Voter fraud!

[Boatdrinks]

On 7/8/2022 at 11:38 PM, ChiGoose said:

I originally thought it was a liberal clerk but now I’m thinking it was someone on the conservative side. 
 

Roberts is a bit of a squish to ultra conservatives and seemingly wanted to uphold the Mississippi law without outright overturning Roe. Kavanaugh is close to Roberts and may have been on the fence between Alito’s decision and the path Roberts wanted.

 

By leaking the decision at the time, it showed where Kavanaugh stood in February. If the decision ended up being 4-2-3 between Alito, Roberts, and the liberals, it would be very clear that Kavanaugh was the one who flipped. I think the leak was to pressure him to stay in line.

 

Obviously I could be wrong and I definitely could have been a liberal but it would have been very stupid for them to leak it. 

Of course a lefty leaked it. Why would it have been stupid? They needed to get the word out early, stoke the  “rage” etc as November is fast approaching and a massacre is expected. An act of total desperation to drum up support and distract from the terrible economy, soaring inflation and record high gas prices. 

[BillStime]

42 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Of course a lefty leaked it. Why would it have been stupid? They needed to get the word out early, stoke the  “rage” etc as November is fast approaching and a massacre is expected. An act of total desperation to drum up support and distract from the terrible economy, soaring inflation and record high gas prices. 

Ginni did it - she needed to mobilize the cult 

[ChiGoose]

8 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Of course a lefty leaked it. Why would it have been stupid? They needed to get the word out early, stoke the  “rage” etc as November is fast approaching and a massacre is expected. An act of total desperation to drum up support and distract from the terrible economy, soaring inflation and record high gas prices. 

It would have been stupid for a lefty to leak it because doing so early would take the punch out of the final decision. Also, it would make the shock of the decision come even further from the midterms, potentially allowing the furor to die out before it could help the Dems in November.

 

That doesn’t preclude a lefty from having done it, but it would have been counter-productive for them to do so. 

[Doc]

Sigh.  A lefty leaked it in order to generate enough outrage to get the judges to change their minds before the final verdict.  It's not rocket surgery. 

[BillsFanNC]

34 minutes ago, Doc said:

Sigh.  A lefty leaked it in order to generate enough outrage to get the judges to change their minds before the final verdict.  It's not rocket surgery. 

 

Additionally if it was leaked by a right leaning clerk the chances that the culprit still hasn't been identified and leaked to media is zero point zero.

[716er]

This guy leaked it

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

                         

 

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

[JaCrispy]

39 minutes ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

Been saying this for years…whoever wins an election does not care about voter integrity- and more so on the Left, because they seem to want to tear down American institutions rather than conserve them (ie wanting to eliminate the electoral college, abolish the senate, and pack the Supreme Court, just to name a few)…

Edited July 11, 2022 by JaCrispy

[BillsFanNC]

1 hour ago, B-Man said:

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, JaCrispy said:

Been saying this for years…whoever wins an election does not care about voter integrity- and more so on the Left, because they seem to want to tear down American institutions rather than conserve them (ie wanting to eliminate the electoral college, abolish the senate, and pack the Supreme Court, just to name a few)…

 

 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

On 7/10/2022 at 9:19 AM, ChiGoose said:

It would have been stupid for a lefty to leak it because doing so early would take the punch out of the final decision. Also, it would make the shock of the decision come even further from the midterms, potentially allowing the furor to die out before it could help the Dems in November.

 

That doesn’t preclude a lefty from having done it, but it would have been counter-productive for them to do so. 

Since the left hasn’t stopped screaming about the decision, it would seem to have plenty of punch for them. 

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

[BillStime]

16 minutes ago, DRsGhost said:

 

👆this 🤡

 

[BillsFanNC]

 

But ....MOST SECURE ELECTION IN US HISTORY!!

 

 

The 2020 election was full of chaos and irregularities. States across the country changed election policies and procedures last minute. Due to the pandemic, election officials claimed these emergency actions and deviations from election laws were necessary.

 

 

Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a win for election integrity and strengthened the security of Wisconsin’s elections. In a 4-3 ruling, the court ruled that drop boxes will only be allowed at the offices of election clerks.

The court ruled that the Wisconsin Elections Commission does not have the power to enact and change election laws. This power belongs to the state legislature.

 

 

This is not the first state to have violated its own laws in the 2020 election.

Earlier this year, a Pennsylvania court struck down the commonwealth’s mail-balloting law. The law passed in December 2019, and legalized no-excuse absentee voting.

 

The universal mail-voting law violated the Pennsylvania Constitution. The commonwealth’s Constitution requires a person to vote on Election Day unless they meet certain criteria. Changing the mail-balloting laws in Pennsylvania would require a constitutional amendment. 

 

The vote-by-mail system was a complete failure in 2020. According to federal data, the commonwealth lost track of more ballots than the difference in votes between Trump and Biden.

 

 

 

 

 

[The Frankish Reich]

On 7/11/2022 at 4:46 PM, DRsGhost said:

 

 

 

My oh my, how the internet makes everybody an expert. Lots and lots of nonlawyers ready to tell us what a law or even the Constitution means. 
Other posters are free to (and often do) dispute my football takes here based on my not-so-privileged position of self-appointed “informed fan.” But Big Molly is not a lawyer, and neither (to my knowledge) are DR and his caddy. 
So read and learn …

… the Wisconsin law says a vote will be counted if “an elector mails or personally delivers an absentee ballot to the municipal clerk.” So I guess the actual “Municipal Clerk” (a real title in Wisconsin, held by a real person) must be there to accept it? Well, no. The Municipal Clerk may designate an alternate drop-off site overseen by his or her delegate. And the law says that the Election Commission may promulgate uniform rules for elections consistent with the statute. So they said “mail-in or drop-off is o.k.”  After all, we know that the term “personally delivers to the Municipal Clerk” doesn’t mean handing it the actual Municipal Clerk; after all, she may designate someone else, somewhere else to receive it for her. So is a secured drop box overseen by the Municipal Clerk or her designee and not accessible by others “personal delivery?”  The Elections Commission says “of course.” And that what we lawyers all do when we address a letter as “BY PERSONAL DELIVERY” and hire a courier to drop it off at the front desk of opposing counsel’s office. It’s not like service of process where the package actually needs to touch the real person being served. It’s still “personal delivery” in common parlance. 
So 4 members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court said that here “personal delivery” means something in between for this law. It doesn’t actually have to touch the body of the Municipal Clerk, but presumably it needs to be dropped off at the desk or filing window occupied by some kind of real person. 3 other justices said “you just made up that in between rule; a secured drop box completely fits the understood meaning of “personal delivery.”

I’m not saying the majority was clearly wrong, but to suggest that the dissenters don’t care about election integrity ignored the fact that this is what lawyers and judges do all the time. The language is ambiguous; they argue and decide what those ambiguous words really mean. 
Consider yourself educated. 

[BillsFanNC]

I know, but that's different. 

 

Never change leftists.

[BillStime]

 

 

"LOST, NOT STOLEN: The Conservative Case that Trump Lost and Biden Won the 2020 Presidential Election," looked at more than 60 court cases Trump and his supporters filed and lost in six key battleground states. It reached the "unequivocal" conclusion that the former Republican president's claims were unsupportable -- which Trump's own Department of Homeland Security as well as election officials nationwide debunked days after the 2020 election."