that what they did was illegal, the remedy has to match the damage done

Ideally wouldn't they just want those ballots that would previously not counted, to not be counted?

@GlimmerMan, you just advanced to level 1!

oh thanks bot

@GlimmerMan the problem is that there are quite a lot of them and now that they are separated from the voter's info how do they know which ones to remove?