President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

in reality, all of this has been a total load of old bollocks
User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69136
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Diamond Dog » 05 Nov 2020, 09:50

For you legal eagles.....

We KNOW Trump's claims over fraud are nonsensical.

But... if it goes to The Supreme Court, is it absolutely the case that if they uphold the Trump challenge (no matter how ridiculous we know it to be) then their decision/s will stand.
I have put the ignorant, inflammatory bore on ignore.

User avatar
The Modernist
2018 BCB Cup Champ!
Posts: 13656
Joined: 13 Apr 2014, 20:42

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby The Modernist » 05 Nov 2020, 10:03

Sam Stone wrote:
Given how badly the US is divided and assuming he and the bulk of his voter base don't cark it of
COVID in the mean time, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried running again in 2020


Perhaps, but I read quite a profound piece on Trump saying it's not power he craves, it's attention. If he could get attention without the responsibility of having to actually run things, I think he'd prefer it in many ways.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69136
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Diamond Dog » 05 Nov 2020, 10:11

The Modernist wrote:
Sam Stone wrote:
Given how badly the US is divided and assuming he and the bulk of his voter base don't cark it of
COVID in the mean time, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried running again in 2020


Perhaps, but I read quite a profound piece on Trump saying it's not power he craves, it's attention. If he could get attention without the responsibility of having to actually run things, I think he'd prefer it in many ways.


He's a narcissist. A lazy narcissist at that. He doesn't want the aggro. He's basically not run anything since he took over. He's just taken credit for the perceived victories. And then gone back to the golf course.
I have put the ignorant, inflammatory bore on ignore.

Sam Stone
Posts: 2350
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Sam Stone » 05 Nov 2020, 10:17

You can't get much more attention than having 67,000,000 extremely gullible people fawning over your every word.

If he's not got some kind of show on Fox News within the next month or so, I'll eat Moddie's hat!

User avatar
Lord Rother
Posts: 7508
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 11:54
Location: breaking the legs of the bastard that got me framed

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Lord Rother » 05 Nov 2020, 11:38

I don’t think even Fox are dumb enough to give him a show.

Naive? Quite possibly.

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44288
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Dr. Baron » 05 Nov 2020, 11:52

Diamond Dog wrote:For you legal eagles.....

We KNOW Trump's claims over fraud are nonsensical.

But... if it goes to The Supreme Court, is it absolutely the case that if they uphold the Trump challenge (no matter how ridiculous we know it to be) then their decision/s will stand.


Their decision would be final but it’s not absolutely the case that they would agree with any Trump challenge, no. Last week, Justice Alito telegraphed that he had some concerns about the practices in Pennsylvania and it’s possible that could have some traction, but so far I haven’t heard any real LEGAL complaints from the Trump campaign. But it’s a new day.

It sounds like they’re making it up as they go along. On the one hand, that’s always going to be the case in a situation that moves so quickly, but on the other hand, Politico reported this morning that Jared has been working the phones looking for a “James Baker” to spearhead their legal/political operation. It’s stunning to me that they don’t already have this figured out and in place since it’s always been Trump’s plan to get into litigation if it didn’t go his way.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44288
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Dr. Baron » 05 Nov 2020, 12:48

I might add that I recently enjoyed the "Fiasco" podcast that took on the 2000 election in Florida and Bush v. Gore. It was well done and I recommend it . . . there was a lot I had forgotten and it had particular resonance now.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/f ... 1534780078

Of the 2000 Supreme Court, only two remain: Breyer and Thomas. Of the recent nominees. CJ Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Barrett worked in different capacities on the Bush legal team. I don't think any of this matters as much as some may suggest, and I think most of the Justices resent Trump's transactional view of their role. We'll see what happens, but Trump needs to move fast. He can't just go straight to the Supreme Court, he would generally have to go through lower courts first (you'll recall that in Bush v. Gore, the Supreme Court was reviewing what the Florida Supreme Court had done, and they had to file a lawsuit in a trial court before they got there).

However, this IS something pending in the Supreme Court right now relating to PA ballots, and the Trump camp has asked to join as a party.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/11/trum ... ore-297499
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

User avatar
Tactful Cactus
Posts: 18212
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 14:21
Location: by your window

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Tactful Cactus » 05 Nov 2020, 12:59

The Modernist wrote:
Perhaps, but I read quite a profound piece on Trump saying it's not power he craves, it's attention. If he could get attention without the responsibility of having to actually run things, I think he'd prefer it in many ways.


He loses immunity when he stops being President. His business practice has been under massive scrutiny in the past few years and he knows he's vulnerable once he loses the Presidency.

A swift relocation to Moscow or Rio might be on the cards.

User avatar
Diamond Dog
"Self Quoter" Extraordinaire.
Posts: 69136
Joined: 16 Jul 2003, 21:04
Location: High On Poachers Hill

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Diamond Dog » 05 Nov 2020, 13:04

I knew about the 'disputed' votes being kept separate, but that's a different angle on top of that. Cheers Baron.

My original point still stands though, doesn't it? If the Supreme Court makes a decision, that stands. There is no way of overturning that. And whilst i understand they may not vote on party lines... if they did... Trump would win that particular battle (whatever it is). It may or may not be enough to change the result overall but... the possibility DOES exist.
I have put the ignorant, inflammatory bore on ignore.

Sam Stone
Posts: 2350
Joined: 25 Aug 2016, 17:12

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Sam Stone » 05 Nov 2020, 13:14

Tactful Cactus wrote:
The Modernist wrote:
Perhaps, but I read quite a profound piece on Trump saying it's not power he craves, it's attention. If he could get attention without the responsibility of having to actually run things, I think he'd prefer it in many ways.


He loses immunity when he stops being President. His business practice has been under massive scrutiny in the past few years and he knows he's vulnerable once he loses the Presidency.

A swift relocation to Moscow or Rio might be on the cards.



As wonderful a prospect as it is, there is no way on earth he is going to wind up in jail

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44288
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Dr. Baron » 05 Nov 2020, 13:37

Diamond Dog wrote:I knew about the 'disputed' votes being kept separate, but that's a different angle on top of that. Cheers Baron.

My original point still stands though, doesn't it? If the Supreme Court makes a decision, that stands. There is no way of overturning that. And whilst i understand they may not vote on party lines... if they did... Trump would win that particular battle (whatever it is). It may or may not be enough to change the result overall but... the possibility DOES exist.


Oh yes. But they would only be ruling on the issue before them. In 2000, the issue was whether to continue a statewide recount in Florida, and their problem with that was that each county was doing its own recount, and were having to interpret the ballots, and each county was necessarily using different standards (also, as a pragmatic concern, it didn't look like the recount could be done in time for the various deadlines). They stopped the recount, and since Bush won the original count, such as it was, that decided the election. So it's not like they would "decide the Presidency," though in that situation, their decision effectively did. This year, the fundamentals seem to favor Biden, and it looks like he should prevail if the ballots that were duly cast are counted, and I don't see anyone stopping that. But who knows?

There's a decent thumbnail synopsis of what Trump is doing in the courts in this podcast from last night. Mostly, for now, he's nibbling around the edges, and the thought is that none of the pending litigation could do anything to change the basic facts.

(4:40-7:40)
https://www.lawfareblog.com/lawfare-pod ... lmost-done
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44288
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Dr. Baron » 05 Nov 2020, 13:54

Legal rabbit trail time:

One potential hook to watch for is if a state court's decision effectively alters the scheme that the State's legislature has set out for conducting elections. In Bush v. Gore, CJ Rehnquist wrote a concurring opinion (which is not binding law) joined by Justices Thomas and Scalia saying that a state judicial interpretation of a state's legislative regime for conducting presidential elections changes the State's procedures, the decision is a constitutional dead letter. They reasoned that Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the federal constitution* explicitly delegates to state legislatures the sole power to define how electors (to the electoral college) are chosen, so any judicial interference with that constitutional authority necessarily violates the federal constitution.

This would come into play if, in election litigation, the state supreme court (where these disputes must first go) rendered a decision that altered the legislative scheme. So if state law said votes received after election day couldn't be counted, and the state supreme court decided to allow votes postmarked by election day, but received later could be counted, that would be an issue cruising for the Supreme Court. Though the theory I set out above was only the view of three justices in 2000, it could easily appeal to five in 2020.

But it's a rabbit trail because I don't see it happening.



* Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

User avatar
Deebank
Resonator
Posts: 24131
Joined: 10 Oct 2003, 13:47
Location: Insanity filled foxhole

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Deebank » 05 Nov 2020, 14:36

If they "STOP THE COUNT" as demanded by Trump, Biden would immediately win - being ahead at this time in Arizona.
Trumpers in Arizona: "Count the vote!" :lol:

Edit: I mean Nevada! :)
I've been talking about writing a book - 25 years of TEFL - for a few years now. I've got it in me.

Paid anghofio fod dy galon yn y chwyldro

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 2479
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Rorschach » 05 Nov 2020, 18:17

Maybe I've got this wrong, but this election looks like a disaster for The Democrats and America in general.

It looks like the Republicans will still have the Senate, and the Democrats won't have as much control over the lower house. No matter what the final result is, Trump and his party have held up well and know that nearly half of the country is behind them. They have no reason to backtrack on their policies of blatant corruption, lies and anti-democratic practises. Backing Trump and his shit has barely harmed them.

Biden is largely a not-Trump candidate and doesn't have a passionate support. If he wins, he will have to deal with the coronavirus situation as well as a very jittery world economy and a resurgent China. I can't see him getting enough done in two years to keep or increase support and stop the Republicans making further gains in the mid-terms. That will leave him as a lame duck till the next election.

Even if Trump's not 'leading' them then, it'll still be the party that has moulded itself into his image. And they'll win.
Bugger off.

User avatar
Dr. Baron
Diamond Geezer
Posts: 44288
Joined: 18 Jul 2003, 05:38
Location: Impregnable Citadel of Technicality

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Dr. Baron » 05 Nov 2020, 19:55

There's a lot of truth to that, but I don't Donald Trump out of office can be a disaster. Not compared to the alternative. I also think that, though the party is now unquestionably his, to his credit, there is only one Donald Trump and it will be hard to replace him. I don't know if Biden has passionate support, you're probably right, but he has tremendous goodwill and he's definitely the right man for this job, which will mostly be to clean up and hand off the party to another generation in three years.
Quaco wrote:Are you fucking high?
take5_d_shorterer wrote:If John Bonham simply didn't listen to enough Tommy Johnson or Blind Willie Mctell, that's his doing.
GoogaMooga wrote:It's a film I have waited 39 years to see. Now I have the chance, but I may just crap out.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 2479
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Rorschach » 05 Nov 2020, 22:00

Dr. Baron wrote:There's a lot of truth to that, but I don't Donald Trump out of office can be a disaster. Not compared to the alternative.


You’re right. And I agree with most of the rest of what you said (though I thought the last bit was a little optimistic). The word ‘disaster, was inappropriate.

I meant that it wasn’t a great result in that they really needed to win big in order to restore a substantial degree of normality to American politics. The Republican Party has changed and this result won’t encourage them to return to the relatively mundane bastards they were before. And I think they’re in a strong position to put a brake on reform now and to take effective control in two years.

But, yes, better than having Trump now.
Bugger off.

User avatar
kath
Groovy Queen of the Cosmos
Posts: 40213
Joined: 22 Feb 2006, 15:20
Location: new orleans via bama via new orleans

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby kath » 05 Nov 2020, 22:05

Rorschach wrote:Maybe I've got this wrong, but this election looks like a disaster for The Democrats and America in general.

It looks like the Republicans will still have the Senate, and the Democrats won't have as much control over the lower house. No matter what the final result is, Trump and his party have held up well and know that nearly half of the country is behind them. They have no reason to backtrack on their policies of blatant corruption, lies and anti-democratic practises. Backing Trump and his shit has barely harmed them.

Biden is largely a not-Trump candidate and doesn't have a passionate support. If he wins, he will have to deal with the coronavirus situation as well as a very jittery world economy and a resurgent China. I can't see him getting enough done in two years to keep or increase support and stop the Republicans making further gains in the mid-terms. That will leave him as a lame duck till the next election.

Even if Trump's not 'leading' them then, it'll still be the party that has moulded itself into his image. And they'll win.


i don't agree with this.

baron has already said this part, but i don't see how ousting trump can be by any stretch called a "disaster". it was the first and foremost thing that needed to happen to save america from certain fucquin doom. seriously. however much trouble biden has with covid and the economy, to assume it will look anything like the lesson in active arson and genocide under trump is kinda, i dunno, over the top?

you say the dems won't have as much control over the house. they will still have a majority. that means control. i'm not sure what you really mean by saying less control.

the senate races have been disappointing (i personally am forlorn over jaime harrison losing to that scurvy slime, graham.) but i am not quiiiite ready to write off the possibility of the senate, as it looks like we'll have two runoff senate races in georgia. sure, not much to go on, but if it happens, it could very well decide the majority in the senate.

i am also not sure how you claim biden is not a passionate choice, at least with his winning numbers in mind. he's certainly alone in being a rational choice, and that is exactly what we need. i am not sure how a tally of over 72 million votes for biden translates to less important support than trump's three million or more less. i mean, in the end, biden will flip 4 or 5 states that trump outright won four years ago (not to mention we'll get our first black woman as VP, which is amazing.)

where you are dead right is that trumpism will clearly survive. it is a huuuuuge problem that was already there, trump just exacerbated it. but i do feel it would be a mistake to think that trump getting ousted in a country as divided as this one isn't a massive statement. it most surely is. yes, it's gonna be a hard battle that takes real systemic work, but that work wouldn't even be possible if trump had kept the presidency.

first things first. get trump out. get the crazy fucquer with the matches and the gasoline out of the house. and he is most certainly out, which is why he's goin extra crazy with state lawsuits based on zero that keep gettin slapped out of court.

User avatar
Rorschach
Posts: 2479
Joined: 02 Jun 2008, 12:43

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Rorschach » 06 Nov 2020, 06:17

You didn’t read my next post, did you.
Bugger off.

Positive Passion
Posts: 1407
Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Positive Passion » 06 Nov 2020, 06:45

Rorschach wrote:
Dr. Baron wrote:There's a lot of truth to that, but I don't Donald Trump out of office can be a disaster. Not compared to the alternative.


You’re right. And I agree with most of the rest of what you said (though I thought the last bit was a little optimistic). The word ‘disaster, was inappropriate.

I meant that it wasn’t a great result in that they really needed to win big in order to restore a substantial degree of normality to American politics. The Republican Party has changed and this result won’t encourage them to return to the relatively mundane bastards they were before. And I think they’re in a strong position to put a brake on reform now and to take effective control in two years.

But, yes, better than having Trump now.


Pundits were making the point on Tuesday night that the absence of a democrat landslide demonstrates that a lot of Americans - too many to be ignored - particularly in less metroploitan areas, don't give a shit about Trump being a liar, a tax avoider, a misogynist, a promoter of right wing ideologies and all the rest, and also don't give a shit that top republicans have made no effort to put the interests of the country ahead of their own interests. They also don't give a shit that the US has become an international laughing stock. Accordingly the democrats have lost the moral debate, and yes that is a disaster.

Positive Passion
Posts: 1407
Joined: 05 Jul 2017, 23:05

Re: President Joseph R. Biden Jr.

Postby Positive Passion » 06 Nov 2020, 06:53

Dr. Baron wrote:Legal rabbit trail time:

One potential hook to watch for is if a state court's decision effectively alters the scheme that the State's legislature has set out for conducting elections. In Bush v. Gore, CJ Rehnquist wrote a concurring opinion (which is not binding law) joined by Justices Thomas and Scalia saying that a state judicial interpretation of a state's legislative regime for conducting presidential elections changes the State's procedures, the decision is a constitutional dead letter. They reasoned that Article II, Section 1, clause 2 of the federal constitution* explicitly delegates to state legislatures the sole power to define how electors (to the electoral college) are chosen, so any judicial interference with that constitutional authority necessarily violates the federal constitution.

This would come into play if, in election litigation, the state supreme court (where these disputes must first go) rendered a decision that altered the legislative scheme. So if state law said votes received after election day couldn't be counted, and the state supreme court decided to allow votes postmarked by election day, but received later could be counted, that would be an issue cruising for the Supreme Court. Though the theory I set out above was only the view of three justices in 2000, it could easily appeal to five in 2020.

But it's a rabbit trail because I don't see it happening.



* Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.


This is the Pennsylvania quedtion right? I have seen at least one assertion from someone in the Penn state govt - may have been the AG - that actually the number of postal ballots arriving after Election Day is pretty small, which goes to your earlier point about the litigation not changing the basic facts.