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

a reply to: johnnylaw16

A very well put together argument; and I do accept that you are being a straight shooter here.

But your arguments still only explains what routinely occurs during cases of this type; but does not at all speak to the peculiarities of these particular few cases and the seriousness of the implications.

For example you say:

The Supreme Court is a deliberative body that benefits from a well-established record by both the trial and appellate courts below it. By the time a case gets to the Supreme Court, it is supposed to have been tested and rundown extensively.

And with a typical case that gets to the Supreme Court its often months or even years for a the well-established record to galvanize.

In these cases regarding election fraud and election law; there hasn't been years or even months for a well-established record to have been created. And your own arguments state the Supreme Court can, if it chooses, hear the new evidence.

I fully accepte that under normal circumstances your arguments would hold water. But I am not convinced that your arguments slam the door on Trumps path forward. I highly anticipate that there will be a few more unprecedented actions that will occur before this is over ... the Supreme Court agreeing to hear new evidence seems like a rather mundane peculiarity if it occurs.

originally posted by: Willtell

I think I’ve heard the SCOTUS will take a case that’s of imperative importance to the country.
But isn’t it also true, they need a constitutional issue to take up a case? This is a very different case, but for example, in 2000 Bush used the assertion that his 14th amendment rights were being violated in some form.

They should, but I don't think it is an absolute... Row vs Wade was not constitutional based as example.

Nevermind, I made a fool of myself last night.

We need to be grateful we have three branches of government with equal powers to balance each other.

It's not perfect but is the best we know

‘Legislative (Senate and House of Representatives) and Judicial (Supreme Court and lower Courts). The President of the United States administers the Executive Branch of our government.”

www.trumanlibrary.gov...

Here the judicial branch determines the facts and truth and we have to accept it

When Trump or anyone is accused of these sexual accusations for instance and they are frivolous or false, he goes to the judicial branch to determine the facts. And if no facts are presented that a judge or jury determines aren’t viable then he’s innocent.

That’s the greatness of America

And it's good to have a professional or expert opinion once in a while bringing some clarity

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Willtell

I think I’ve heard the SCOTUS will take a case that’s of imperative importance to the country.
But isn’t it also true, they need a constitutional issue to take up a case? This is a very different case, but for example, in 2000 Bush used the assertion that his 14th amendment rights were being violated in some form.

They should, but I don't think it is an absolute... Row vs Wade was not constitutional based as example.

Of course it was.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion without excessive government restriction.

en.wikipedia.org...

Only those of you who have, and know how to use your "Common Sense", will understand this:

Biden lost Ohio and Florida.

Biden lost 18 of 19 bellweather counties.

Biden won 200 fewer counties than Obama in 2012.

The GOP picked up 14 House seats.

Yet a basement dweller (Joe Biden) somehow managed to get 80 million votes?

Source: twitter.com...

All others...please disregard this post. Thank-you.

P.S. twitter.com... a.k.a. #BidenCheated

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

You're entitled to your belief.

I'm entitled to me belief that Trump supporters believe that Trumps legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidence?

Thanks.

I am curious what is your belief regarding what Trump supporters believe?

The supreme court chooses to hear cases based on evidence that has been rejected by lower courts. No lower courts have been presented with evidence.

What Trump supporters believe is Trump.

So than you agree with my belief than?

That Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present their evidence.

I agree you believe that, yes.

But your belief is misguided at best. As said, the Supreme Court chooses the cases they hear - cases aren't just brought to them as people desire. And they don't hear cases that have not already been heard, seen evidence, and rejected by a lower court.

The key there being "seen evidence". There has been none. The Supreme Court won't bother with this nonsense.

Listen I think you might be quoting the wrong person here; or you have a reading compression problem.

My belief that Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court is not misguided; and in fact one only needs to read a few replies in this thread to see that its not just a belief but in fact a reality.

Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present new evidence. They could be wrong, but they do in fact believe it.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Willtell

I think I’ve heard the SCOTUS will take a case that’s of imperative importance to the country.
But isn’t it also true, they need a constitutional issue to take up a case? This is a very different case, but for example, in 2000 Bush used the assertion that his 14th amendment rights were being violated in some form.

They should, but I don't think it is an absolute... Row vs Wade was not constitutional based as example.

I think it did have a constitutional element to it… the Fourteenth Amendment.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Of course it was.

Yep...but it was a poor decision...should have been left up to the states...

originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: johnnylaw16

I think I’ve heard the SCOTUS will take a case that’s of imperative importance to the country.
But isn’t it also true, they need a constitutional issue to take up a case? This is a very different case, but for example, in 2000 Bush used the assertion that his 14th amendment rights were being violated in some form.

No, it doesn't necessarily have to be a constitutional question. It can be a question of federal law, state law between parties of different states, or state law that impacts federal law or the constitution, among other things.

a reply to: johnnylaw16

Thanks, I understand that and trust your expertise and wouldn't challenge you.

I only ask about the Bush team claiming the 14th amendment as an issue. And so I would apply that to this federal election situation.

In other words a narrow case of a federal presidential election.

Trump, for instance, might use a constitutional issue to get to the SCOTUS.

Just questions.

originally posted by: Willtell

I think it did have a constitutional element to it… the Fourteenth Amendment.

That is the bases but there are many scholars to include these SC judges White, Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and O'Connor that expressed it was pretty far reaching in many ways to suggest the 14th or the 9th. I'm not even against abortions just explaining that SE can and has seen cases not based on the Constitution.

a reply to: Willtell


The constitution part is related to the Democrats changing election procedures in the swing states illegally. According to the constitution any changes to the voting process must be approved by the state legislature. They made several key changes that opened up this election for mass fraud, and the did it without approval of the state(s) legislatures.

#ery afoot

originally posted by: Hogleg
a reply to: Willtell


The constitution part is related to the Democrats changing election procedures in the swing states illegally. According to the constitution any changes to the voting process must be approved by the state legislature. They made several key changes that opened up this election for mass fraud, and the did it without approval of the state(s) legislatures.

#ery afoot

But that is at the State constitution level. Those rules are done at the state level and one state had a few 100k votes that were not asked for and that was against the state level constitution, so for one state Trump can win that state on this alone. I do think those vote will be thrown out and for some reason they are extremely heavy Biden.

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat

originally posted by: Gnawledge

originally posted by: DanDanDat
Its unfortunate that you spent time writing that well written argument and dismissed your entire argument your self

Appellate courts, including the Supreme Court, generally do not hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court. 

I assume you used the word "generally" because it is possible for the Supreme Court to hear evidence that is not submitted to the trial court.

"..evidence that is not submitted" ...that's the main issue, as much as everyone here says there is evidence - none has been submitted in court. That's why he is losing all these cases.

I believe the argument is that Trump's team is holding onto the evidence until they can present it to the Supreme Court.

You're entitled to your belief.

I'm entitled to me belief that Trump supporters believe that Trumps legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidence?

Thanks.

I am curious what is your belief regarding what Trump supporters believe?

The supreme court chooses to hear cases based on evidence that has been rejected by lower courts. No lower courts have been presented with evidence.

What Trump supporters believe is Trump.

So than you agree with my belief than?

That Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present their evidence.

I agree you believe that, yes.

But your belief is misguided at best. As said, the Supreme Court chooses the cases they hear - cases aren't just brought to them as people desire. And they don't hear cases that have not already been heard, seen evidence, and rejected by a lower court.

The key there being "seen evidence". There has been none. The Supreme Court won't bother with this nonsense.

Listen I think you might be quoting the wrong person here; or you have a reading compression problem.

My belief that Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court is not misguided; and in fact one only needs to read a few replies in this thread to see that its not just a belief but in fact a reality.

Trump supporters believe Trump's legal team is waiting for the Supreme Court to present new evidence. They could be wrong, but they do in fact believe it.

No, I understand what you are saying. But I'm telling you the Supreme Court doesn't "wait" for evidence to be presented to it. That evidence is first seen by a lower court and rejected. Then the Supreme Court can be asked to review that evidence which has been rejected by the lower court.

There has been no evidence presented to any courts that the Supreme Court would agree to review.

If I am misinterpreting, I'm sorry. The only thing I can see is your saying "waiting for the Supreme Court to present evidnce" - the Supreme Court doesn't present evidence, it's presented to it - after being present to a lower court. But I don't believe that is what you are saying.

Can we just agree this is all a mess?

I'm reading now that the Pennsylvania trial court has ruled the election likely unconstitutional and the state legislatures will choose the electors.
pdf

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Nevermind, I made a fool of myself last night.

“He who makes a beast of himself gets rid of the pain of being a man.”
― Samuel Johnson

a reply to: Xtrozero

I'm not debating that at all.

But something like abortion as far as I know originally held laws against it violates the 14th amendment.

Sure, many say the unborn have rights under the 14th clause, that Row denied. That may be the basis to overturn it soon with a conservative 6 -3 edge

a reply to: Influential358

mail-in voting disenfranchised millions of voters

How so?

How did being able to vote by mail disenfranchise anyone?