There is no actual evidence of voter fraud; here's how we know:

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: johnnylaw16
This is mostly a jurisdictional issue. The supreme court can only hear a case if it has jurisdiction, which normally means that a federal law or constitutional question is implicated. Most state supreme court cases do not involving these things. But even if a federal law or constitutional question is implicated, the Supreme Court still will not get involved if there is an independent state law basis upon which the state supreme court decision is based. This latter point, incidentally, is why the Supreme Court is less likely to intervene in the recent PA supreme court decision regarding PA's mail in balloting initiative. While it involves a federal election, the challenge to the law in question fails under independent state law grounds, meaning that even if the federal/constitutional questions were resolved, state law would still mandate the outcome dericted by the PA state supreme court.

Another reason is federalism. SCOTUS is weary of treading on state supreme courts. Thus, it will want to ensure that any appeal it takes from a state supreme court fits squarely within its jurisdiction. Is there is doubt, the court may prefer to err on the side of caution.

Thanks for that very comprehensive answer, you sound like you may be an actual attorney.

Drivers passing by feel bad for the rabbit? lol

WRONG! There's skid marks in front of the rabbit, Mr. Fake Attorney!

Hah! That's actually a good one.

The supreme court can only hear a case if it has jurisdiction, which normally means that a federal law or constitutional question is implicated

You mean like if the voting was performed not as the Constitution intended? Like in PA? This is what Alito ruled. You also have them all redistricted after ACB was installed.

A person does not need to be a lawyer to understand the process. They just need to turn of the media talking heads and do a little research. Or, maybe talk to a lawyer like I have in general conversation about what could happen.

All you keep saying is that there is no fraud. An opinion, like how you said judges should interpret the law not enforce it which is the difference, as I stated between Progressive and Constitutional thinking....

a reply to: matafuchs

Can you cite the part in the US Constitution that governs voting?

Thank you kindly.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You can start here...

www.usa.gov...

originally posted by: matafuchs

The supreme court can only hear a case if it has jurisdiction, which normally means that a federal law or constitutional question is implicated

You mean like if the voting was performed not as the Constitution intended? Like in PA? This is what Alito ruled. You also have them all redistricted after ACB was installed.

A person does not need to be a lawyer to understand the process. They just need to turn of the media talking heads and do a little research. Or, maybe talk to a lawyer like I have in general conversation about what could happen.

All you keep saying is that there is no fraud. An opinion, like how you said judges should interpret the law not enforce it which is the difference, as I stated between Progressive and Constitutional thinking....

Your posts continually confirm that you know not of what you speak.

Alito did not "rule" anything. He entered a temporary restraining order for ballots to be segregated pending a decision by the court whether to hear to the case and make a decision on the merits. He did not address the merits of the case in any way.

I have no idea what the following sentence even means: "You also have them all redistricted after ACB was installed. "

And once again, all judges interpret the law. That is literally the function of a judge, especially appellate judges. The late Antonin Scalia was an originalist as we all know. That means that he interpreted the law from an originalist's perspective. When trying to determine what the constitution means, he asked what the framers intended. He was also a strict textualist when it came to statutory interpretation, often interpreting statutes to give effect to their literal meaning as best he could, without relying on what legislators may have intended. Whether one interprets the law is not a means of distinguishing the type of judge that they are; it is a means of distinguishing whether they are a judge at all.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

Can you cite the part in the US Constitution that governs voting?

Thank you kindly.

Article II

constitutioncenter.org...

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Your posts continually confirm that you know not of what you speak.

No, not really. You just want to try to take 'one' word out of context to prove your point. We are not litigating. We are having a discussion. There is no winner in these debates and contrary to popular posting i try to learn and not close my mind with discussions like this.

What Alito did in PA was grant a request. He did it without consulting the other justices. He sent an order to the PA county election boards to separate ballots. If a judge orders something would that not be a ruling? Maybe I am just interpreting it different than you.

And once again, all judges interpret the law. That is literally the function of a judge, especially appellate judges.

Correct. But why would they interpret the same thing differently? I think what you are talking about it literal vs purposive approach for the judges right?

Literal - Constitutionalist
Purposive - Progressive

Am I wrong?

originally posted by: matafuchs

The supreme court can only hear a case if it has jurisdiction, which normally means that a federal law or constitutional question is implicated

You mean like if the voting was performed not as the Constitution intended? Like in PA? This is what Alito ruled. You also have them all redistricted after ACB was installed.

A person does not need to be a lawyer to understand the process. They just need to turn of the media talking heads and do a little research. Or, maybe talk to a lawyer like I have in general conversation about what could happen.

All you keep saying is that there is no fraud. An opinion, like how you said judges should interpret the law not enforce it which is the difference, as I stated between Progressive and Constitutional thinking....

If you care to learn more about the ways that judges interpret the law and why it is necessary to interpret the law, you should read Yates v. United States: www.supremecourt.gov...

In that case, it was necessary to interpret the following provision of Sarbanes Oxley, which was enacted in the wake of the Enron scandal as a means of deterring white collar crime:

“Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter . . . shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."

Yates was a fisherman that had been caught catching undersized fish in violation of a conservation law. Law enforcement boarded his vessel while on the water, found undersized fish, and ordered him to return to shore. While returning to shore, Yates dumped the undersized fish overboard, thus destroying the evidence that he had violated the law. He was prosecuted under the above quoted statute.

The question for the supreme court was whether this statute, which was enacted to prevent white collar crime, could also be used to punish the fisherman.

As the government argued, while the statute was ostensibly aimed at white collar accounting crimes, by its very words it prohibited "destroying" or "concealing" any "tangible object . . . with the intent" to impede an investigation. And, as the government argued, a fish is tangible object. By throwing the fish overboard, Yates had violated the statute.

Yates disagreed. He said that the statute was obviously aimed at different conduct than his. It talks of altering or concealing "documents" and "records," and thus "tangible object" has to be read in light of those items. In other words, tangible object was limited to items similar to documents and records. Indeed, this provision of Sarbanes Oxley was found under a section entitled “Destruction, alteration, or falsification of records in Federal investigations and bankruptcy.”

Both sides had plausible interpretations of the law and the Supreme Court needed to interpret the law to determine which was correct. Ultimately, the Court sided with Yates and found that he could not be prosecuted under this statute.

It's a good read and provides a good lesson on why it is necessary to interpret, not blindly "apply" the law.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Your posts continually confirm that you know not of what you speak.

No, not really. You just want to try to take 'one' word out of context to prove your point. We are not litigating. We are having a discussion. There is no winner in these debates and contrary to popular posting i try to learn and not close my mind with discussions like this.

What Alito did in PA was grant a request. He did it without consulting the other justices. He sent an order to the PA county election boards to separate ballots. If a judge orders something would that not be a ruling? Maybe I am just interpreting it different than you.

And once again, all judges interpret the law. That is literally the function of a judge, especially appellate judges.

Correct. But why would they interpret the same thing differently? I think what you are talking about it literal vs purposive approach for the judges right?

Literal - Constitutionalist
Purposive - Progressive

Am I wrong?

My point is that Alito made no suggestion about the merits of the case. He merely issued a stay preserving the ability to rule on the matter later, should the court choose.

On the second point, look at my previous post on the Yates case. Laws aren't black and white, and legislatures are sloppy drafters. There are often multiple, plausible interpretations of a law. That two people reach different conclusions is not evidence that one is pushing an agenda. Indeed, in the Yates case you had a very interesting mix of traditionally conservative and liberal justices on both sides.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Ok...

On the second point, look at my previous post on the Yates case. Laws aren't black and white, and legislatures are sloppy drafters. There are often multiple, plausible interpretations of a law. That two people reach different conclusions is not evidence that one is pushing an agenda. Indeed, in the Yates case you had a very interesting mix of traditionally conservative and liberal justices on both sides.

Correct. So in many instances you have judges who will interpret differently. This is why we have the Supreme Court. But like I said, there are literal vs purposive approaches. This is why it is so important in the case of the Supreme Court to make sure that bias is not set at the local or state level based on their own ideals. You cannot deny this happens.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

You can start here...

www.usa.gov...

Typical.

Your claim is baseless so you offer a blind link.

You claim to support the COTUS. Show us where that document dictates how States will run their elections.

Should be easy right?

originally posted by: johnnylaw16

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: matafuchs

Can you cite the part in the US Constitution that governs voting?

Thank you kindly.

Article II

constitutioncenter.org...

You're referring to the structure of the Electoral College?

Allow me to be more specific: cite the part of the Constitution that dictates how States will conduct their elections.

Each State can choose how they select Electors.

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: johnnylaw16

Ok...

On the second point, look at my previous post on the Yates case. Laws aren't black and white, and legislatures are sloppy drafters. There are often multiple, plausible interpretations of a law. That two people reach different conclusions is not evidence that one is pushing an agenda. Indeed, in the Yates case you had a very interesting mix of traditionally conservative and liberal justices on both sides.

Correct. So in many instances you have judges who will interpret differently. This is why we have the Supreme Court. But like I said, there are literal vs purposive approaches. This is why it is so important in the case of the Supreme Court to make sure that bias is not set at the local or state level based on their own ideals. You cannot deny this happens.

Yes, there are textualist and purposivist interpretation methods, but they don't fall strictly along liberal and conservative lines, and there are cases that require each. Again, the Yates case demonstrates this. And what's more, these are methods of interpreting statutes, not necessarily the constitution, which requires a more purposivist approach generally--I mean even originalism, which Scalia championed, is a form porposivistic interpretation, as it seeks to divine the original purpose of the framers. None of this simply black and white, and no method of interpretation is automatically more valid than another.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Then take your lazy ass to Google and find it... Glad to know the real you is still here...

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: djz3ro
I'd trust the Professional Opinion of a Federal Court Litigator in this case over anyone else. They know the law of the land.

You have no idea who this yahoo is. He's some rando internet guy making a sketchy claim about being a lawyer. He doesn't demonstrate the knowledge and experience he claims to have.

I call it like I see it, he has remained calm and spoke objectively and his OP, 33 pages in is still 100% true. A very rare thing on modern ATS

originally posted by: matafuchs
a reply to: Gryphon66

Then take your lazy ass to Google and find it...

Glad to know the real you is still here...

Right. I'm going to do the work for you to prove your point, and I'm "lazy"?

No thanks. Your arguments are fallacious and your claims are BS.

It's a simple fact that the Constittuion does not dictate how States organize their elections.

It's okay to admit you're mistaken.

originally posted by: djz3ro

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: djz3ro
I'd trust the Professional Opinion of a Federal Court Litigator in this case over anyone else. They know the law of the land.

You have no idea who this yahoo is. He's some rando internet guy making a sketchy claim about being a lawyer. He doesn't demonstrate the knowledge and experience he claims to have.

I call it like I see it, he has remained calm and spoke objectively and his OP, 33 pages in is still 100% true. A very rare thing on modern ATS

Appreciate it!

To MotherMayEye (or any other doubters or nay-sayers), I am happy to talk law, and I am happy to talk about any specific evidence of voter fraud that you think may exist. I'm happy to be challenged. And if I don't know something, I'll tell you as much.

a reply to: matafuchs

You think they could hide it if it was? Can you show me any ongoing cases?

a reply to: johnnylaw16

This is actually quite an amusing thread... You're an attorney and you clearly know what you're talking about... yet the good people of ATS still want to argue with you

We are a stubborn bunch eh....

Good thread S&F

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: johnnylaw16

This is actually quite an amusing thread... You're an attorney and you clearly know what you're talking about... yet the good people of ATS still want to argue with you

We are a stubborn bunch eh....

Good thread S&F

Haha, thanks. And I'm happy to debate with people too--but posting things like "you're blind" and "the fraud is so obvious" isn't debating, and unfortunately, that's most of what we've been getting here.