Sen. Lindsey Graham harassed and called a traitor at airport because he didn't support Trump's coup

[lurchadams]

This is interesting. Graham being harassed at the airport by fascistic Trump supporters because he believes in the Constitution and confirmed Biden's victory.

How long is the Republican Party going to last?

No one deserves misery more than Graham. He helped create that monster and now, with less than two weeks left he finally grows a spine? No. He's ****ing weasel!

 

[craig]

Any person affected by those changes and able to show harm has standing. Because that is what it means.

Perhaps the first element but not the last two apply.
This “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing has three elements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury; (2) that injury is fairly traceable to actions of the defendant; and (3) it must be likely—not merely speculative—that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

 

[JustAFella]

Democrats that believe there wasn't any fraud whatsoever are lying to themselves. As for the institutions you mentioned, they have wanted rid of Trump since he entered office. Its so unusual they would act against impartiality to maintain the fraud that was this election? By turning down every official act they just sanctioned future shenanigans as easier to commit, easier to rubber stamp, easier to hide.

The judiciary mostly acted out of cowardice. SCOTUS refuses to act when they are the one party that was supposed to act, even if they didn't believe the remedy asked for could be granted, they could apply a remedy of their own and have, multitudes of times. If SCOTUS doesn't act they are signaling to all other judges to refuse to act. Laches and standing are ways to refuse a lawsuit by never judging it. Its a political tool, not a judicial one.

You are embarrassing yourself.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

This is what ignorance looks like.

You say that, but you seem incapable of supporting your assertions, and, to be honest, based on your responses, which are devoid of any substance, I don't think you've acquainted yourself with the source material in even the slightest way. You talk tough, you huff and puff, you bloviate, you cuss, you try to bully others, and so on (and then reach for the report link the moment your feelings get hurt), but you're just like all the other Trump supporters because you simply repeat what you heard on television.

The judiciary and executive branches in Pennsylvania changed the voting laws shortly before the election without legislative approval. Yes or no?

There were two different cases of significance:

1. The first case involved the deadline to receive mail-in ballots. Republicans lost that case in September because the PA Supreme Court ruled this deadline should be pushed ahead several days beyond election day. and then, in late October, the Supreme Court refused to hear it. But we do not even have to talk about this case because Biden's margin of victory in PA (approx 80,000 votes) far exceeded the number of ballots received after election day (approximately 10,000 ballots). So, even if you're still sore that the Republicans got their asses handed to them in court, this issue doesn't matter. It's no longer important.

2. The second case involved this goofy case pushed by Rep. Mike Kelly submitted after the election that argued the expansion of mail-in voting, as passed by the Republican-majority legislature with ACT 77, to allow "no-excuse" mail-in voting was unconstitutional.

This is the argument made by Trump's allies:

Their suit claims Pennsylvania's constitution set limited circumstances in which a nonmilitary voter can cast an absentee ballot, pointed to how past efforts to change absentee voting required constitutional amendments, and said Act 77's new category of mail-in voting didn't follow those limits and was unconstitutional. It sought to stop certification of any mail-in votes or to have the legislature decide who gets Pennsylvania's electoral votes.

This is an explanation of what the STATE LEGISLATURE wrote, when it JOINED WITH the state government, arguing that what the state government did was in accordance with the PA constitution:

The legislature also defended Act 77's constitutionality, arguing that the lawsuit's "aged authorities" only dealt with absentee ballots cast by those who were out of state, while Act 77 concerned in-state mail-in voting. The law did not change the definition of who was allowed to vote, it merely changed the methods they were allowed to use, the brief said.

Bid To Toss Mail-In Votes Is Two Elections Too Late, Pa. Says - Law360

A Republican member of Congress' last-minute bid to throw out about 3 million mail-in votes in Pennsylvania came more than a year and two elections too late, the state and its Republican-majority Legislature told a Keystone State court on Monday.

www.law360.com

Read the brief submitted by the PA Republican-majority state legislature:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7840/file-10712.pdf?cb=37334b

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10763.pdf?cb=7dcf94

--

So, those are the two cases. This is what you're hanging your hat on? Do you want to overturn an election because of this? Seriously?

You don't have an argument. You're just being a sore loser.

Trump lost.

Biden won.

Get over it.

 

[W_Heisenberg]

Here are the pertinent sections of their brief:

Petitioners contend the Pennsylvania Constitution prohibits mail-in voting except in certain narrow circumstances. Although deceptively straight-forward, this argument is predicated on a fundamental misreading of both the Pennsylvania Constitution and petitioners' authorities. The votes petitioners seek to invalidate were cast by a constitutional method. Petitioners' aged authorities, on the other hand, deal only with the constitutionality of extra-territorial voting-not the instate voting at issue here.

Under the Pennsylvania Election Code, a "qualified elector" is "any person" who possesses "all of the qualifications for voting now or hereafter prescribed by the Constitution of this Commonwealth, or who, being otherwise qualified by continued residence in his election district, shall obtain such qualifications before the next ensuing election." 25 P.S. §2602. And the Pennsylvania Constitution mandates that citizens of the Commonwealth "possessing the following qualifications" may vote in Commonwealth elections...

-- snip --

PA. CONST. ART. VII, §1. In addition, Article VII of the Pennsylvania Constitution grants the Legislature broad discretion as to how voting may be done: "all elections by the citizens shall be by ballot or by such other method as may be prescribed by law[.]" PA. CONST. ART. VII, §4 ( emphasis added).

Act 77 does not alter the requirements for a "qualified voter"; instead, it adopts that definition wholesale. See 25 P.S. §2602(z.6); Pet. Mem. at 31-32. The constitutionality of the Act is further assured by 25 P.S. §3150.11, which states that "[t]he term 'qualified mail-in elector' shall not be construed to include a person not otherwise qualified as a qualified elector in accordance with the definition in section 102(t)." Id. Thus, petitioners do not-indeed, cannot---dispute that the "qualified electors" whose method of voting they seek to void meet the facial requirements of the Pennsylvania Constitution: they are (i) citizens, who (ii) have resided in the state 90 days immediately preceding the election, and (iii) have resided in the election district in which they vote at least 60 days immediately prior to the election. Nor can petitioners dispute that the Legislature is constitutionally authorized to "prescribe" the method by which these "qualified electors" may cast their votes.

Not surprisingly, then, petitioners do not identify any constitutional or statutory language that suggests otherwise. Instead, they invoke two outdated Pennsylvania Supreme Court opinions that interpret substantially different constitutional provisions and Commonwealth statutes and apply them to inapposite facts. As explained below, petitioners' authorities address the constitutionality of extra-territorial voting in the era before absentee voting. They do not dictate any particular constitutional method of casting votes.

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7840/file-10712.pdf?cb=37334b

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10763.pdf?cb=7dcf94

 

[OpportunityCost]

You say that, but you seem incapable of supporting your assertions, and, to be honest, based on your responses, which are devoid of any substance, I don't think you've acquainted yourself with the source material in even the slightest way. You talk tough, you huff and puff, you bloviate, you cuss, you try to bully others, and so on (and then reach for the report link the moment your feelings get hurt), but you're just like all the other Trump supporters because you simply repeat what you heard on television.



There were two different cases of significance:

1. The first case involved the deadline to receive mail-in ballots. Republicans lost that case in September because the PA Supreme Court ruled this deadline should be pushed ahead several days beyond election day. and then, in late October, the Supreme Court refused to hear it. But we do not even have to talk about this case because Biden's margin of victory in PA (approx 80,000 votes) far exceeded the number of ballots received after election day (approximately 10,000 ballots). So, even if you're still sore that the Republicans got their asses handed to them in court, this issue doesn't matter. It's no longer important.

2. The second case involved this goofy case pushed by Rep. Mike Kelly submitted after the election that argued the expansion of mail-in voting, as passed by the Republican-majority legislature with ACT 77, to allow "no-excuse" mail-in voting was unconstitutional.

This is the argument made by Trump's allies:



This is an explanation of what the STATE LEGISLATURE wrote, when it JOINED WITH the state government, arguing that what the state government did was in accordance with the PA constitution:

Bid To Toss Mail-In Votes Is Two Elections Too Late, Pa. Says - Law360

A Republican member of Congress' last-minute bid to throw out about 3 million mail-in votes in Pennsylvania came more than a year and two elections too late, the state and its Republican-majority Legislature told a Keystone State court on Monday.

www.law360.com

Read the brief submitted by the PA Republican-majority state legislature:

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7840/file-10712.pdf?cb=37334b

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/setting-7862/file-10763.pdf?cb=7dcf94

--

So, those are the two cases. This is what you're hanging your hat on? Do you want to overturn an election because of this? Seriously?

You don't have an argument. You're just being a sore loser.

Trump lost.

Biden won.

Get over it.

When I say you are ignorant, I mean it. I don't want television. I watch a few things streaming and that's about it.

Noted: you refused to touch the asked question about who changed the law.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Perhaps the first element but not the last two apply.
This “irreducible constitutional minimum” of standing has three elements: (1) the plaintiff has suffered a concrete injury; (2) that injury is fairly traceable to actions of the defendant; and (3) it must be likely—not merely speculative—that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

As to the third part IE a remedy. The remedy applied doesn't always have to be the one sought and courts have often applied remedies that are not sought.

 

[skeptic llc]

Aside from the never-Trumpers, they are the most hypocritical people in the country.

That's a high bar these days.