The difference between 2016 and 2020 (1 Viewer)

[Luckyone]

Here, in a visual way, is the difference between 2016 and 2020.

 

[bluesmoke]

Here, in a visual way, is the difference between 2016 and 2020.

View attachment 67291204

View attachment 67291205

What BS. I see no one obviously of age or color in your "Happiness Everywhere". BS.

 

[OrphanSlug]

I'll be in the bourbon a little early today... :inandout:

 

[Cardinal]

If Biden's margin is just ten electoral votes, you can bet that bastard is going to the supreme court, which will promptly overturn the win and hand it to Trump. Biden's margin is going to have to be large enough to survive multiple court challenges for multiple states.

 

[Middle_Ground]

I say leave Florida red and make Pennsylvania and Colorado blue.

 

[Cardinal]

I say leave Florida red and make Pennsylvania and Colorado blue.

That's insane.

 

[PNW Guy]

If Biden's margin is just ten electoral votes, you can bet that bastard is going to the supreme court, which will promptly overturn the win and hand it to Trump. Biden's margin is going to have to be large enough to survive multiple court challenges for multiple states.

I don't buy your level of cynicism, with a caveat; I suppose I could expect Kavanaugh to ignore ethical considerations, but I think the rest of the court would hold true. A state court, perhaps, with the Supremes declining to intervene, but the rest of the Jusrtices would rule on law. They work so long and so hard to get to that level, it's the exception rather than the rule where they go blatantly partisan. I also don't think any of the court, perhaps Kavanaugh included actually backs what we're seeing now. I suspect 7 of 9 at least can't wait to start tearing the Trump admin's legacy to pieces. I sure hope I'm right on this anyway....

 

[Cardinal]

I don't buy your level of cynicism, with a caveat; I suppose I could expect Kavanaugh to ignore ethical considerations, but I think the rest of the court would hold true. A state court, perhaps, with the Supremes declining to intervene, but the rest of the Jusrtices would rule on law. They work so long and so hard to get to that level, it's the exception rather than the rule where they go blatantly partisan. I also don't think any of the court, perhaps Kavanaugh included actually backs what we're seeing now. I suspect 7 of 9 at least can't wait to start tearing the Trump admin's legacy to pieces. I sure hope I'm right on this anyway....

My cynicism is based on the SC decisions, which are aimed directly at handing an electoral win to Donald Trump. Every decision by Roberts with regards to the electoral system has to do with hampering voting registration, blowing up voting protections, and preserving gerrymandering. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the pattern.

U.S. Supreme Court Blocks Expanded Voting Access In Alabama Election
A More Liberal Supreme Court? Not When It Comes to Voting Rights - The New York Times
U.S. Supreme Court leaves in place curbs on voting by ex-felons in Florida - Reuters
The Supreme Court’s shadow docket is growing larger and more divisive.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...c3c922-dbf9-11ea-809e-b8be57ba616e_story.html

 

[Mr Person]

If Biden's margin is just ten electoral votes, you can bet that bastard is going to the supreme court, which will promptly overturn the win and hand it to Trump. Biden's margin is going to have to be large enough to survive multiple court challenges for multiple states.

Is it only judges appointed by Republicans you think that abdicate all sense of honor, duty, and professionalism once they are appointed, and strive to always reward them? (Not exactly a sensible criticism when Roberts and Gorsuch have been attacked by the right has having been bad picks because of a string of decisions that Republicans didn't like). Or do you think it's all judges (because lawyer)?

It's more than a little tiring to watch people with no experience in the profession speculate that something being put on a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court permanently corrupts a judge, especially if the speculation is aimed only at the other side's judges.

Do you not yourself tire of watching people on the right insist that every single decision they do not like is the result of "liberal activist judges" who are subverting the constitution to enforce a liberal agenda?



This isn't the first time I've said it and sadly won't be the last.... but really....

If a judge appears to rule in a way that favors on party more than the other, it's not because they start from the conclusion "I want to reward the party that appointed me". It's because they were appointed specifically because the person doing the appointing likes the results in past decisions and is gambling that the judge will continue to rule the same way.

And they have been wrong in this assumption many times.

 

[Cardinal]

Is it only judges appointed by Republicans you think that abdicate all sense of honor, duty, and professionalism once they are appointed, and strive to always reward them? (Not exactly a sensible criticism when Roberts and Gorsuch have been attacked by the right has having been bad picks because of a string of decisions that Republicans didn't like). Or do you think it's all judges (because lawyer)?

It's more than a little tiring to watch people with no experience in the profession speculate that something being put on a Circuit Court or the Supreme Court permanently corrupts a judge, especially if the speculation is aimed only at the other side's judges.

Do you not yourself tire of watching people on the right insist that every single decision they do not like is the result of "liberal activist judges" who are subverting the constitution to enforce a liberal agenda?



This isn't the first time I've said it and sadly won't be the last.... but really....

If a judge appears to rule in a way that favors on party more than the other, it's not because they start from the conclusion "I want to reward the party that appointed me". It's because they were appointed specifically because the person doing the appointing likes the results in past decisions and is gambling that the judge will continue to rule the same way.

And they have been wrong in this assumption many times.

This isn't an attack on the law profession, which you seem to be perceiving me to be doing. Every single decision by the supreme court in the last few years (to say nothing of Roberts' decision on the civil rights voting act) has shut down or diminished expanded voting rights. This is an unbroken pattern.

Clarence Thomas, as just one example, votes compulsively with the right wing position, says nothing afterward, and clocks out for Miller time.

There are bad judges. And when the appointment system is as politicized as it is, it shouldn't be surprising to you that some of those bad judges have made it on to the Supreme Court.

 

[Mr Person]

This isn't an attack on the law profession, which you seem to be perceiving me to be doing. Every single decision by the supreme court in the last few years (to say nothing of Roberts' decision on the civil rights voting act) has shut down or diminished expanded voting rights. This is an unbroken pattern.

When you say "If Biden's margin is just ten electoral votes, you can bet that bastard is going to the supreme court, which will promptly overturn the win and hand it to Trump. Biden's margin is going to have to be large enough to survive multiple court challenges for multiple states", it reads like you are.

I'm not sure how else to read a suggestion that if Trump contests the election and it goes to SCOTUS, they'll just hand it to Trump if they can.




You did post further while I was typing about specific decision, but that post wasn't up when I hit "reply", thus didn't see it.

 

[Cardinal]

When you say "If Biden's margin is just ten electoral votes, you can bet that bastard is going to the supreme court, which will promptly overturn the win and hand it to Trump. Biden's margin is going to have to be large enough to survive multiple court challenges for multiple states", it reads like you are.

I'm not sure how else to read a suggestion that if Trump contests the election and it goes to SCOTUS, they'll just hand it to Trump if they can.




You did post further while I was typing about specific decision, but that post wasn't up when I hit "reply", thus didn't see it.

Then I would like a revised reply in light of my edit, as well as the examples I cited in post 8.

 

[Athanasius68]

If Biden's margin is just ten electoral votes, you can bet that bastard is going to the supreme court, which will promptly overturn the win and hand it to Trump. Biden's margin is going to have to be large enough to survive multiple court challenges for multiple states.

As the USA has 50 state elections, the election in whichever state would have to be close enough to permit recounts based upon relevant state law.
I am sure such recounts are something you would support.

That's the beauty of the Electoral College.
Without the EC, or with this odious National Voter Compact scheme, then yes, your stresses would have validity.
But we don't, so you shouldn't.
Relax.