• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

MI Court: Michigan Secretary of State’s Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump Claim

tanj said:
www.breitbart.com

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

so, the law WAS broken in the Michigan election.
Click to expand...
Oh look a ditz judge who looks like Kayleigh McEnamy. Yeah, I'll wait to see what the adults say...not to mention a source not named Breitbart.

Either way, Trump lost. It's over. Time to get on with the next election. After all, there are a lot of black votes left to suppress. Chop-chop, Wingers.
 
calamity said:
Oh look a ditz judge who looks like Kayleigh McEnamy. Yeah, I'll wait to see what the adults say...not to mention a source not named Breitbart.

Either way, Trump lost. It's over. Time to get on with the next election. After all, there are a lot of black votes left to suppress. Chop-chop, Wingers.
Click to expand...
ha. the source is the court ruling that is in the article. just because a site you dont like posted a story including that ruling does not make the ruling any less valid.

the point in continuing this effort is so that it does not happen again. but it certainly seems that with the democrats trying to push through legislative changes to make such things actual law (which itself is unconstitutional) we can clearly see who does NOT want to prevent that from happening again.
 
tanj said:
www.breitbart.com

MI Judge: Sec. of State's Absentee Ballot Order Broke Law, Vindicating Trump

A Michigan judge ruled last week Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson (D) broke state law when she illegally issued rules.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com

so, the law WAS broken in the Michigan election.
Click to expand...
First, this is a very biased source to begin with and likely a biased judge. We should wait for more info.

Second, doesn't matter if there was a law broken (most likely based on difference in interpretation of that law not because it was some intentional fraud) because the SCOTUS and most other courts in this country are pretty consistent (and rightfully so) in saying that such things have to be challenged prior to an election, not after. You cannot simply claim fraud for people casting ballots under the laws that they believed were lawful, were right. You can't just throw out those votes. You can only make the chance for the next election.
 
roguenuke said:
First, this is a very biased source to begin with and likely a biased judge. We should wait for more info.

Second, doesn't matter if there was a law broken (most likely based on difference in interpretation of that law not because it was some intentional fraud) because the SCOTUS and most other courts in this country are pretty consistent (and rightfully so) in saying that such things have to be challenged prior to an election, not after. You cannot simply claim fraud for people casting ballots under the laws that they believed were lawful, were right. You can't just throw out those votes. You can only make the chance for the next election.
Click to expand...
more info or no, the court ruled that the law was broken.
the source of the story is the court ruling. just because you may not like Breitbart, that doesn't invalidate the information that the story is based on.
and why is it "likely" a biased judge? why show bias now after everyone says that its too late?
its odd how all the judges that wouldn't hear the election cases were never considered "likely biased" by those who wanted to see Biden win.

either I am reading your reply wrong, or it appears you are saying that the law can be broken and no one can do anything about it until the next election.
what can be done is to make sure that it cannot happen again. but then the democrats are busy writing legislation to try and ensconce those tactics into law. Never mind that it is unconstitutional to do so at the federal level.
with them saying things have to be challenged before the election, not after, there is a problem: several courts decided that before the election there was no standing, but after was too late.
the case in question with this ruling was brought before the election, but only decided in March.

"Trump’s campaign and Republicans argued in cases nationwide that Article II of the Constitution requires state legislatures to make the rules governing presidential elections, and state election officials and courts lack the authority to change those rules.
Murray’s ruling undercuts the Democrat narrative that Republican legal challenges to 2020 election procedures were without merit and had therefore all been rejected by the courts. The original suit was filed October 6, 2020 — prior to the presidential election — but was not decided until March 9, 2021."

I guess "rule of law" isn't all its cracked up to be.
 
tanj said:
ha. the source is the court ruling that is in the article. just because a site you dont like posted a story including that ruling does not make the ruling any less valid.

the point in continuing this effort is so that it does not happen again. but it certainly seems that with the democrats trying to push through legislative changes to make such things actual law (which itself is unconstitutional) we can clearly see who does NOT want to prevent that from happening again.
Click to expand...
So that people do not interpret their powers again in a way that they think is fine until other, much more partisan players decide that they need to challenge those things only because those parties lost?

There was nothing wrong with the rule change, the guidance put out. (Which is the only thing this judge seemed to rule in favor of the plantiffs on.) She believed she had the authority to make such "guidance". It is only being challenged because the GOP lost.
 
tanj said:
more info or no, the court ruled that the law was broken.
the source of the story is the court ruling. just because you may not like Breitbart, that doesn't invalidate the information that the story is based on.
and why is it "likely" a biased judge? why show bias now after everyone says that its too late?
its odd how all the judges that wouldn't hear the election cases were never considered "likely biased" by those who wanted to see Biden win.

either I am reading your reply wrong, or it appears you are saying that the law can be broken and no one can do anything about it until the next election.
what can be done is to make sure that it cannot happen again. but then the democrats are busy writing legislation to try and ensconce those tactics into law. Never mind that it is unconstitutional to do so at the federal level.
with them saying things have to be challenged before the election, not after, there is a problem: several courts decided that before the election there was no standing, but after was too late.
the case in question with this ruling was brought before the election, but only decided in March.

"Trump’s campaign and Republicans argued in cases nationwide that Article II of the Constitution requires state legislatures to make the rules governing presidential elections, and state election officials and courts lack the authority to change those rules.
Murray’s ruling undercuts the Democrat narrative that Republican legal challenges to 2020 election procedures were without merit and had therefore all been rejected by the courts. The original suit was filed October 6, 2020 — prior to the presidential election — but was not decided until March 9, 2021."

I guess "rule of law" isn't all its cracked up to be.
Click to expand...
I read it just fine. Note how Breitbart left out that the ruling only stated one part of the alleged claims was actually a violation. The ruling said that "guidance" sent out by the SoS should have gone through an approval process, even though it was clarification on a stance to be taken in regards to signature matching. Her guidance was that signatures should be considered good, valid unless there was evidence of actual problems (signatures never match exactly). There was no clarification and people were rejecting valid signatures.

www.theatlantic.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded

Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

In other words, she was trying to keep little county clerks like the one who sued her from rejecting valid signatures simply because they found one flaw between the signatures and didn't want them counted.

Rule of law is always subjective and always dependent on circumstances. You cannot wait for the results and then only scream "these were bad rules to begin with" (especially based on extremely stupid technicalities like this one) because you lost. That is being a sore loser, not actually trying to get any sort of justice.
 
This is about the process, not the counting. She has the authority to instruct clerk. She just went around the usual process. I think she was right though to move forward before the election. Could you imagine the GQP clerks if they had the ability to throw out ballots just because they ‘thought’ the signatures didn’t match? Trump was already pounding his fist about fraud in an attempt to overthrow democracy in this country. Thank God he lost.
 
I'm not opening breibart.

Exactly how many votes did this affect? Is it like PA, where the ballots expected to be challenged were set aside and not even counted, and thus when the court rules the emergency rules designed to accomodate COVID and USPS delays were not lawful it has no effect on the final vote tally?
 
roguenuke said:
I read it just fine. Note how Breitbart left out that the ruling only stated one part of the alleged claims was actually a violation. The ruling said that "guidance" sent out by the SoS should have gone through an approval process, even though it was clarification on a stance to be taken in regards to signature matching. Her guidance was that signatures should be considered good, valid unless there was evidence of actual problems (signatures never match exactly). There was no clarification and people were rejecting valid signatures.

www.theatlantic.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded

Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

In other words, she was trying to keep little county clerks like the one who sued her from rejecting valid signatures simply because they found one flaw between the signatures and didn't want them counted.

Rule of law is always subjective and always dependent on circumstances. You cannot wait for the results and then only scream "these were bad rules to begin with" (especially based on extremely stupid technicalities like this one) because you lost. That is being a sore loser, not actually trying to get any sort of justice.
Click to expand...

Ah, so it's even less than the little I thought it was.
 
roguenuke said:
I read it just fine. Note how Breitbart left out that the ruling only stated one part of the alleged claims was actually a violation. The ruling said that "guidance" sent out by the SoS should have gone through an approval process, even though it was clarification on a stance to be taken in regards to signature matching. Her guidance was that signatures should be considered good, valid unless there was evidence of actual problems (signatures never match exactly). There was no clarification and people were rejecting valid signatures.

www.theatlantic.com

Signed, Sealed, Delivered—Then Discarded

Signature matching—which one expert described as “witchcraft”—could lead to thousands of legitimate ballots being thrown out.
www.theatlantic.com www.theatlantic.com

In other words, she was trying to keep little county clerks like the one who sued her from rejecting valid signatures simply because they found one flaw between the signatures and didn't want them counted.

Rule of law is always subjective and always dependent on circumstances. You cannot wait for the results and then only scream "these were bad rules to begin with" (especially based on extremely stupid technicalities like this one) because you lost. That is being a sore loser, not actually trying to get any sort of justice.
Click to expand...
the rules were fine. the unconstitutional changes to them were the problem. and that is the catch here. the ruling makes clear that the changes were made outside of the constitutional order.
if, according to you, the changes didn't really mean anything because they were "the phrenology of elections" then why make the change in the first place. if it was so unimportant why not go through the state legislature as was the law and in the constitution?
why sidestep all that to get some insignificant change put in place?

now that there is at least some admission that the law was broken, we are going to hear nothing but justifications why its ok to have broken that little bit of the law.
what we need is for the supreme court of the US to step up and hear the cases that they should be hearing. instead they are walking a tightrope trying to not tick off the democrats to the point where they try to pack the court.
 
Mr Person said:
I'm not opening breibart.

Exactly how many votes did this affect? Is it like PA, where the ballots expected to be challenged were set aside and not even counted, and thus when the court rules the emergency rules designed to accomodate COVID and USPS delays were not lawful it has no effect on the final vote tally?
Click to expand...

yep keep those blinders on. the court ruling is right there in the story.
how many laws can be broken and still be considered to be ok and not a big deal by the party that benefited most from those broken laws?
 
tanj said:
the rules were fine. the unconstitutional changes to them were the problem. and that is the catch here. the ruling makes clear that the changes were made outside of the constitutional order.
if, according to you, the changes didn't really mean anything because they were "the phrenology of elections" then why make the change in the first place. if it was so unimportant why not go through the state legislature as was the law and in the constitution?
why sidestep all that to get some insignificant change put in place?

now that there is at least some admission that the law was broken, we are going to hear nothing but justifications why its ok to have broken that little bit of the law.
what we need is for the supreme court of the US to step up and hear the cases that they should be hearing. instead they are walking a tightrope trying to not tick off the democrats to the point where they try to pack the court.
Click to expand...
It was not unconstitutional, it was found to be unlawful. It is slightly different. She has the power, but she did not complete the process correctly.
 
"The law might have been broken in some roundabout unintentional and inconsequential way, so that proves the conspiracy is real!"

Same as Truthers.
 
tanj said:
the rules were fine. the unconstitutional changes to them were the problem. and that is the catch here. the ruling makes clear that the changes were made outside of the constitutional order.
if, according to you, the changes didn't really mean anything because they were "the phrenology of elections" then why make the change in the first place. if it was so unimportant why not go through the state legislature as was the law and in the constitution?
why sidestep all that to get some insignificant change put in place?

now that there is at least some admission that the law was broken, we are going to hear nothing but justifications why its ok to have broken that little bit of the law.
what we need is for the supreme court of the US to step up and hear the cases that they should be hearing. instead they are walking a tightrope trying to not tick off the democrats to the point where they try to pack the court.
Click to expand...
She didn't change anything. The rules did not present anything for them to base their examinations, and therefore rejections of signatures off of. She wanted to make it clear that people's signatures should not be rejected because a swirl was dropped in their "t" or the line through it wasn't quite as long as the one on the master copy.

What is going on is Republicans, Trump supporters are pissed off that they lost the election, and nitpicking anything and everything to make excuses for it. They know that when more people vote, GOP candidates lose.
 
highroller said:
It was not unconstitutional, it was found to be unlawful. It is slightly different. She has the power, but she did not complete the process correctly.
Click to expand...
article 2 section 1 clause 2 "
each State shall appoint, in such Manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of
electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled
in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
 
tanj said:
yep keep those blinders on. the court ruling is right there in the story.
how many laws can be broken and still be considered to be ok and not a big deal by the party that benefited most from those broken laws?
Click to expand...
I read the court ruling and presented it as it actually is. It is being played up (of course) by you and Breitbart. There is nothing here. It would not change anything about the election. It is still not evidence of fraud at all. It isn't even evidence of wrongdoing. Like I said, it is a difference in interpretation of the laws/rules pertaining to how clarification or rule changes are to be made pertaining to voting.
 
tanj said:
article 2 section 1 clause 2 "
each State shall appoint, in such Manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of
electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled
in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
Click to expand...
Has nothing to do with how this was ruled on.
 
tanj said:
article 2 section 1 clause 2 "
each State shall appoint, in such Manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of
electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled
in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
Click to expand...
Foolish. Who do you think gave our Secretary of State the power to run the elections? It is in our Michigan constitution/laws.
 
ecofarm said:
"The law might have been broken in some roundabout unintentional and inconsequential way, so that proves the conspiracy is real!"

Same as Truthers.
Click to expand...
no matter how much snark and sarcasm you send out, the constitution makes clear that what was done was wrong.
 
tanj said:
no matter how much snark and sarcasm you send out, the constitution makes clear that what was done was wrong.
Click to expand...
The judge did not mention the constitution. They mentioned a process the needed to be carried out.
 
tanj said:
article 2 section 1 clause 2 "
each State shall appoint, in such Manner as
the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of
electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and
Representatives to which the State may be entitled
in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative,
or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under
the United States, shall be appointed an elector."
Click to expand...

To be fair, it's presumably their own law they broke, an internal thing. A technicality. It's like when Truthers claim "Bush was warned on blahblah date and that proves it was an inside job."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom