Did some people in government illegitimatly use their power in some states to inact mail in voting?

[john james]

Did some people in government illegitimatly use their power in some states to inact mail in voting?

Some in Texas and other states are saying this. Texas is suing some states and other states are coming into the suit with Texas to sue other states.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

You may not be writing it correctly.

Some voting precincts in the crooked states which allowed differences between precincts on voting rules.
There are states which allowed votes to be accepted after Election day which is against the law.

I very much appreciate this thread.

Here the Texas AG does a great job explaining the Constitution and the laws.

Great job. Every vote counts and MUST be counted correctly.

State vs State court cases can ONLY be argued in front of Supreme Court.

States do NOT have rights to change Federal laws.
Only state legislatures can change how a State selects electors.

States do NOT have the authority to ignore signatures for mail in ballots.

Bush v Gore ruled on violating equal protection.

Founders were genius.

 

[Whateverman]

Did some people in government illegitimatly use their power in some states to inact mail in voting?

Not as I understand it, no. We'll let the courts decide, though.

Some in Texas and other states are saying this. Texas is suing some states and other states are coming into the suit with Texas to sue other states.

You know who's saying it in Texas? A Trump campaign member who's being investigated by the FBI and has been indicted, and who probably would like one of those pardons that Trump is handing out like puffy stickers. The theory is that he's filing this suit which likely has no merit, in the hopes of making Trump happy.

But again, we'll let the courts decide. So far, the vast majority of them have decided against the current so-called president.

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Arizona makes it now 18 states which filed amicus briefs and join the Supreme Court case.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Did some people in government illegitimatly use their power in some states to inact mail in voting?

Some in Texas and other states are saying this. Texas is suing some states and other states are coming into the suit with Texas to sue other states.

Some other Republican-led states. This is just the usual Trumpites falling into line.

Two things cannot be escaped:
- virtually every legal attempt to take any action against the election has failed (often at the hands of Republican-appointed judges) and
- not a single indepedent authority has found anything wrong with the election. The ONLY people complaining are Trumpites.

 

[john james]

I listened to the AG of Michigan seemly attack the person in Texas with talking about issues the person was facing and not the claims of the suit. Then she said the lower courts debunked it. Some are saying the reason why the lower courts did is because they are on the same side as the states being sued and pushing an agenda indirectly or directly with their bad liberal thinking. Some are saying this isn't just about Trump, its about keeping it fair for everyone now and in the future. Some are saying that some democrats think that some Republicans won't stoop to doing the same thing. My question is what happens if they do? There will never be a fair election again. It will be based on who cheats the best.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I listened to the AG of Michigan seemly attack the person in Texas with talking about issues the person was facing and not the claims of the suit.

That sort of thing is, sadly, pretty common. The merit (or lack thereof) of the suit is completely unrelated to whether the Texas AG is under investigation for something, has been, is an angel come to earth or is a closet serial killer. Fortunately I think the Texas AG's person will not be a consideration when the SCOTUS see this.

Then she said the lower courts debunked it.

They did.

Some are saying the reason why the lower courts did is because they are on the same side as the states being sued and pushing an agenda indirectly or directly with their bad liberal thinking.

That's another pretty common tendency. If you don't like a court's decision, they're legislating from the bench because they're a lot of filthy <insert name of the party you disagree with> and should all be removed so we can get some good, Constitution-faithful judges in there who are <insert party you agree with>. I just tend to dismiss such a claim, regardless of side, and try to judge the decision on its merits.

In these cases, I agree with most of the decisions made (I've not seen them all), and I think the tendency I mention above is somewhat reduced because the judges who have ruled against Trump on this issue are across the board - liberal and conservative. Many are Republican-appointed and quite a few are Trump-appointed.

Some are saying this isn't just about Trump, its about keeping it fair for everyone now and in the future.

I'd support that if there was actually any evidence of fraud. There isn't. No independent authority has found any and the only people claiming that there is are Trumpites. Notice all the states joining in the latest lawsuit? All Republican-led.

Some are saying that some democrats think that some Republicans won't stoop to doing the same thing. My question is what happens if they do? There will never be a fair election again. It will be based on who cheats the best.

I honestly think that either side would cheat if they thought they could get away with it. But our election system is robust - the reason they don't cheat is because they know they'd never get away with it. Look at the scrutiny on this election, basically just because Trump complained about it. Imagine if there actually had been fraud - it would have been found and evidenced nine different ways to Sunday.

 

[john james]

What if there was evidence of fraud that ni one could deny but they are not able to find it or rule possible fraud allegations out completely because the attempt to investigate is being denied? When i say investigate, I mean thoroughly by an independent impartial party and Forensicly.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

What if there was evidence of fraud that ni one could deny but they are not able to find it or rule possible fraud allegations out completely because the attempt to investigate is being denied? When i say investigate, I mean thoroughly by an independent impartial party and Forensicly.

That would be of great concern. Who would be denying them?