The Supreme Court and the Electoral “Safe Harbor.” – by Amie Gibbons

204 thoughts on “The Supreme Court and the Electoral “Safe Harbor.” – by Amie Gibbons”

1. Sarah, your last sentence of your addendum is the most terrifying thing I have seen in the roughly ten years I have been following this blog.

   1. It’s just being honest about it all. Terrifying? I’m watching damnfools repeating history with little choices in regards to this. So, do you do what is right and along the lines of what Sarah talks to- or go out with a whimper and being eventually snuffed out by the Darkness? I choose to face it with dignity and honor…something that many have no clue what they are anymore.

2. Texas is looking better and better.
   The 20 states may have just declared the upcoming Civil War’s borders. I do not consider myself a pessimist, more of a realist, but I do not see the Supreme Court deciding to throw out the votes in 4 states.

   1. Not deciding to throw out elections? X-D

      Hint: If it runs counter to the clear reading of the Constitution in the terms of use at the timeframe of each part’s framing, it’s **VOID**. The SC has few choices that’re valid there. Seriously, they don’t have a lot of room that doesn’t render their decision void as well.

      Go read up Marbury v. Madison, U.S. v. Throckmorton, and a few other landmark decisions.

      If they don’t void those elections or at least the mail-ins as they’re VOID in the first place, then you don’t have a working republic anymore. It means it’s not abiding by the agreement with the Citizenry for governance. You’re going to see Civil War 2.0 go from Cold (which is where we are now…) to Hot.

      1. If they care about “valid” —

   2. They’d BETTER is all I have to say.
      I’m thinking FL.

      1. Weather? I expect that moving from CO to perpetual swamp in FL would be brutal. TX would be better – it’s big enough that you can get away from the humidity. MT, where we live half the year has mostly comparable weather to CO, but longer days in the summer, and nights in the winter. It appears to be swinging right right now, with a state level wipeout of Dems this year. Etc.

   3. Could the court give a ruling along the lines of “Discard all the illegal category X/Y/Z ballots and recount the rest by Saturday 10PM (or Sunday noon or whatever). If you cannot do that (either because the ballots have all been mingled or due to lack of time), you do not send electors on the 14th”? I don’t know what the legality of such an approach would be, but I assume that it would a reasonable approach. Not that I expect anyone in the media would claim such an approach would be legal even if the Supreme Court ruled that way.

      1. If they did that, GA, WI, MI, and PA would just manufacture more votes.

      2. Prior to the election, Alito ordered Pennsylvania to keep late-arriving ballots sperate.
         The order was ignored.
         Pennsylvania effectively dared the Supreme Court to void the election.
         And the SC blinked.

         The worst thing, is that Roberts could have effectively ended a lot of this crap if the coward hadn’t ducked the very question of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court unilaterally rewriting the election laws before the election.
         You didn’t want to cause controversy by adjucating the issue before it was ripe?
         Here you go.
         Happy now?
         Karma, she’s a Kamala.

         An etymological aside…
         Ka (to like or desire) Mal (evil) A (feminine)

   4. 20 states now? Damn, that’s encouraging.

      A couple days old and someone missing:

      In addition to Texas, the 18 states joining the lawsuit are: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah and West Virginia.

      Interesting that Arizona, a contested state, is in on the lawsuit.

      “…but I do not see the Supreme Court deciding to throw out the votes in 4 states.”

      Yeah, I can hear the argument now: We cannot disenfranchise mumbly-million voters for a mere 20 plaintiffs.

      1. The Supreme Court would not be disenfranchising anybody; the states did that, by causing them to cast illegal votes. You can’t refrain from correcting the results of a crime because ‘somebody might be hurt’.

      2. I’m in Utah. Our squish governor is upset with the Utah Attorney General for joining the lawsuit.

         1. I know. I saw. I’m from there originally and am laughing at the latest wuss in office.

         2. Your squish governor needs spanking.

            1. But so MANY of them do!

               Hmmm… Take some scrap lumber, build a long bench with a dozen sets of shackles, carve out a bunch of paddles, tap a keg of beer and have a Politician Spanking Hootenanny! 😀
               ———————————
               A politician is worse than a toilet. They’re both full of shit — but at least you can flush the toilet.

               1. Think of it as a job opportunity! Leslie Fish has already written your ad song:

                  “I beat bottoms for a living…” aka The Dominatrix Song

      3. The Pennsylvania legislature is joining as well.
         That’s huge.

      4. I have seen leftists sneer the states were formerly Confederate. . . .

         1. I have seen leftists sneer the states were formerly Confederate. . . .

            Which is especially ironic given how, in an objective, straight-up comparison, Secession Bug-Out 1860 is much milder and less radical than Grand Theft Election 2020 — as regards both goals and means.

            The 1860 (or so) secessionists just wanted to take their own marbles and go home — except for their habit (regrettable and hard to justify) of seizing a few Federal (as in “belongs to all the states”) assets, and so on, they sought to do nothing to the rest of the states and their governance. According to at least some of the accepted political and legal theories of the time, they were exercising a state right, legally and through proper procedure. (Never mind it was all easily a bad idea on other grounds, see e.g. Rhett Butler in “Gone With the Wind” etc.)

            The 2020 fraudsters and their (D) “target demographic” want to (as a certain public figure recently put it) “fundamentally transform America” by leveraging what seems to be (mostly, up to Dominion vote-scaling etc.) a very localized but carefully targeted attack on our election system — they seek to dictate all sorts of things to the entire rest of the country, basically “one ring to rule them all” style. In a bizarre, 2020-esque hybrid of coup and con job.

            TL/DR version: these Double Score weasels (apologies to all actual weasels ever) seek to make that 1860s “Y’all have fun, now” crowd look like pikers.

            (Which actually makes a little sense of that original point: “been there, done that, didn’t like the view… so let’s find a better way to work it out, this time.”)

            1. Actually, proper procedure would have been for the legislature of each state to vote, 3/4ths required to secede. And then submit the proposal to Congress for 2/3rd vote for approval. Basically the same thing as when they applied for statehood. The Confederacy didn’t do any such thing. Of course the real question is whether Congress would approve their leaving the Union in the first place. The question that arises is, “Is it more important to remove conservatives from the nation, or to dominate them?” If it’s the first, then secession should be approved. If it’s the second, conservatives have grounds to shoot all the Prog-Socs.

               1. Are the votes of the seceding states excluded from the vote to permit secession?

                  Is the Congressional vote by delegate or by delegation?

                  Is the application for secession taken up for the seceding states as a group or on state-by-state basis?

                  Is the process determined by legislative Rules Committees or is it already established?

                  Asking for a friend.
                  ~

         2. Of COURSE they have. They have to constantly distance themselves from their historical roots, or they might have to face the fact that they are just as racist/eugenicist as they always have been. And that would break their tiny little minds. The term I use for their Black collaborators – Black Quislings – is a euphemism. ‘House Niggers’ would fit even better, but would bog down in arguments over the ‘n’ word.

   5. Wrong! look at the county maps. Biden won ONLY in counties with BIG Cities. He won VERY FEW counties, I mean VERY Few. He won fewer counties than any candidate in history. This will NOT be split by States, it will be split between Big & Middle Cities and everything else. MOST of those Blue States are BLUE because of 1 or more Cities. 80% or better of the rest of the State is RED. You really think they are going to go along with the Cities???

      1. The cities are dying. The left is killing them. absent fraud, the left wins NOTHING.

3. The Switch is Time depends on a government ready to pack the court.

   The only way we get that is if SCOTUS ignored or found for Biden. Doesn’t work here.

   1. No, we get that if Biden gets in, and SCOTUS blocks Dem pushed laws they find Unconstitutional. That’s when the Dems will pack the Court. I’m predicting that because I don’t see SCOTUS going with liberal bullshit.

      1. Ah, I missed the sentence connecting the fraud cases to why SiTSN was relevant.

      2. They are going to pack it regardless, because they want radical leftists who make even the current leftists on the Court look like centrists by comparison. They will also create new states and impose national ballot harvesting, so as to ensure that they will remain in power forever and will be able to completely strip the populace of all liberty. Remember, they think the Constitution itself is “inherently racist” and seek to completely destroy the republic and replace it. They have expressly said so many times, and they mean what they say.

         1. The want the first Emperor or King of America. But they are fighting on who gets to permanently be the first family al la the Windors. First they have to get the peons, peasants, voters whipped into compliance.

            1. I believe the correct term for what they want is “Dear Leader, Chairman of the Party and Central Committee”. Fuhrer would work for them as well, even if they use a different title.

               1. “Fuehrer” means “Leader”, so they just need to translate it to English.

                  1. Fuehrer MEANT ‘leader’. I think that an assessment of modern usage would show that it now means ‘arsehole’. Which would still be entirely appropriate, but I doubt they’ll use it.

         2. “They” lie about the racism they allege is inherently in the Constitution. The racism is inherently in them from their predecessors who forced the issue of slaves giving representation in Congress while denying them any rights. That clause is technically still in force, except Congress has never designated what crimes have a punishment of slavery. No slaves, no need to use the representation clause. Plus, they get to count all those people for full representation now; even though they’ve contrived via government programs to force total dependency on the government to keep them in a state of perpetual enslavement.

            1. They must lie about it. They absolutely cannot afford to let anyone take the Constitution seriously. If the plain language of the Constitution and its amendments were ever applied, their whole house of cards would collapse.

      3. Are we going to allow our Senators to give consent to pack the court?

4. Now there’s even MORE states in and the SC has demanded a reply out of the Defendent States regarding the filing. There’s a lot of solid in the mix with this one, Counselor- the Defendents DID violate Article I, Article II, and at least the First Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That means at least the modifications are void, if not the whole of those elections. Depends on the Justices’ take on what a remedy would be. If the mail-ins are void, they just do a re-count, if they can, of the non-mail-ins. If they can’t do that, the whole of the election is void anyhow.

   1. I have to say I am glad Arizona joined in the lawsuit. I’ve been looking for a place to go when I can finally get shut of California and AZ — Cochise County in particular — was/is the most attractive of the Western states. The thought that an influx of liberals into Phoenix was turning it fascist/socialist like they did Oregon was very disheartening.

5. Gonna try again with AG Yost to get Ohio on board. Goobner DeWeathervane is a lost cause, but we might be able to pull off something.

   1. Yost has straddled this, filing in support of s SCOTUS ruling on the issue but opposing the relief requested by Texas, arguing the States’ legislative authority also precludes the Supreme Court from dictating the electors.

      A regular profile in courage.

      For amusement, this allows every “news” site to spin it as they wish, as illustrated by this selection of search results:

      Ohio AG Yost asks Supreme Court to consider Texas election lawsuit
      nbc4i . com

      Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost criticizes Texas lawsuit attempting to stop electors from voting
      wkyc . com

      With Texas AG facing federal probe, lawsuit to help Trump comes amid whispers of pardons
      abcnews . go . com

      Ohio AG joins Texas, other states in election fraud lawsuit
      richlandsource . com

      Ohio AG Dave Yost files brief criticizing Texas’ lawsuit challenging Biden win
      Cleveland . com
      ~

      1. Yep, in the finest traditions of the Ohio Republican service from time immemorial, Ohio half-assed it again.

         1. Remember two years ago, when they had a good chance to flip a senate seat, and they gave their own candidate like zero support? Candidate Jim Renaci was like a phantom. There were barely even any yard signs for him, even at houses festooned with GOP placards and signs.

6. Isn’t it interesting how everything the Democrats claimed were lies, turn out to be true, and everything they said was true has turned out to be lies? Now they claim there was no fraud in the 2020 election. Is there still anybody stupid enough to believe them?

   Hunter Biden has been under investigation for tax fraud and money laundering since 2018 — probably for not paying taxes on all that Russian and Chinese bribe money.

   Eric “Trump is a Russian agent!!” Swalwell has been getting bribes and, errr, favors, yeah, favors, from communist Chinese spy Fong Fong since at least 2010. Fong fled the country in 2015 after Swalwell tipped her off that the FBI was on to them. The FBI would have informed Congress, so MaligNancy has to have known all along that her fair-haired boy was literally in bed with the communist Chinese.

   At some point all of this has to qualify as treason.
   ———————————
   Most days, I suspect that we could get a better government by picking 535 people at random. On bad days, I’m certain we’d get a better government by picking 535 people at random from lunatic asylums.

   1. Nan and Fricken Fienstein and many others in both houses were dealing with China in their own ways as well. She knew because she was dealing as well. Didn’t need the FBI to tell a thing.

      1. THIS

      2. I’m seeing articles about DiFi’s mental decline. Not sure if a) the knives are out, b) she’s going to play the dementia card when the treason accusations hit, or “and”.

         With Handsy Joe, I think it’s mostly “a”, particularly with the “unexpected” surfacing of an investigation into Hunter. Of course, if Joe is implicated, he can do “b”.

         1. Read the same on her, and it is A and B most likely. They had the knives out for her over not blocking ACB. Not that she was able to do a damned thing.
            And with dems, anything they do wrong, they were too stupid to know it was wrong, so might as well just let them off. Like having your own server for State Department emails.

7. I’m going to declare myself AG-Elect of Illinois. I can get multiple sources to call it.

   IL joins the case!

   1. Lord loves a straight line, so: Is that an ill-joined case?

      (Deploys carp-proof umbrella.)

      1. Ill has all those Chinese Carp

8. I’m also terrified and therefore angry. Trying to keep my blood pressure down.

9. Just had a weird thought. House votes on president, but senate votes on vice. Is that the currently sitting members or the new congress? Because if Georgia ends up with two new democrat senators (G*d Forbid, but if) we have a 50-50 senate. If no republican squishes (Looking at you Mitt and Ms Snow) go rogue and no dems go rogue then its 50 to 50. Normally the VP (in this case STILL Pence) would tie break, but does that happen here?

   And as the author said this is the GOOD path. Uggh

   1. Trump-Harris

      Makes you wonder which one would have a heart attack or mental breakdown first.

      I’m voting on Harris totally losing it.

      1. Can the VP be banned from the White House? Asking for a friend.

         1. Doesn’t the President decide what the VP does? So – as long as he managed to survive a Trump-Harris administration – Trump could send her off to negotiate peace with penguins in Alaska to keep her out of the way. AND she doesn’t dare quit, because Trump would be able to pick a new VP.

            1. Yeah back in the old days the VP was a spare wheel and usually ignored. Heck Truman wasn’t even told about the Manhattan project or pretty much anything useful until after FDR kicked the bucket and he’d been pretty ill for a while.

               Of course this doesn’t solve the issue I had, Relevant text from 12th amendment

               and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

               It doesn’t seem to have the same 1 state one vote model as the Presidential vote, so we still potentially have the 50-50 issue and no direct reference to VP as tie breaker if Georgia’s election occurs before 3rd of January. 20th amendment does make it clear that its the INCOMING congress. If the senators from Georgia are NOT chosen yet then the 98 existing senators are a quorum (need 2/3 so 67 is sufficient) and I think my issue goes away as there is a Republican majority at that point.

               Ms. Gibbons any thoughts? Have I read this right?

               1. To complete the thought – if the President assigns the job of mopping out the basements at Thule Air Base to the Vice President, then that’s the VP’s job unless the VP has to break a tie vote in the Senate.

                  The Vice President presides over the Senate and casts one vote to break ties, receives the Elector tally for teh next Presidential election, and waits for the President to die or be incapacitated – that’s it for required jobs. Everything else any VP does is basically extra credit assignments.

                  1. Trump would be the first president who made sure that his Vice President was overseas whenever something important was being voted on in the Senate.

                     :p

               2. Of course, if more than 1/3 of the Senate is Republican, they can deny a quorum….

               3. There were a lot of powerful VPs, but modern Democrat presidents usually have treated their VPs like crap. The worst was Wilson, who hated his VP for being popular and fun, and moved his office across town. The VP did not fight this, and did not fight Edith Wilson, so other Dem presidents decided that it was okay.

            2. There are only two responsibilities the VP has that are explicitly spelled out in the Constitution: They officially receive the Electoral votes tally in Preseidential elections, and they preside in the Senate, limited to voting only to break ties. Note presiding could also mean recognizing speakers, ruling things out of order, and interpreting Senatte rules and precedent, which could be weaponized.

               If she continues to delay resigning from her Senate seat and the election goes to Congress, she and DiFi could vote for herself as the California VP choice while Vice Preseident pence presides in dignified and actually elected splendor.

               1. Why hasn’t she resigned from her senate seat?

                  1. A resignation cannot be rescinded, and Governor-God-Emperor Gavin gets to name her replacement and he owes her nothing.

                     If I were to guess I would think she imagines there’s still a possibility that the cheat may not go through and wants to keep that power position for which she *****d so very, very many ****s, just in case.

                     1. When Kamala inventoried her assets she knew she could blow right to the top.

                        1. Naw. I can’t say that here. Half would be offended, the other half would be rolling on the floor laughing.

      2. Harris isn’t particularly bright, by all reports. Doesn’t mean that she isn’t dangerous. But she’d probably be at a disadvantage against Trump .

10. Aime — how did the Civil Rights legislation sucessfully change voting standards in the states? Is there something here that the sane folks can use?

    1. The Civil Rights Act made it so that ALL election CHANGES in certain states had to be reviewed before they become Law. So the State Legislature still makes all the Laws, so everything is all right.

11. Take not counsel of your fears. But stand ready, and have faith in God.

12. c4c

13. If you want a scary scenario try this: Whatever the Supreme Court does, there is (and there certainly will be) continued widespread strife over the election due to the fraud committed by Democrats and the clear evidence of Chinese suborning of the Democratic Party,

    China during the last days of the transition, likely on the day of the inauguration day, goes all in and launches simultaneous invasions of Taiwan and a full scale attack on the US including a full nuclear strike from itself, its client state in North Korea, and its allies in Iran. Iran, simultaneously, launches nukes at Israel which retaliates and Pakistan and India get in on the act, aside from any nukes China lobs at India over their own disagreements.

    Russia sits on the sidelines and picks up the pieces, while any remaining Democrats scream that Putin sat things out because “Trump is his puppet”

    Remember China thinks they can win a nuclear war and hundreds of millions of deaths among its own people is considered an acceptable loss by Xi, following in Mao’s footsteps.

    China launches they attack because they know Biden won’t retaliate and the domestic chaos and establishment will prevent Trump from retaliating, assuming that he even has control over the launch codes by that time.

    Farfetched? Predators strike when they think prey is vulnerable, and to China, Iran and the other tyrannies of the world, we are their prey.

    1. The chain of command from the President to the silos and subs is as short as it could be made for nuke launches in anticipation of a surprise attack. Also iirc in the case of an nuclear attack there are multiple other legitimate sources for a launch order including groups of silo commanders. China launches, China glows in the dark and not from their lighting, guaranteed.

       1. Even if China Joe and Commie LaWhorish expressly command that no responsible launch be made?

          1. Orders sometimes get garbled and it would be a terrible, terrible thing if some patriotic commander read received orders as saying. “Responsible launch may be made” or perhaps “No irresponsible launch may be made.”
             ~

             1. What movie was that?

                “DO NOT fire one!”
                “Fire one, aye aye sir!” [FWOOOSH!]

                1. I believe it was, “The Bedford Incident.”

          2. Yep. Any sub commander has full authority if they want to take it.

       2. More likely they do a standing-start invasion of Taiwan on inauguration day with the expectation that command would be impaired. If the US intervenes they hit Guam and the US bases in Japan with conventional weapons. The nukes would be the implied threat to Japan and Hawaii and the US mainland.

          But why would they? If they just wait a week to kick it all off the China JHoe Administration would tell PacCom to stand down.

          1. Taiwan has some pretty hefty coastal defenses. A PLA invasion probably wouldn’t be an overnight affair. It would likely last for a little while. The Inauguration isn’t long enough to distract the US from an invasion of Taiwan.

             1. This.
                China’s sea power is much more defensive than offensive.
                They can go after Taiwanese shipping, but taking Formosa by storm could really only happen if they’ve got a major fifth column ready for a mass uprising.

                After Hong Kong, I feel confident in saying that I find that extremely unlikely.

             2. Hopefully including that scenario from “Riding the Red Horse” where they’ve deployed nuclear mines in the Taiwan Straits.

                1. Nuclear depth charges. We’ve GOT those.

    2. Remember China thinks they can win a nuclear war and hundreds of millions of deaths among its own people is considered an acceptable loss by Xi, following in Mao’s footsteps.

       Does you really think that Xi wouldn’t know that in the event of a nuclear war where the U.S. was willing to nuke cities, several of the nukes the U.S. would launch would be targeted on Xi’s last known position? If your hypothetical scenario were to play out, then he’d better hope our intel on his location isn’t as good as I think it would be.

       1. You REALLY trust the CIA and other intel idiots to know??? When was the LAST Time they got anything RIGHT????

          1. Then just keep trying until they get it right! We’ve got more nukes than they’ve got cities…

             1. Wonder how many cities we could take out with but one nuke targeted on the Three Gorges Dam? Asking for a friend.

                1. We may not have to do anything to find out.
                   https://visiontimes.com/2019/08/16/satellite-photos-raise-fears-about-condition-of-three-gorges-dam.html

       2. Our intel in general sucks, and the left has been selling our people in China to the government for a long time.

    3. “China launches they attack because they know Biden won’t retaliate and the domestic chaos and establishment will prevent Trump from retaliating, assuming that he even has control over the launch codes by that time.”

       The only flaw in that scenario is that any US officer in charge of nuclear weapons has the practical authority to launch anyway. After all, decapitation was always a scenario.

       1. And then the nuclear winter solves global warming.

14. There are no safe harbors – there are only insufficiently great storms.
    –

15. I quit reading as soon as our awesome guest author reminded me she tends toward pessimism and anxiety. Anxiety is very high right now, and I’m an optimist surrounded by terrified, enraged people. I cannot get that close to pessimism–I’ll need my whole heart for this battle.

    All I needed to read was Sarah’s postscript. Yep. We die in the defense of the nation.

    1. “Yep. We die in the defense of the nation.”

       Better idea: let’s make them die in assault on the nation.
       ~

       1. I’m completely cool with that, if we know how….

16. I think we are at the “it would take a miracle” stage which is not where I wanted to be. Nevertheless, praying is what I’ll continue to do.

    1. Yeah, my baseline fear is there’s an decadal quota on miracles, and 2016 used ours through 2025.

    2. We are, but in the opposite direction you think.

17. Commenter from down-under here. I’m a New Zealander but American at heart. I think events are moving much faster than many people realize. American patriots know they have to act and the sooner the better. And, in particular, while Trump is still president. It looks like we are now all caught-up in an epoch-making historical event. We didn’t need this at the end of an already bad year. Nevertheless, get prepared. Things will look dark but you are on the side of right and you will find a way to win. Many of us overseas have your back.

18. PJ Media has this today:

    https://pjmedia.com/culture/tyler-o-neil/2020/12/10/rush-limbaughs-trending-toward-secession-comment-was-not-a-call-for-civil-war-n1202651

    It is impossible to peacefully co-exist with those who do not recognize your right to exist. An increasing number on left has made it very clear that they do not accept the right of non-leftists to exist and think that non-leftists need to be “gotten rid of”.

    1. Our speech is violence, their violence is speech.

       Makes it very hard to be “peaceful.”

    2. If that map became reality, Alberta might well join us. They’ve about had it with Ottawa (tho have idiots of their own).

       And seems to me that secession is the diametric opposite of civil war: we’re leaving so we won’t have to hang all those leftards from lamp posts.

       1. That isn’t a long term viable path to not having to do so.

       2. Looking at that map I think it proves its author an idiot.

          About half of California, Oregon & Washington states would a) refuse to go and b) tell the departing half to not worry about that door. Similarly, Downstate Illinois, Western Pennsylvania and Upstate New York would welcome their liberation from the bonds that cripple them. Meanwhile, Eastern Virginia would not be held back.

          For infrastructure shifted I think we could readily work out a tariff regime that would cover long-term purchase.

          I don’t think they dearly departing would find Canada to their liking, but what the hey.
          ~

          1. She is a… I don’t want to say, “idiot,” but the fact she thinks being Christian is a sign of mental inferiority says she’s not historically literate.

          2. I think putting a wall around certain cities might be better than going for whole states

             1. I think putting a wall around certain cities might be better than going for whole states

                Note that, historically speaking, this is usually called “a siege” — wherein it’s typically far worse to be inside than outside. (And that modern times make it much more so, not less, in almost all relevant ways.)

                Also note how comparing ‘a few cities’ (like, ah, statistically anomalous Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, etc) to ‘the rest of the country’ really amounts to a “tail trying to wag the dog” situation. If the “dog” genuinely decides it doesn’t want to be “wagged” — once and if we get past political (very) dirty tricks and nursery-school-inept agit/prop — things can very easily go very bad for the tail.

                Even if it’s only “okay, so if this doesn’t fail… we know who to blame.”

             2. “Dear L.A. etc. – that’s NOT *your* water. It is ours. And now we get to use it as WE see fit. You might want to fire up a few nuclear plants to run the desalinators you will be desperately needing yesterday.”

          3. Half?
             As if.

             The Puget Sound, the Williamette Valley, San Fran and environs (including San Jose), Sacramento, most of LA (Long Beach and Seal Beach possibly refusing), and maybe half of San Diego.
             And dear Lord, the celebration from rest of the states would be amazing.

             1. You (I’m in LA County, so first person doesn’t apply) would lose the West Coast ports, which would complicate matters. Though that’s still nothing like the loss of food, water, and power that the blue areas would suffer.

                1. Is it certain San Diego would go? Is it (could it be converted into) a port sufficient for shipping purposes?

                   Reflection suggests it might not matter. Goods produced in Asia would gain extra costs, thus promoting domestic production. Goods produced in (what, for lack of better term, we will call) the Heartland would largely be agricultural and remain in demand on the world market in spite of increased shipping expenses.

                   Making industries in Silicon Valley & Hollywood foreign entities might have certain not insignificant benefits for regulatory regimes.
                   ~

          4. Please look at the county map. Biden ONLY won in cities. He won the fewest counties of any candidate. It will NOT break up by States but Cities and everyone else.

             1. “Hey ‘blue’ cities – it’s OUR: food, water, petroleum, electricity. And we’re NOT going to subsidize you parasites any longer. Oh, they’re also OUR weapons systems, in case you’re feeling even more dumbass than usual.”

          5. She’s a half wit. Maybe only a quarter wit. Even under the assumption that all of Canada would join her little perimeter death cult empire, why would she get to take all of those entire states with her? For a better map, go search for the 2020 by county results map, then tell me where the food to feed those little CA and NY blue dot cities would be coming from.

             1. What a rube, dontcha know food comes from Whole Food Market? (close sarc)

                1. She needs a lesson in where food really comes from. It can start with a few days of picking rock.

          6. The author is an idiot. We get the continent, and they get an archipelago of blue dots. We’ll be the United States of (North) America, and they can be Ecotopia or something. Only real drawback is logistical. For historical reasons unconnected to present reality, they get most of the good seaports (all but one, maybe two, on the West Coast). We will still need a way to trade with Asia that bypasses blue-dot taxes and chokepoints.

             1. Houston, then through the Panama canal or around the Horn.

19. If Texas wins this lawsuit, they are asking for the Court to rule that the 62 Electoral Votes from the 4 contested states not be counted, therefore putting Biden and Trump both under the 270 required Electoral votes for the Presidency, which would toss it to the House, as I went over in my post last week. It’d be left to each state to have 1 vote each for the President, and we’d be looking at another 1876, which right now really is best case scenario for us.

    This gives me hope, because it’s something that has happened before.

    Even if they didn’t mention it in any of my history classes…..

    1. Here’s a good breakdown of 1876. Which, up until this year, I’ve always listed as the most contentious election in US history. 2020 might well change that, depending on how the next week or so goes.

       https://elections.harpweek.com/09ver2controversy/Overview-1.htm

       1. Thank you.

       2. There’s a fairly good recounting of the 1876 campaign and election in Chernow’s Grant as well.

          1. I first came across it in the ’90s sequel to “Gone with the Wind” where Scarlet visits her relatives in Charleston in 1876 during the election and sees the Federal troops leave, Charleston having been one of the last places Reconstruction troops had still been stationed.

    2. Really? Not even in passing? I mean, I know it used to be a whole chapter and we got a paragraph, but…..

       1. When I tell people that I knocked the socks off of the competition in Knowledge Bowl (think Jeopardy as a high school team sport) because I listened to Johnny Horton and old Western music, I wasn’t joking. (Although I should’ve included Animaniacs.)

          I was the weird kid who actually read the history book, and stuff like political elections wasn’t worth mentioning. Most of the focus was on “personalizing” the history, so WWII was something like Pearl Harbor, Japanese Internment, Holocaust, Hiroshima, then straight into Martin Luther King Jr and all Vietnam Vets are either crazy or hate the government.

          1. Argh. At least you got WWII. Apparently a lot of kids don’t get that far in class.

             1. Or there’s my class that, whatever the textbook had, thought that the way to do it was cheat their way through. So I looked super smart because I’d read a bunch of historical novels, and read the textbook and and just took the tests and did the assignments. Genius. 😛

                1. I learned an embarrassing lot of history through an adolescent addiction to the novels of Sabatini.

             2. You should hear my dad’s reaction to finding out that I hadn’t even heard of Charlemagne outside of fantasy novels.

                1. Does ‘The Song of Roland’ count as fantasy?

                   :p

                   (I am aware of him through other sources)

                   Potentially making matters even sillier is that there are people who only know about Charlemagne because Astolfo, one of his (probably fictional) paladins who is best known as a silly cross-dresser, is part of the FATE franchise.

                   1. Never heard of the Song of Roland, beyond occasional off-handed references that give about as much information as mentioning Hansel and Gretel in the same manner would.

                      Knew of Beowulf and Grendel because Tolkien actually bothered to tell the story when talking about it.

                      It’s kind of like the mess that is history class, really– “everybody knows” stuff is never taught, and after a while you’ve got three or four generations of “basic” information that wasn’t even mentioned, much less taught.

                      1. And my brain is insisting that Hansel and Grendel: Buddy Cops type stories Need To Be A Thing.

                         1. Hansel and Gretel: Witch Finders was a surprisingly fun schlocky film. Just leave your disbelief in the opening credits and enjoy the ride that includes things like machine guns that fire arrows and medieval insulin shots.

                            Also has one of my favorite lines. The witches are going to attack, and one of the townsmen has a shotgun. Gretel: Are you a good shot?
                            Man: No. That’s why I use a shotgun.

                      2. ‘The Song of Roland’ is worth reading at least once. Unlike Beowulf, it dramatizes a recorded historical event – specifically, the destruction of Charlemagne’s rear-guard, led by Roland, by the Saracens. The focus of the poem is Roland’s hubris, which ultimately leads to the death of Roland and everyone with him (including his best friend).

                      3. Encountered the Song of Roland by pure chance (that semester on Old French). It used to be part of the common knowledge that writers could refer to in the expectation that readers would know what they were talking about – “The horn of Roland in the passages of Spain.”

                         1. While I had learned of it via various references — IIRC, Heinlein refers to it in Glory Road — my greatest impetus to learn more was a result of Anderson’s Three Hearts and Three Lions.
                            ~

                            1. The first chivalric romances were about Charlemagne and the rest, but even in medieval France, they lost favor to King Arthur. Partly because the Matter of Britain was acknowledged as the stories of love, and partly because given the number of people who claimed descent from the (real or fictitious) people in the matter of France, all such romances were politically loaded from the word go.

                            2. Yep. But once you’ve consumed all of the Arthurian Tales you can find (and they were harder to find sixty years ago) you naturally go on to other, related things.
                               ~

             3. Yup. I think our textbooks stopped at Teapot Dome.

          2. I mean, personalizing history is a pretty good idea if done right. (Guess whether I think public schools would do it right, barring the very rare exception?) You invent an average Joe character — a peasant in the 1100’s, a factory worker in the 1800’s, give him a name and a family and a specific location in place and time, and tell the students what his life was like. Then you bring up the big world events at the time, and how they would affect him: he’s going to get conscripted into the army to fight in $WAR against $OTHER_NATION in $YEAR, for example. And so now he’s being handed a pike / a rifle, and maybe an ill-fitting uniform (describe it), and sent off to fight in $FAMOUS_BATTLE. Where he’ll survive (since you also want to show the war’s aftermath through his eyes) but he’ll see $NUMBER of his fellow soldiers in his regiment get killed, or die of infected wounds, and he’ll maybe volunteer in the medical tent (if there is one), so that you can describe what medical practice was like.

             Basically, what historical fiction authors do, but applied in the classroom, to give students a feel for what life was like in those days. Then when you tell them about the various battles and kings and so on, it’s not just a dry list of facts (guess how I was taught history?) but it’s a story that can live in their head. That’ll keep their interest. I always thought history was the most boring class ever until my 9th grade teacher finally did it right, giving me a feel for how people were thinking and feeling rather than a set of dry dates and event names to memorize.

             1. It can be done right, but it’s got to have something to hook on to– they basically had a pile of hooks and no real connections.

                It’s freaking nuts that we spent a quarter on Japanese Internment, and no mention that first and second generation immigrants of other folks we were at war with were also restricted– or that after Pearl Harbor, one of the guys who had JUST BOMBED US crashed, and got help from multiple Japanese who happened to live local. (To the point of suicide. Well, *I* count attacking a pissed off Samoan as suicide….)

                1. I’d say attacking a Samoan in a good mood would count as suicide.

                   1. I know two. I’d agree.

                   2. Depends on if they think it’s adorable, I’d guess. Maybe hilarious would work, too.

                      (I have hidden behind a pack of 11-14 year old girls at one of our parishes, their granddads would’ve found the idea of me being violent hilarious.)

             2. They didn’t usually get into the “day in the life” level stuff, just emotional appeals.

       2. I think they may have mentioned it in my high school history class, but I had already induced a coma during the interminable refighting of the Civil War and didn’t learn much after that.

          1. When I was in Virginia elementary school, history stopped with the Civil War, aside from some words on the evils of Reconstruction and straight on to WWII.

             1. Same in Georgia, I think (with above caveat about my self-induced coma). It was so long ago that I went around muttering, “Sheesh, it was almost a hundred years ago, we lost, get over it already.”

                Well over a hundred years now.

    3. Because it’s 2020 I suspect they are refreshing their books of blackmail and pressure material so they can get nominal Republicans to vote for the Democrat candidate. They are really all in on this. The appalling censorship every direction you look is a sign. If Trump prevails they’re in deep trouble. At this point I wouldn’t be surprised by blatant murder.

20. Pingback: Gotta be a better option than the shit we have now. | Dio's Workshop

21. Something I hadn’t realized before today. Obviously Trump is basically a trickster hero in factual form.

    But pretty much every SF writer with a penchant for trickster heroes or gods is one of the people who used to be libertarian, went super-left, and now hate and fear Trump for exactly the qualities closest to their favorite characters.

    He’s their ideals, looking them on the mirror and mocking them.

    1. Also, if neopagans actually wanted to hang out with Coyote or Raven, as they often claim, they would be jumping on the Trump Train. But instead a lot of folks have tried to hex him, with predictable lack of success (from any belief system’s POV, but particularly from many of their own).

       People who don’t have a sense of humor anymore should not claim to be followers of trickster gods, that is all I’m saying.

       1. Hexes don’t work well as I understand it, because they require an equal amount of damage to the hexer as is done to the hexee. Cutting your nose off to spite your face isn’t the smartest thing to do.

          1. Hexes rebound off tricksters

    2. Suburban: read or re-read Going Postal. Trump is Moist Von Lipwig.

22. Ms. Gibbons:

    I would lighten your darkness with two quotes:

    Defeat is never fatal and Victory is never final. It’s courage that counts.
    — attributed to Winston Churchill.

    Original quote:
    Success is not forever and failure isn’t fatal.
    — Don Shula

    Do not give in to hopelessness and despair. That is your enemy defeating you before you have had a chance to defend. Also laugh at the lefties. They are so intense yet bitter people, like badly brewed coffee.

    This, as always, is IMHO.

    1. Thanks 🙂
       I am trying to find my hope. The lawsuit Texas started gaining traction is helping with that.

       1. I’ve not found reporting on the four defendant states filing, but what I have heard is feeble as hell. It sidesteps the actual arguments and insanely asserts that Texas is trying to dictate their voting procedures.

          OTOH, I’ve seen credible reports that Texas AG Paxton is under fire for serious misdeeds and at risk of impeachment.

          Okay, the Washington Times has some coverage:

          Pennsylvania responds to Texas Supreme Court case, says it’s ‘bogus’ and ‘seditious abuse’
          Pennsylvania responded to Texas’ lawsuit at the Supreme Court Thursday, calling it “legally indefensible” and an “affront to principles of constitutional democracy.”

          “Since Election Day, State and Federal courts throughout the country have been flooded with frivolous lawsuits aimed at disenfranchising large swaths of voters and undermining the legitimacy of the election. The State of Texas has now added its voice to the cacophony of bogus claims,” Pennsylvania said in its court filing.

          [SNIP]

          The justices could decide to grant or deny the lawsuit at any time, but they are set to meet for a private conference Friday morning where the matter will likely be discussed.

          The Keystone state asked the justices to dismiss the case, saying Texas does not have standing — or sufficient injury — to sue, nor does the state makes any claim based on law or fact.

          “Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election, and nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four other states run their elections. Nor is that view grounded in any precedent from this Court. Texas does not seek to have the Court interpret the Constitution, so much as disregard it,” the states’ filing said.

          Pennsylvania also said the court shouldn’t allow “this seditious abuse of the judicial process.”

          Michigan, Wisconsin and Georgia also said in their briefs submitted to the justices Thursday that Texas lacked proper standing to bring the lawsuit, and the states dismissed allegations of violating their election laws.
          ~

          1. From a New York Sun editorial:

             Texas et al Deserve To Be Heard
             
             If we were the Supreme Court — a stretch to be sure — we’d hear the case that Texas and 17 other states have filed against Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. The censorious publications in our national debate would deem that a politically incorrect opinion. It seems to us, though, that the case offers the best chance of calming the anger that has welled up around this election from both sides.

             The states that share Texas’ concerns, after all, have nowhere else to go save for the high court. Think of this as the last chance for the court to at least try to preempt four years arguing about whether this was a properly conducted contest. Such a situation ought to be in the interests of the Democrats as well as the Republicans. Yet the intensity of the objections to the case suggest a kind of panic over what the justices might do. …

             … what extraordinary language is being used to mock the idea that the Supreme Court might hear this case. One law professor, quoted in the Times, calls the case “a press release masquerading as a lawsuit.” It quotes another professor as calling it “a new leader in the ‘craziest lawsuit filed to purportedly challenge the election’ category.” Michigan’s attorney general, quoted in Texas Tribune, calls the suit “beneath the dignity” of Texans.

             The New York Times is out this morning with a piece headlined “There’s Still a Loaded Weapon Lying Around in Our Election System.” It suggests that “state legislatures are still a threat to appointing electors contrary to the will of their voters.” Never mind that state legislatures get their standing in the Constitution (and that the courts themselves sometimes act contrary to the will of the voters).

             Meantime, the Washington Post is out with an editorial warning about violence. We share the concern. The Post suggests it’s being stoked by President Trump. What makes it so explosive, in our view, is all the efforts to ridicule and block efforts to get a review — somewhere — of the questions Texas has laid before the Supreme Court. We fail to see a reason why the justices shouldn’t adjudicate the case in a constitutional way.

             [Emphasis Added]
             ~

          2. ““Texas has not suffered harm simply because it dislikes the result of the election,”

             Uh, wrong. Texas and every person in the nation have suffered harm because they were effectively disenfranchised by unlawful election practices in those states.

             Surprise the AG wasn’t smart enough to understand that concept; but then again, it’s completely understandable if the AG is 100% corrupt.

23. Epoch Times, so paywall may be in efffect:

    Election Supervisor Shows on Video How Dominion Software Allows Changing, Adding Votes
    An elections supervisor in Coffee County, Georgia, demonstrated in recent videos posted online how Dominion Voting Systems voting software allows votes to be changed through an “adjudication” process. The process allows the operator to add vote marks to a scanned ballot as well as invalidate vote marks already on the ballot.

    Adjudication should only serve to resolve issues of voters marking ballots incorrectly, such as filling the bubbles in a way that doesn’t clearly show who he or she voted for. Yet it appears a substantial number of ballots went through that process, at least in some Georgia counties. As the Coffee County supervisor, Misty Martin, showed, the system can be set to allow adjudication of all scanned ballots, even blank ones, and effectively allow the operator to vote those ballots.

    The videos were posted by local news site Douglas Now, whose publisher, Robert Preston, told The Epoch Times they were filmed this week in the local election office.

    “According to our election folks, this Dominion system is flawed, not secure, and open to manipulation if someone were so inclined,” Preston said in a Facebook message.

    It’s not clear how many ballots were adjudicated statewide. The office of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    In Fulton County, which includes Atlanta, over 106,000 ballots were adjudicated by Nov. 4, said Richard Barron, the county’s director of elections, during a Nov. 4 press conference. In total, more than half a million ballots were cast in the county. Democrat Joe Biden leads Fulton with 381,144 votes compared to President Donald Trump’s 137,240.

    [SNIP]

    Coffee County refused to certify its election results, citing issues with the Dominion software. The Secretary of State’s office blamed the county for delaying the certification.

    Dominion has been in the hot seat over allegations of security gaps in its systems. State Rep. Matt Hall, a Republican who chairs the Michigan House Oversight Committee, recently threatened Dominion’s CEO with a subpoena if he doesn’t appear before his committee voluntarily.

    Last week, a state judge ordered a forensic audit of 22 Dominion machines in Michigan’s Antrim County, which was flagged last month by GOP officials as having switched 6,000 votes from Trump to Biden before it was reportedly corrected.

    A member of Trump’s legal team said an “independent team” took part in the audit.
    ~

    1. Additional link:

       Dominion sucks.
       ~

24. Additional link:

    Are you not confident Dominion systems are secure?
    ~

    1. From the roll-through of that last video, there’s PBS demonstrating that the machines were unreliable:

       Of course, this was broadcast before the November 3rd election. PBS is currently entirely satisfied with the results.
       ~

       1. BUT there is NO Evidence that there is ANYTHING wrong with the Dominion Voting Systems.

          1. Nor any evidence that they work as advertised. When dealing with something as fundamental as counting The People’s Votes there certainly ought be proof of reliability.

             The first step in any financial audit is confirmation that controls are in place to detect and deter fraud are in place and effective. That means those protections are tested, not merely assumed to be good.

             Heck, Danny, there is NO Evidence that you aren”t a Chinese bot, spewing irrelevant deflections across the interwebz.
             ~

             1. On a second read, I begin to suspect that he simply misplaced his <sarcasm> font. Or, that he means the Dominion voting machines are operating EXACTLY as intended. If not ‘as advertised’, at least to the voting public. Who knows how they were advertised to the bureaucrats that approved them?

                Dominion and the ‘SmartMatic’ software were developed to rig elections for Hugo Chavez. All of those controls are still in there, ready for anybody to use. Vote switching, vote weighting, mass inputs, even complete database purge and replace are all ‘features’ of the system.
                ———————————
                Major Strasser has been shot! Round up the usual suspects!

          2. Was it ever stated why two counties in Michigan – Antrim and Oakland – had wildly incorrect results from the Dominion voting machines that they both used? Oakland found a difference of 1200 votes. Antrim found a difference of 6000 votes, iirc.

    2. No. I’m glad that our legislature is inspecting it, and pissed at paste eating Polis for trying to stop it.

25. Either way, this ends either in tyranny or blood. The Left is this close to getting what they’ve wanted and if the SCUS takes it away they will turn to violence, as they have most of this year, to get it.

    The Left decided in 2016 they were going to get to be just like China and held off on major violence for 4 years when they didn’t get it. They won’t wait any longer.

    1. CA Dems appear to have been compromised by the Chinese for a while. They might have been given marching orders.

    2. Yeah, but their violence is eminently survivable. They won’t want to try ours. Truly.

    3. Or both. They are not mutually exclusive. I’m praying that they’re not.

       1. Er, rather, I’m praying we suffer through neither, or least as little as possible. It’s late. Brain, fingers, keyboard need rest.

    4. Left goes violent, if the cops don’t show up to stop them, then we mow them down and bulldoze the bodies.

       Is that horrific? Of course. Is it a waste? Of course. But when the SHTF and the choice is letting people burn my home or business, steal my hard earned stuff, and threaten me and my family’s safety, I’m not going to have any problems pulling the trigger on those attackers. I will cry and mourn them afterwards though.

       1. The problem is that in many locations, the cops show up, watch them be violent, and move against any victim who fights back. (Admittedly, there is selection bias in the locations.)

          1. This

26. “If Texas wins this lawsuit, they are asking for the Court to rule that the 62 Electoral Votes from the 4 contested states not be counted, therefore putting Biden and Trump both under the 270 required Electoral votes for the Presidency, which would toss it to the House,”

    Sorry, NO. Texas has asked that the State Legislatures decide who the Electors will be because the election was invalid. That is what the SC is going to do. FOLLOW the Constitution. THEY DO NOT DECIDE THE ELECTION!!! The State Legislatures decide the Electors just as the Constitution says. The SC is free and clear. The Jury Box is protected for now. ANY OTHER out come means the Jury Box is Destroyed. That the SC will NOT follow the Constitution.

    The problem is everybody expects the Republican State Legislatures to pick Trump Electors. Those Republicans are squishy and they FEAR what the Democrats will do to them and their Families. So it is VERY likely that at least 2 maybe more will send Biden Electors. Biden wins but the Republican Party is DESTROYED!!!! Why would ANYONE vote for Republicans ever again???
    If it goes to the House the same thing is likely to happen, again Biden wins and the Republican Party is Destroyed. The Democrats will also KNOW they can force Republicans to vote the way they want by threats.
    If the Republicans vote for Biden Electors or vote for Biden in the House then the BALLOT BOX IS DEAD!!! Again, Why would ANYONE vote for Republicans ever again???

    A NEW Party would be formed but the Republican Party would be a Zombie and ONLY Democrats would win elections. Of course the Democrats could cheat their way easily, so NO ONE but Democrats will win anyway.

    The Democrats will light the Flame that will destroy them.

27. I found out that I’m now banned from commenting at Red state.

    I was evidently too sarcastic when paraphrasing an author’s stance for the moderator’s taste.
    Or too accurate.
    Sometimes, it’s hard to tell.

    1. Isn’t Red State all tied together with Town Hall, PJ, etc?

       1. yes.

28. I see that the Hunter Biden story is no longer a fake news, punishable by socialist media shadowbanning, as it was before the election.

    Whatever could have changed, I wonder?

29. From what I can tell, this original action rests on the idea that State A has a constitutionally-recognizable interest in forcing State B to properly interpret and execute State B’s own laws. I can’t see that flying with anyone on the USSCT, probably rightly so.

    1. There’s also the whole “guaranteeing a republican form of government”.

    2. A state does have that interest in situations involving mutual agreements between the two states. The Constitution is an agreement between the states, and Texas is alleging that by failing to follow their own laws regarding the presidential election mandated by the Constitution, these states have negatively impacted Texas. Incidentally, the PA legislature seems to agree…

    3. You need to look again, perhaps absent the blinders. – probably rightly so.

       Hint: State A has a constitutionally-recognizable interest in forcing State B to properly adhere to State B’s own constitution.
       ~

30. Wow! Intriguing angle you got there. Nice. Didn’t get it in the quick read I did of the Bill of Complaint (really quick, as in on the way up an elevator). Would that depend on arguing, say, that PA (the most egregious offender in terms of legal violations I know) is denying TX a republican form of government? I can’t reach to that conclusion. But it could also be that TX may ask the Feds to step into PA business because PA has denied itself a republican form of government. That would commit to the idea that the USSCT can entertain original suits in which a state sues another state that doesn’t practice “judicial activism.” I can’t see that flying either.

    1. If an unlawful President is imposed upon Texas by fraud in Pennsylvania, that is definitely of legal interest to Texas. In addition, Pennsylvania violated the United States Constitution, which Texas also has a legal interest in.

31. I agree, but “unlawful” is the key word. What law makes the drooling generalissimo unlawful? If PA violated the US constitution, and there’s a connection between the violation and his election, that would do it. But if PA only violated PA law to do it, I can’t see that being of interest to the USSCT.

    Personally, I think this whole lawsuit is a desperate Hail-mary because the GOP wing of the Uniparty didn’t care to prevent the fraud (and, in Arizona and Georgia, actively connived in it) and there’s nothing else that can be done at this point. The GOP wing is acting under the delusion that this is a ruling-class coup rather than what it really is — a dual coup by the DEM wing of the Uniparty to reassert dominion over the proles while simultaneously purging the GOP wing. But the GOP isn’t called the Stupid Party for no reason.

    Expecting any judge to shoulder this kind of weight and make his or her name mud by rigorously following the law is unrealistic. They’re generally happy to do it when “society” is approving, or at least grudgingly accepting, of the result. But judges are highly-political people. They don’t seem that way because their world of politics isn’t party-based, position-oriented politics. It’s about garnering “respect,” social credit and status. That’s how they rise, and stay, in their positions.

    So the only thing that could motivate the USSCT is the Democrats’ plan to increase the number of justices *combined* with the Democrats’ obvious and real hatred of conservatives. That gives 4 justices a stake in keeping their “respect” by considering whether the law provides a way to stop the Democrat plan. The fifth justice is a stupid man appointed by a stupid man to ensure that the Uniparty keeps its privileges and will see Texas’ lawsuit entirely within that frame of reference. So Texas loses 5-4, with Chief Justice Roberts specially concurring with an opinion that’s best described as an intellectually-twerking pretzel.

    I wish I wasn’t so pessimistic, and I really hope I’m just to warped and dumb to see the light. But I’ve watched the GOP at work for 40 years, and worked with these kind of people for 30 years. Could be I learned the wrong things. I guess we’ll see. I’d be delighted to admit a lifetime of personal-learning failure if the prize is saving the United States. But right now, what I do is 45 St. Michael prayers a day, and that keeps me sane.

    1. Please learn to properly use the “Reply” link at the conclusion of posts to which you respond — it aids readers in deciphering to whom your comments are addressed.

       It also helps if you quote the specific line of a comment to which you’re addressing your response. For example:

       “I really hope I’m just to warped and dumb to see the light.”

       Based on available evidence you will receive scant argument here about your hope being well founded.
       ~

       1. Thanks for the help! New here, my only excuse.

    2. As you seem to be overlooking a critical point:

       “If PA violated the US constitution, and there’s a connection between the violation and his election, that would do it. But if PA only violated PA law to do it, I can’t see that being of interest to the USSCT.”

       The US Constitution grants authority to the Pennsylvania state legislature — and only the Pennsylvania state legislature — to determine the manner of choosing its delegates to the Electoral College (you could look it up.)

       This means that neither the Pennsylvania courts (judicial) nor the Pennsylvania governor (nor Secretary of State nor director of the state board of elections) (executive) have authority to alter the laws passed by the legislature for purpose of selecting electors. The Pennsylvania constitution sets out very specific procedures for changing those laws and the process was not adhered to by the state in several material ways (you could also look those up.)

       The state courts can void statutes establishing the process, the governor can veto proposed laws determining the process — but neither can enact a different process.

       Thus Pennsylvania has failed to follow its constitutionally (both federal and state) mandated rules for selection of electors and thus its selected electors cannot be recognized by the Electoral College.

       That is the issue under which Texas is suing. If constitutions are irrelevant there can be no Republican form of government, merely a rule of tyrants no matter how garbed.
       ~

       1. Thanks for replying. I wonder if the authority of the PA legislature to specify the manner of selecting electors, as enforceable by federal courts, extends down to every element of PA election law. I agree with you that the federal Constitution is clear when the issue is the PA legislature deciding, for example, that the winner of the popular vote in PA gets the electors. But does Article II’s reach go farther than that, and allow federal intervention in every aspect of PA election law that could affect the popular vote in a presidential election year? Does it mean, for example, that only the PA legislature and not a local judge could order a county’s polls to stay open an extra hour due to an emergency? I doubt PA law says that, and also doubt that this exact thing has never happened in PA at some time. There may even be a PA statute that specifically allows judges to modify voting conditions in an emergency.

          So let’s say the sole power granted under Article II, and enforceable by the feds, went further than PA statutes about electors specifically, and down into all of PA’s election laws. I’m pretty sure that PA’s statutory election law – like every state’s election laws – is deliberately open to interpretation and dispute-resolution by the judiciary. If not expressly, then at least by means of legislative acquiescence. So if the Constitution grants state legislatures the authority to specify that electors are chosen by the outcome of a popular vote, and the implementation of laws governing the popular vote includes the idea of judicial input, how could a decision by PA courts about PA election law clearly violate Article II?

          I think these questions aren’t clear and are going to make the USSCT pretty queasy.

          1. I think you need to read the actual facts of the complaint: that PE law is very specific about the process for absentee ballots and the process for changing that procedure was not complied with.

             According to the Supreme Court’s decision in Bush v Gore (2000) non-uniform ballot processing procedure is impermissible. Changes to allow PA absentee ballots were not in accordance with state law.

             See:
             Levin Makes Case Why SCOTUS Likely To Rule in Trump’s Favor Over PA Election Law Changes
             Fox News host Mark Levin made the case for why the U.S. Supreme Court should rule in a favor of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of changes to Pennsylvania’s election law regarding absentee ballots, which would invalidate Democrat Joe Biden’s win over President Donald Trump in the Keystone State.

             On his program “Life, Liberty, and Levin” on Sunday, the conservative firebrand offered two primary grounds to support his argument.

             First, the new election law provisions themselves, passed in October 2019 as part of an omnibus bill allowing for universal mail-in voting and early voting, were not enacted in the way required by the Pennsylvania Constitution.

             Second, Democratic Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf and the state’s Supreme Court went beyond even the language of the new law by removing safeguards such as signature and postmark requirements and allowing ballots to be received after Election Day.

             [SNIP]

             “Under the constitution of Pennsylvania, if there are to be any election law changes, you have to amend the constitution. Did they amend the constitution? No. What’s required to amend the constitution of Pennsylvania? It’s very complicated,” Levin said, according to a transcript.

             “There needs to be a majority vote of both houses of the state legislature, not once but twice. Then there needs to be a respite,” he continued.

             Levin then noted the state constitution requires ads announcing the changes to be placed in at least two papers in all the state’s 67 counties.

             Then, finally, the citizens of Pennsylvania get to vote on whether they want the amendment, he said.

             [SNIP]

             Levin said the U.S. Supreme Court does not have to fashion a remedy should it determine that Wolf and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled unconstitutionally.

             It can leave it up to the state legislature and Congress.

             Among other options, the Pennsylvania General Assembly could choose to award the state’s 20 electors to Trump (since he was ahead by more than 600,000 votes on election night prior to most mail-in votes being counted) or find the election has been so corrupted that there must be a redo.

             Last month, constitutional legal scholar Alan Dershowitz told Fox News that the president has two “winning issues” at the U.S. Supreme Court regarding Pennsylvania, including changing the ballot deadline and the unequal treatment of the curing of mail-in ballots between different counties in the commonwealth.
             ~

             1. If you prefer, here’s the video presentatio:

                I do not consider Levin to be dispositive, he merely presents the strongest accessible explanation of the complaint.
                ~

             2. To be clear: none of the questions you pose address the specifics of the Texas complaint and are thus irrelevant to the case at issue.

                Therefore I do not deign to expend time discussing them.
                ~

                1. I think exactly the opposite is true, but anyhow I appreciate your talking with me about it.

       2. And in accordance with the precedent set by the Declaration of Independence, we have a God-given right to revolt against tyrants.

          1. I’ve seen people indignantly declaring that we act like we have a Constitutional right to revolt.

             As if.

             We have the inherent right to revolt. That is what gives the Constitution its legitimacy.

    3. I wish you weren’t so pessimistic, either. I think you’ve made the enemy into a god, and our side into a peony.

       1. Good point. Alinsky told the Left to make themselves seem more powerful than they really are. Maybe I’m falling for that. But it still seems to me that we take a lot of comfort in how many of us are standing along the train tracks, without noticing that the enemy controls just about all of the switches.

          1. They DON’T. They think they do. They were set to, in the middle of the twentieth, then things happened.

             1. Well, if you’re going to take the *long* view … 🙂

32. So, SCOTUS refused to hear the case because the state of Texas lacks standing. Based on comments I’ve seen here and elsewhere, patriots seem to think that every American who voted has standing. But that hasn’t worked yet — honest lawyers disagree. So why doesn’t Trump just refile the suit with all the backing of the Texas suit? HE certainly has standing.

    1. This is the MOST idiotic thing SCOTUS could do.
       They have signed their death warrant. The people who would have kept them safe and in power they betrayed, in the name of the side that will end up killing them for being insufficiently Marxist.
       That means both sides now want them dead.
       Well done.

Comments are closed.