A New Low for Virginia Republicans

By Dick Hall-Sizemore

Three Virginia Republican members of the House of Representatives joined a brief supporting the request from the state of Texas asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the election in four states. Think about it. The state of Texas was objecting to how four states ran their elections and was asking the Supreme Court to set aside the results of those elections and direct the legislatures of those states to select the electors. Never mind that the Constitution delegates the administration of elections to each state.

What happened to those Representatives’ concerns about activist judges? And federalism? They wanted the federal government to overturn the elections in those states and tell those states how they were to select Presidential electors. And these Representatives call themselves conservatives?

The three Virginians who joined in this farce:

Rob Wittman (1st District)

Morgan Griffith (9th District)

Ben Cline (6th District)

 

 

 

 

 

The Supreme Court summarily dismissed the request by Texas to file the suit, thereby saying that the case was not worthy of even being heard and considered by the Court.

There are currently no comments highlighted.

136 responses to “A New Low for Virginia Republicans

  1. Maybe Sizemore has achieved a new low with this pompous, snooty posting.

    18 states joined Texas and all but the most partisan of the legal profession acknowledge that there is a very legitimate case to be made. If 4 states ignore the mandates of the constitution in electing Federal officials while the others follow them diligently, the other states are harmed. That’s common sense.

    The complexities of whether the Supreme Court should have accepted it aside, Mr. Sizemore’s supercilious condemnation spotlights him as just another opinionated partisan, not a thoughtful commentator on Virginia affairs.

    • Clearly, your mother never asked you, “If your friends jumped off the bridge…”

      9-0 is partisanship.

    • Obviously, the Supreme Court, including the three Justices nominated by Trump, thought the case was not legitimate.

      Please give me examples of those nonpartisan members of the legal profession who thought this was a legitimate case. Examples of those who did think the suit was not only illegitimate, but dangerous for democracy, are legion. Here are three:

      Former Republican Sen. John Danforth of Missouri and former Republican Gov. Christine Todd Whitman of New Jersey. In a brief, they said that the Texas suit is a “mockery of federalism and separation of powers.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/10/technology/texas-election-lawsuit-legality.html

      Tom Goldstein–not a common household name, but one of the most influential attorneys in the country. He has argued 44 cases before the Supreme Court. Only 3 lawyers in the Court’s modern history have argued more cases in private practice than he has. He is the co-founder and publisher of SCOTUSblog, the leading web site devoted to analysis of the Supreme Court. I think his credentials far outrank those of Wittman, Griffith, and Cline. His conclusion: “Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture.” https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-dont-just-deny-texas-original-action-decimate-it/

    • What Constitutional mandates did these states ignore?

      • “What Constitutional mandates did these states ignore?”

        How many would you like?

        The lawsuit was based primarily on violations of election law and violations of both state and federal constitutions.

        Pennsylvania was perhaps the most egregious. In the course of this election, Pennsylvania violated its own laws, its own constitution and the U.S. Constitution.

        Here’s an example of just one issue in one state.

        It started last October (well before any knowledge of COVID-19) when the Pennsylvania legislature passed laws which made changes to mail in absentee voting. That wouldn’t necessarily be a problem in most states, but in Pennsylvania, election specifics are part of the state constitution. Any changes require amending the constitution, which was not done.

        https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=00&div=0&chpt=7&sctn=14&subsctn=0

        That was just the start for what happened in PA. It got worse from there, and those details are contained in the Texas lawsuit. I’m not sure if the above was even included in that one.

        In short, there were numerous constitutional violations. Would you like more?

        • Just Fox and Guiliani talking points. First, courts in the states involved rejected the underlying claims and that was especially true in Pennsylvania. Second, Texas had no standing. Third, the Constitution specifies that the individual states have the sole authority for conducting their elections.
          You also must believe that someone got to Bill Barr who said that was no evidence of significant fraud as well as the six conservative justices.

          • The text of the Pennsylvania Constitution is a “Fox and Guiliani talking point”?

            Bill O’Keefe – “First, courts in the states involved rejected the underlying claims and that was especially true in Pennsylvania.”

            That’s only partially true. A lower court in Pennsylvania granted an injunction because the ruled that the suit brought in that state was likely to prevail on the merits. The Supreme Court of PA then intervened and dismissed the case. It is important to note that these judges are elected.

            Bill O’Keefe – “Second, Texas had no standing.”

            The issue of standing is discussed at length in the complaint itself.

            https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed

            Bill O’Keefe – “Third, the Constitution specifies that the individual states have the sole authority for conducting their elections.”

            That’s not accurate. The US Constitution doesn’t leave this important matter to some nebulous powers within “each state.” Here’s what the U.S. Constitution actually says:

            “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”

    • No, Steve, it was a junk claim from the get go. Every lawyer I spoke with recognized it as a political exercise, probably necessary to get You Know Who to face reality. Time for you to do so, please. We lost and it was our own fault.

      • “probably necessary to get You Know Who to face reality”

        Or to demonstrate that the entire party is nuts. You-know-who and the Texas AG have obvious motives, the rest of the 18 and 126 are self-proving idiots.

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead V

    I can assure you Ben Cline has suffered no damage and only praise from his constituents. Remember 74 million Americans feel that this was a stolen election.

    • 72 million of which are the left side of the Bell Curve. Ending a democracy in not a democratic process.

    • Do you really think that everyone who voted for Trump thinks the election was “stolen”? The Georgia Secretary of State, a staunch Republican who voted for Trump, certainly does not think that.

    • After observing Ben Cline for several years in subcommittee and committee meetings, let’s just say that I was not impressed by his leadership qualities nor by his legal analytical abilities.

      • James Wyatt Whitehead V

        I have not been impressed with Ralph Northam, Fairfax, Herring, Warner, Scott, Kaine, or any of those guys.

      • James Wyatt Whitehead V

        It doesn’t matter what you think Mr. Dick. Ben Cline’s constituents love this guy. Unless he gets caught doing Bang Bang with Fang Fang like Swalwell Ben is good to go for many years to come.

    • “Remember 74 million Americans feel that this was a stolen election.”

      Actually, I think it “only” about 50 million who feel that way. I’m one. We deserve at least a response to the specific arguments raised. Instead, the serious concern of 50 million get ignored by the Supreme Court by using a technicality – the bogus standing argument (which was actually address in the lawsuit).

      Do you remember your comment about Dred Scott? I honestly think that’s what’s in play here.

      The Supreme Court faced enormous backlash after their 2000 intervention.  Things have gotten immeasurably worse since then.  After an entire summer of unprecedented violence, I doubt anyone on the Supreme Court had the stomach for what might happen if they intervened here.  The violent mob has won.

      Regarding their own families, I think one must consider the credible death threats made to attorneys representing Trump.  That’s why many dropped out.  I would guess the justices also feared for their lives and the lives of their children.

      Truly a sad day.

  3. 9 nothing. Tough for a freshman Republican Congressman from PA, GA, MI, and WI who joined in the 120 to take the oath with a straight face now.

    No platforms anymore, just the whims of the man. The King is dead. Long live the King.

    Don Imus used to call Represtatives “the scum of the Earth.” He was a man ahead of his time.

  4. (1999-1929)*365*24*60/74000000 = 0.4972, or roughly every 30 seconds. P.T. Barnum was light in his estimate of their birth rate.

    No collusion, but what a conundrum. “I do solemnly affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States except for my last attempt to subvert it.”

  5. What a Golden Opportunity for the Republicans to oust Nancy Pelosi!

    If she administers the oath of office to any Republican Representative from the four subject States, who also joined the lawsuit to overturn the very elections that put them in office, she will be guilty of suborning perjury! Gotcha!

    “I refuse to be a member of a club that would have me as a member.”

    • Politics. Pure politics. A huge segment of the Republican base is suffering the same mix of denial and insanity we saw Democrats (were you one, Dick?) displaying four years ago. I tried and then stopped trying to explain to friends last week that SCOTUS would throw up a 9-0 “hell no” on that claim. But when hundreds, even thousands of likely primary voters are on the warpath and ask you to join the parade or die, ’tis easy to sign an amicus brief…..

      No, the election was not stolen. Yes, there was fraud here and there, probably exactly where and in exactly the same way as in 2016, 2012, 2008, etc….Yes, clever Democrats took advantage of the pandemic to relax the rules and probably greatly boosted their vote. But the person who got all those people energized to go vote was DJT himself, and they all came to kick him out. The election was lost in the suburbs, not the central cities.

      Had a detailed discussion yesterday about Georgia, where Perdue ran about 25,000 votes ahead of Trump on November 3. That’s all you need to know.

      • No, I was not in denial in 2016. I recognized the truth and was deeply depressed and afraid for my country as a result.

        But, it is different this year. In 2016, it was clear that the Russians had tried to influence the election through social media. Every U.S. intelligence agency supported that position, even after Trump was sworn in and put his own people in charge of those agencies. This year, the President is trying to overturn an election he lost by throwing up demonstrably false claims of widespread, systemic fraud. By doing so, he is calling into question the bedrock of democracy–the legitimacy of elections. He is trying to stay in power by somehow throwing out millions of votes that were cast in accordance with the laws and policies enacted by several states. And Republican lawmakers, themselves having won in those same elections, are aiding and abetting him.

        • Apparently, a well-place fear. Prescient, purely prescient.

        • You just shifted from when President Trump was sworn in to post election 2020. Nice segue. Certainly nothing of note happened in those years. Did your fear for your country get fulfilled? How?

          – Too good an economy pre-COVID?
          – Too quick an economic recovery after initial COVID drop-off so that Democratic politicians had to close every small business in sight?
          – Too many Israeli-Arab Peace deals?
          – Too much criminal justice reform?
          – ISIS defeated too quickly?
          – No new wars started?
          – Too quick a vaccine production and distribution effort?
          – Not enough Democratic efforts to shake public confidence in the vaccine?
          – Not enough schools closed by Democrats in thrall to the teachers unions?
          – Not enough “collusion” investigations?
          – Not enough crooked FBI folks, including the initial Director?
          – Not enough impeachments?
          – Not enough State of the Union speeches torn up?
          – Not enough riots or too many?
          – Not enough looting or too much?
          – Not enough threats of more violence if President Trump won?
          – Too little conservative violence because President elect Biden won? – – Too much Biden family investigation?
          – Was news of that investigation Russian disinformation?
          – Did not enough members of the press toss whatever ethics they may have claimed to smear the President?
          – Did not enough bury the Biden family ethics issues stories pre-election?
          – Did Nancy Pelosi, who now admits she held up the next COVID relief bill for months until after the election for political reasons, speak the truth? Lie?
          – Did President Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court disappoint you by denying standing to the Texas lawsuit after you and your pals called them lapdogs?
          – Too many sanctions on the Chinese Communist party and its intellectual property thieves?
          – Indeed, can you and yours think of anything for which to apologize in the past 4 years?

          Are those the kind of fears that you had for your country Dick?

          • Dick Hall-Sizemore

            81.3 million people, 51.4 percent of the voters, accounting for 306 electoral votes apparently had the same fears.

        • Overturn an election he lost by going to court? You find that a threat to the Republic? Please, give us a break.

      • I just don’t rememver this same scenario with Hillary. Not this scope and scale. Wrong?

        re: ” you to join the parade or die, ”

        ah yes, that’s what the GOP has morphed into…….

        The thing is – most all these folks did vote legally. It just was a massive turnout and now they want to go back to Jim Crow-style suppression to get an election where votes are suppressed as usual.

  6. Rob Witman knows better and is just another craven politician who has been infected with moral rot.

    • Funny, not my take at all. He’s not dumb but he IS in a very reliable red distict and knowing him, this is a calculated decision. He is a “good” politician in the sense of the word. Even though there is a good number of GOP who disagree with this, it won’t turn their GOP votes and Witman knows that.

      • I’m not surprised at you defending him. It says a lot. Have you ever heard about the courage of your convictions and doing the right thing and letting the chips fall where they may?

        • You might misunderstand. I give him credit for being a competent politician. I strongly disagree with his positions on health care and other issues.

          No GOP will ever get my vote again until I see them deal responsibly with health care, immigration, and a few more things.

        • You want Rep. Whitman to have the courage of your conviction, Mr. O’Keefe.

          • Of his convictions, which he use to have before selling out to keep Trump from dumping on him. What do you want?

      • He is in a very red district and is popular with his constituents. He did not have to sign on to that brief; he could have just kept quiet.

    • Sometimes you can pick the hill you want to die on, and I don’t blame him for waiting for another hill. The other two are lawyers and probably were even more clear on how weak the claim was. It is easy to play out the chess game and realize the dire consequences if the court had accepted the case and interfered with Monday’s Electoral College meetings. Even if it took the case in order to slap it down in the end. Hey, the GOP said it wanted judges reluctant to overturn state actions and legislative actions — and I’m glad that’s what we have. The likelihood of a packed court just retreated.

      Dick, FYI, what happened in 2016 was indeed an attempted coup by the intelligence community. Lies packed on lies and leaked to a compliant corrupt media. You just proved you are as delusional as GOP dreamers this year. I don’t like where I see this cycle trending.

    • Moral rot is a prerequisite for elected office. The higher the level of the office, the more moral rot that is required.

  7. What do the police, the AMA and the ABA have in common? They don’t self-police.

    • Dick, our government also interferes in their elections. Constantly. Have you noticed no government is pushing an international treaty on these issues? They love doing it. That is not what I am referring to as the coup, the dossier BS and wiretapping were the heart of the coup attempt.

      History is not going to be kind to Trump. These last couple of weeks he has demonstrated why so many just hate him with true passion. I expect an honest history will recognize the key role of Bill Barr in trying to save this republic. At this point, it could still go down. Right here on the blog you can see the total lack of respect to the law and the total belief that the Other Side is not just wrong on issues, but evil, corrupt, racist and violent.

      • “History is not going to be kind to Trump. ”

        Au contraire! History will be very kind. Historians are loathe to use expressions like “dumb ass”.

        • Only the truly naive and historically uninformed would believe that history will treat Trump well. He has destroyed so much of our moral and social contract that repair and a return to be guided by the Constitution and rule of law will take a very long time.

          • Uh, Bill, there’s a punchline. Implied is a whole list of four-letters words that historians also won’t use.

      • “Dick, our government also interferes in their elections. Constantly.”

        I usually don’t talk this way, but what the Hell is wrong with you people? If you have any evidence that the United States has engaged in cyber propaganda attacks in other countries elections by setting up bots and troll farms, I’d love to see it. More to the point, the nearby countries in Latin America whose governments we helped overthrow in the 70s and 80s keep producing a bumper crops of refugees at our southern border; since we have some sort of weird duty not to care if Russia interfered in our elections since we did it first don’t we have an obligation to ameliorate the situation we created with our meddling through a much laxer immigration policy? And where does the equivalence end? We launch missiles into the Middle East all the time, does that mean we shouldn’t have cared that Osama Bin Laden finally figured out a way to fire one back?

        I have a lot of problems with how America has conducted its foreign policy, particularly through it’s military actions and increasing reliance on hard instead of soft power to influence outcomes, but even though I think bin Laden’s overall analysis of the US involvement in the Middle East was correct, I still wanted his ass gotten for killing 3,000 people on American soil.

        I get it, you’re a conservative and Trump is still the leader of the Republican party, but there has to be limits a lot closer than “He lost so many states it’s impossible to overturn the election through the Courts so I’ll admit it’s a fool’s errand while also saying that fraud still happened.” You were still making noises about how the use of hydroxychloroquine was going to be shown to be effective against COVID any day now like two months ago. And this game of “we do it to other countries so we shouldn’t complain when they do it to us” is dangerous.

        You and I obviously disagree on a lot, which is fine, but of the conservative writers here you’re by far the most astute and usually the most reasonable. You’re right behind Dick on my list of favorite front pagers. So it kills me to see you go down this path when I KNOW you’re smarter than this.

        • I said we shouldn’t be surprised if they do it to us. Complain all you want. You reap what you sow. Forty years ago my brother started his intel career eavesdropping on every phone conversation they could intercept. You really don’t think things might have progressed with the new technology/temptations?

        • Don’t fool yourself. As a long time technology guy who worked on contracts with the US military and the holder of a patent in cyber-security I can tell you for sure … the best state sponsored hackers in the world are right here in the USA working for Uncle Sam. Ask the Iranians how their centrifuges are doing.

          Of course we interfere in the elections and politics of other countries. Before social media it was Radio Free Europe.

          • There are “different” ways to “mess” with elections. Actually getting into the databases to try to change votes is much harder than sowing lies and conspiracy theories, etc on social media.

            You can change people votes by propaganda and misinformation easier than once in the election machinery.

  8. Just to pile on a little, here is what an obviously partisan observer, Michael Steele, former chairman of the Republican National Committee, had to say about the brief filed by Republican congressmen in support of the Texas petition:

    “The act itself by the 126 members of the United States House of Representatives, is an affront to the country. It’s an offense to the Constitution and it leaves an indelible stain that will be hard for these 126 members to wipe off their political skin for a long time to come.” https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/12/us/politics/trump-lawsuits-electoral-college.html

    • Just sit back and enjoy the show as the GOP self destructs…..Remember ol’ Bonaparte — don’t interfere when the enemy is making a mistake.

      • Perhaps on a superficial level, I am enjoying it, but, when I am honest with myself, I am not enjoying it. To be a vibrant democracy, a country needs at least two viable parties. Compromise is the essence of politics, but, when there is no strong opposition, there is no need to compromise. And, when one side views the other as illegitimate, there is no motivation to compromise.

        • Tough to compromise with armed individuals threatening elected State officials and low level bureaucrats… or Heaven’s Gate, for that matter.

        • Actually,it’s a sad thing. We’re finding out that we’re not exactly the standard for Democracy for the world after all. Some of us want a strongman-dictator type who demands absolute loyalty or else, and are willing to break the basic tenents of Democracy in America to get there.

          • Actually, wrong. We ARE the Gold Standard of democracy specifically BECAUSE we had suffered economic crashes, civil war and almost contiuous urnrest in the form of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, and made the necessary changes to overcome them. If we really are the standard then we will make the necessary changes to prevent another Trump and the repairs from this one.

        • it’s tough to compromise when the Majority Leader is committed to block voting and rigid control of the agenda to the exclusion of bipartisanship.

        • “To be a vibrant democracy, a country needs at least two viable parties.

          You are right to be concerned. Democrats seek to establish themselves and a permanent and overwhelming majority. Welcome to Detroit.

        • I find the values of compromise to be overblown, especially in the current moment of asymmetrical partisanship where the right most member of the Democratic party would be standard Republicans a generation ago (Abigail Spanberger) while the left most Republicans are people like Mitt Romney who isn’t even as liberal as his own father was.

          That said, I still want a healthier Republican party for two reasons:

          1) The left doesn’t always get it right. I think on nuclear power for example the blanket rejection is foolish and I wish the right would approach it from an angle the addresses the real concerns with proactive solutions instead of just bringing it up whenever the discussion is about renewable energy.

          2) Having a national party increasingly in the hock to people who don’t believe in our government and institutions is bad. That 126 Representatives signed on to that lawsuit is dangerous. That several QAnon types got elected as Republicans is bad. That mainstream Republicans are increasingly using rhetoric that a decade ago was the language of white nationalists – stuff like cultural Marxism – is bad. That a sitting US Senator in Tom Cotton argued we should call in the military to put down civilian protests is bad. The Republican party is in a bad place and it’s bad for the country to have one of its two political parties be a haven for the sort of things described above.

          • The focus should not be one political party, it should be about governing. Henry Clay made the astute observation that ““Politics is not about ideological purity, or moral self-righteousness, it’s about governing. If you cannot compromise you cannot govern.” Congress is not governing because there is no search for common ground. As a result it is not doing its job.

          • I could not agree more with Mr. O’Keefe. Some of what is going on now borders on malfeasance IMHO although there are those who will say that the Founding Fathers set up our system so that no action is taken if you cannot agree/compromise.

            Right now, this is very little agreement whether it’s health care, immigration, climate change, etc., even pandemic relief – even as people are on the verge of being evicted.

        • I can’t stand it Dick.

          “When one side views the other as illegitimate”? Seriously?

          In what bunker have you been for the past four years?

          Which side is it that has “lists”?

    • James Wyatt Whitehead V

      Michael Steele is the Republican version of Donna Brazile.

  9. Two things seem certain to me. Joe Biden was elected president. And the Democratic Party engaged in voter fraud.

    Eligible people have a right to vote. But eligible voters have a right not to have their vote diluted by counting ineligible or illegal ballots. Ballots should not be tampered with and the voting process must be open and observable by both sides. Crap-### judges should not modify state voting laws, especially before an election.

    We have more unity in this country if the media looked at examples of voter fraud as hard as they look at examples of voter suppression. They don’t and they won’t so the country splits further apart.

    Whether you call it Hell or Karma, it will catch up with members of the media.

    • Like said before. Steve is an election official, works on election day in a precinct.

      Ask him what he thinks about how fraud can occur that favors one side or is perpetrated by only Dems or GOP.

      • Dick Hall-Sizemore states:

        “They wanted the federal government to overturn the elections in those states and tell those states how they were to select Presidential electors.”

        No, it’s actually quite the opposite. The plaintiff argues throughout that these states should follow their own election laws.

        The lawsuit also explicitly states:

        “Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

        And here it is in context:

        “First, while Defendant States are responsible for their elections, this Court has authority to enjoin reliance on unconstitutional elections:

        When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight
        accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter.
        Bush II, 531 U.S. at 104; City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 524 (1997) (“power to interpret the Constitution in a case or controversy remains in the Judiciary”). Plaintiff State does not ask this Court to decide who won the election; they only ask that the Court enjoin the clear violations of the Electors Clause of the Constitution.”

        https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed

  10. Mr. Bacon recently posted a Pyramid demonstrating what comments are preferred. At the top was “Explicitly refutes the central point.” I find that especially difficult in this case because the article lacks a firm basis for its assertion. It seems the Texas lawsuit is frivolous, because so many people say it is. That’s a logical fallacy. (Bandwagon) Or because experts say it is, which is another logical fallacy (Appeal to Authority).

    “Never mind that the Constitution delegates the administration of elections to each state.”

    Actually that statement is not accurate. The Constitution doesn’t leave this important matter to some nebulous powers within “each state.” Here’s what the U.S. Constitution states:

    “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”

    The appointment of Electors must be done in the manor directed by the Legislature, not state regulator, the governor or the state courts. This is the very heart of the lawsuit.

    NATURE OF THE ACTION

    1. Plaintiff State challenges Defendant States’ administration of the 2020 election under the Electors Clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 2, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

    2. This case presents a question of law: Did Defendant States violate the Electors Clause (or, in the alternative, the Fourteenth Amendment) by taking—or allowing—non-legislative actions to change the election rules that would govern the appointment of presidential electors?

    3. Those unconstitutional changes opened the door to election irregularities in various forms. Plaintiff State alleges that each of the Defendant States flagrantly violated constitutional rules governing the appointment of presidential electors. In doing so, seeds of deep distrust have been sown across the country. In the spirit of Marbury v. Madison, this Court’s attention is profoundly needed to declare what the law is and to restore public trust in this election.

    4. As Justice Gorsuch observed recently, “Government is not free to disregard the [Constitution] in times of crisis. … Yet recently, during the COVID pandemic, certain States seem to have ignored these long-settled principles.” Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn, New York v. Cuomo, 592 U.S. ____ (2020) (Gorsuch, J., concurring). This case is no different.

    https://www.scribd.com/document/487348469/TX-v-State-Motion-2020-12-07-FINAL#from_embed

    Has anyone actually read the document at the heart of this discussion?

    • Dick Hall-Sizemore asks:

      “What happened to those Representatives’ concerns about activist judges? And federalism?”

      It is not judicial activism for justices to do their jobs. Many issues brought to the Supreme Court involve matters where states have plenary power. Plenary power is not a legal justification for lawless power or violations of the U.S. Constitution.

      “activist judge” – A judge or justice (particularly of the US Supreme Court) who rules in accordance with their personal ideology rather than with how the law is strictly written.

      https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/activist+judge#:~:text=activist%20judge%20A%20judge%20or%20justice%20%28particularly%20of,pejorative%20sense.%20Primarily%20heard%20in%20US%2C%20South%20Africa.

    • And no court that has looked at these claims has agreed that the states violated the electors clause. In each state, the legislature has set up rules whereby elections are conducted. Some allow mail-in balllots; others do not. Some have extended early voting; some do not. What specific practices did the states engage in that are allegedly in violation of the electors clause?

      And I am in good company in my opinion that the Texas petition has no basis in law. Tom Goldstein is not a common household name, but he is one of the most influential attorneys in the country. He has argued 44 cases before the Supreme Court. Only 3 lawyers in the Court’s modern history have argued more cases in private practice than he has. He is the co-founder and publisher of SCOTUSblog, the leading web site devoted to analysis of the Supreme Court. His conclusion: “Texas’ attempt to bring an original action challenging the election results in four states is not a serious legal claim in a legitimate procedural posture.” https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/opinion-dont-just-deny-texas-original-action-decimate-it/

      • Dick Hall-Sizemore – “And no court that has looked at these claims has agreed that the states violated the electors clause.”

        Not accurate.

        Pennsylvania Judge Patricia A. McCullough Rules, Election Likely Unconstitutional – Trump Case “Likelihood to Succeed” – Gives State Legislators Power to Choose Electors

        https://davidharrisjr.com/eric/pennsylvania-judge-patricia-a-mccullough-rules-election-likely-unconstitutional-trump-case-likelihood-to-succeed-gives-state-legislators-power-to-choose-elector/

        Dick Hall-Sizemore – “What specific practices did the states engage in that are allegedly in violation of the electors clause?”

        From the Texas complain:

        “Each of Defendant States acted in a common pattern. State officials, sometimes through pending litigation (e.g., settling “friendly” suits) and sometimes unilaterally by executive fiat, announced new rules for the conduct of the 2020 election that were inconsistent with existing state statutes defining what constitutes a lawful vote.”

        Below are two specific examples from PA:

        “The Pennsylvania Election Code prohibits counties from inspecting ballots prior to 7 a.m. on Election Day; Pennsylvania’s Secretary of State issued guidance encouraging counties to ignore this prohibition, to inspect ballots, and to contact voters with deficient ballots prior to
        Election Day.”

        “The Pennsylvania Election Code prohibits the counting of defective absentee or mail-in ballots; Encouraged by the Department of State, some county boards of elections ignored this prohibition, and have proceeded to include thousands of defective ballots in the certified count.”

        The above actions were explicitly forbidden by PA law. Additionally, the counties instructed to open and “cure” defective ballots were Democratic strongholds in PA. This unequal treatment of ballots is a violation of the US Constitution (Bush v Gore).

        If you want a link, I will need to post it within another comment else this one will be stuck in moderation for an indefinite amount of time.

  11. Thought experiment:
    Let’s put the shoe on the other foot.

    Let’s say Biden lost the election and took it to the US Supreme Court.
    Let’s say US Supreme Court loaded 6 Dems and 3 Repubs.

    How would the Supreme Court vote come out?

    • I do not think it matters whether Dem or GOP in terms of the claims being made right now about fraud.

      It’s really unprescendented and it’s more than just a claim of fraud per se – it is saying that somehow the fraud was all one side, coordinated, to bias the outcome of the election, not in one precinct, or state – but across multiple states.

      In other words, a conspiracy.

      That’s why they’re getting hooted out of court – it’s not really about Dem or GOP. If the Dems made the same claim, the same result would come from the courts no matter if they were Dem or GOP appointed.

      The other claim is that it’s “unconstitutional” to make it easier to vote, so we end up with more people voting than ever before.

      think about that.

    • If it were based on the same claims used in the Texas petition, it would come out the same way. (In the instant case, there was not a partisan split on the Court, so this question is a red herring.)

  12. This is what we get when we put so much power in government. The more high stakes the game, the more folks are willing to cheat, lie, and compromise their morals (or at least the vestiges of morals- we are talking about politicians). If one ignores history and reads the Constitution, one could easily wonder why it matters so much who is president. However we have allowed our government to grow so far beyond the scope of the Constitution that our elected officials have real power over the people. We have been on a journey from citizen to subject, and we’re almost there. If we want cleaner elections (reduce the fraud and the voter suppression), we need to reduce the stakes. It’s all a question of incentives.

    • Interestingly, your thesis is essentially the same as put forth by Robert Reich in his book Supercapitalism. Perhaps needless to say Reich was trying to pin the tail on the corporate donkey but his argument was that as government grows ever bigger and more powerful it becomes more profitable to corrupt that government. Of course, as a card carrying liberal Reich it would never occur to Reich that perhaps government should be less powerful of that government itself shares responsibility for its own corruption.

  13. “The appointment of Electors must be done in the manor directed by the Legislature, not state regulator, the governor or the state courts. This is the very heart of the lawsuit.”. The U.S. Constitution does in fact use the word “legislature.”. Unfortunately there’s a real question whether the federal Constitution can tell the States how their own governments should accomplish any task — such as, in that day, the election of Senators, and still, the election of Electors.

    • Yep. Federalism. It’s a bitch when it works against you… 🙂 Texas has no standing to challenge Georgia’s internal process. Georgians do, but not Texans. That big election law bill the House Democrats pushed, HR 1, that died in the Senate? It overrode much of that, and guess who was arguing the states could be trusted? The GOP. Imagine that….

  14. Dick, I appreciate your efforts but it will over as of Dec.14. We’ll get rid of the Loser In Chief and his merry band of enablers. List of names on request.

    • So you have a “list of names” Peter. I thought you hated McCarthyism. Guess not.

      Perhaps the people on your list can join Maoist shaming circles. At least those have a Marxist pedigree.

      I thought you were better than this.

    • James Wyatt Whitehead V

      We get rid of loser in chief and replace it with what? A senile old man who can’t read a teleprompter? Come on man!?

  15. Boy, it is amazing to see so many good Democrats and Republicans willing to overlook the faults of people in their own party to bash the other side over the head. It’s very much straining a gnat and swallowing a camel. If we spent as much time holding our own accountable as we did bashing each other, think how much more principled our elected officials could be. They all keep us at each other’s throats with their hyperbolic political BS so we won’t pay any attention to their own shortcomings. This is very much a diversionary tactic that keeps everyone stirred up and the campaign dollars flowing into their ever more abundant coffers.

    What makes this worse is how the propaganda arms of the political parties, also known as CNN, WaPo, NYT, Fox, etc., selectively publish “news” and spin it so hard that it usually contains more commentary than fact. They have to tell us what to think, because obviously we would be lost without them.

    Our “betters” are playing us all as useful idiots. We could reverse this by refusing to attack our opponents (a useless endeavor because we will not change their minds) and instead use that effort to hold our own accountable for the ideals we supposedly hold dear.

    • Amen to that. We could make a start by not letting people call them our enemy instead our opponent. You try to defeat enemies and try to resolve with opponents.

  16. I do not believe there was substantial fraud in the election but I see no problem with the process of questioning the election. Given the level of distrust in the country an airing of charges of possible fraud is just fine. The good news is that there is no evidence of systematic or material fraud. When Clarence Thomas and Brett Cavenaugh both refuse to hear a case I think the allegers of fraud should admit there is “no there there”.

    There have been dirty deals and allegations of election fraud in previous American elections. Claiming that such a thing “couldn’t happen in America” is preposterous.

    Did election fraud happen in 2020? I don’t think so. Is it seditious to use the system in place to chase down rumors of fraud? Hardly.

    https://www.newsweek.com/top-five-rigged-us-presidential-elections-511765

    • “irregularities” – yes, actual fraud – maybe some isolated examples , a coordinated conspiracy to change votes across multiple precincts and states? Now we ARE in LA LA LAND.

      Ask Steve – who actually works on election day in a precinct (I used to) how “easy” it would be to change votes. Not impossible but high risk in getting detected. Try do that as part of a coordinated scheme across multiple precincts? Pretty hard.

      The main claim is that by making it easier to vote that more people voted than were “legal” AND – most all of them voted Dem….

      • What you are saying is what the courts are finding. No material fraud. So – where is the harm? People make allegations and the courts say “no”. Seems like our system is working. In fact, it seems like this process will actually make some of the rancor die down. People who felt the election was stolen made their claims and bipartisan courts found the claim unsustainable. Peter is right, the electors will vote and that will be that.

        Would it really have been better for those who suspected massive fraud to have been silenced? Isn’t it better for conservatives like Clarence Thomas to have effectively said “no material fraud”?

        • It would have been better to put a camera in court and have hair dye on the floor.

          Put Trump on the stand under oath and make him testify to “the massive fraud” of which he has proof.

        • Do you REALLY think the “stop the steal” guys are going to accept te courts decisions?

          As far as I can tell, they think the courts are either wrong or in cahoots with the deep state.

          Conspiracy theories are running amok!

    • djrippert – “When Clarence Thomas and Brett Cavenaugh both refuse to hear a case I think the allegers of fraud should admit there is ‘no there there’.”

      Thomas agreed with Alito that they should have taken the case.

      But Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, said the court does “not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.”

  17. 104 comments. A lot of liberal hate, the usual eponymous naïve troll’s worthless drivel and none on the key aspect of the case.

    Dick, this blog below summarizes why I think your posting highlights you as an opinionated partisan hijacking this Blog to inflict your intellectual and moral superiority on us. It has nothing to do with whether there was fraud.

    The Supreme Court did not opine on that.
    https://rumble.com/vbu5e7-why-the-texas-lawsuit-was-dismissed.html?mref=6zof&mc=dgip3&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=vivafrei

    • Geeze Dick… you’ve gotten the ire of the Gillespi and we back off to
      the Ad Hom races!

      See, I told you DJ…. the courts are just the latest speed bump for these
      folks….

    • Supreme Court? Why it wasn’t heard? Because it was meritless and the US doesn’t have a Supreme Court of Myth and Fantasy. That’s Faux News.

      • NN – The Supreme Court rejected the Texas complaint because the court said they lacked standing – a legal technicality. Without standing Texas was not even allowed to file the bill of complaint.

        “The State of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.”

        The substantive issues of the complaint were never examined or commented upon by the court. Without standing, they were deemed to be moot.

        “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”

        Those are the facts, with quotes taken directly from the Supreme Court statement on its own site. It is your post that is “Faux News.”

        https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

        • “cognizable” was the word used. If they never examined it…

          • Looks like different views with respect to the difference between “merit” and “standing”.

            Even to those who thought that Texas had “standing”, they also said there was no merit.

            Either way, SCOTUS thought the Texas motion was not legitimate.

            The funny thing is the supporters of the Texas motion have, in the past, characterized themselves as “States Rights” and apparently if a given state doesn’t exercise those “rights” in the way they conduct elections – other states can bring actions against them.

            SCOTUS was pretty emphatic about this. NOPE and NOPE.

          • 7-2 on standing. 9-0 on merit.

          • “cognizable” was the word used. If they never examined it…

            They are commenting on the application to file which explains why Texas has standing in this case. That is not the complaint itself.

    • SG, so why do you participate if you think that peoples opinions are drivel. It sounds to me as if you are the one who is arrogant and opinionated.

    • SGillispie,

      The suppression of opinions different from one’s own is what the left does. They actively do so individually, and even more dangerously they use the power of their dominance of the news media, Hollywood and big tech companies to do it on a mass scale. This is one of the greatest dangers our country currently faces.

      Conservatives shouldn’t follow that lead. Please watch this video and rethink which example you want to emulate.

      https://mobile.twitter.com/blueeye81512573/status/1338332012319485952

  18. Bill O’Keefe. You got that right.

  19. A judge in Michigan allowed an independent audit of Dominion voting systems there. Democrats have been fighting it’s release. Not hard to figure out why.

    “The Allied Security Operations Group explains:

    We conclude that the Dominion Voting System is intentionally and purposefully designed with inherent errors to create systemic fraud and influence election results. The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud.’”

    https://thenationalpulse.com/breaking/michigan-dominion-report/

    It’s interesting to note that Dominion is a Canadian company, but the government there refuses to use them for Canadian elections.

    • This is the report that tried to show large errors in the tabulation of votes in Michigan precincts, but used data from Minnesota precincts. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/20/trump-lawsuit-mixes-up-red-flags-michigan-minnesota/6362056002/

      • Dick Hall-Sizemore,

        While I appreciate your response to my post, the link you provided cannot possibly refute the report I linked to. It’s not even within the realm of possibility, since the report contained within the article I linked to was under protective order until yesterday when 13th Circuit Court Judge Kevin Elsenheimer ordered that the group could release the findings. The article you linked to is dated November 20, 2020.

        The title of the article you linked to says:

        “Trump lawsuit confuses Michigan and Minnesota locations in affidavit claiming voter fraud”

        The forensic audit that resulted in this report was the result of a lawsuit filed by William Bailey against Antrim County, challenging the integrity of the election equipment.

        If you wish to refute the report in question, it would be best to read the report and find a point by point explanation for the report’s conclusions. The report is 23 pages, but the you can get good overview by just reading the first 6 pages.

        Here’s a link to the report itself.

        https://www.scribd.com/document/488080093/Antrim-Michigan-Forensics-Report-121320-PRELIMINARY?secret_password=6tgofj7cUYx1kQwElves#from_embed

        Prior to the election, there were numerous articles and reports from left leaning news media (and Democrat politicians) with concerns about the security of these systems. But now that they have produced a Biden victory, all we hear is the opposite.

        If Trump had been declared the winner, there’s no doubt in my mind that Biden’s army of attorneys would be challenging the result in court with concerns about the security of using Dominion voting systems. That’s evident to anyone who’s been following events closely.

        Elections need to be conducted such that voters of both parties can have confidence in the outcome. That’s what I want. (I cannot speak for anyone else)

        Dominion voting systems is only one potential cause for concern. The others would largely be addressed if we followed the recommendations of the Carter-Baker report that I referenced earlier.

        • Independent of your rebuttal, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s lawsuit and yesterday the Michigan Legislature cast its votes for the Joe Biden. What evidence do you need in addition to the Attorney General and the US Supreme Court to convince you that there was no widespread fraud and Trump lost?

          • A lot. The fact that Trump actually gained ground in some urban districts would indicate insufficient fraud by the GOP.

            https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-electors-gather-cold-numbers-show-what-really-happened-in-2020-11607961430

            “The results show that Mr. Trump actually won a higher share of the vote in big-city counties than he did four years ago.

            This outcome was particularly noteworthy in one of the counties at the heart of the postelection dispute, Philadelphia county, where Mr. Trump’s share of the vote rose 3.7 percentage points when compared with 2016. The president’s margin in the vote count was nearly identical to his 2016 share in Wayne County, home of Detroit, and in Milwaukee county.”

          • In all candor, that explanation makes no sense.

          • Application of the same illogic. 🙄

          • “Independent of your rebuttal…”

            So here’s how it goes on this thread and throughout the country.

            “Show me some evidence!”

            “Here’s some evidence”

            “Never mind that, what about, what about, what about, what about…”

            So now you want to discuss 4 other issues that I seriously doubt you have read primary documents to inform your opinions, just the characterizations of others.

            Let’s cut to the chase. Investigations take time and we won’t know the full extent of what happened this election for months or years. The investigation into what happened in Chicago in 1982 took about two years. Think about that.

            Do you comprehend how long it takes the FBI to do an investigation? Jacob Blake was shot in August, but even though that was just one incident and practically the whole thing was on video, the FBI’ didn’t provide a report until October. They talked to 90 witnesses and examined more than 100 pieces of evidence.

            The public wanted an investigation, and they got it. But if we don’t take allegations seriously, there won’t be investigations. The civil society can’t continue to function properly in an environment where the concerns of 50 million voters are not only dismissed out of hand, those with concerns face retribution.

            “Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) on Friday urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to refuse to seat any of the 126 Republican House members who signed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election.”

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/12/11/house-democrat-calls-to-exclude-126-republicans-from-next-congress-for-supporting-texas-lawsuit/?sh=32939ab11fd9

            We have another election coming up in January. Does anyone on the left give a crap about the integrity of that election, or just the end result? If we don’t investigate and prosecute fraud it grows. Condemning anyone who raises concerns is not appropriate or healthy.

          • I hope that you can separate two points. First, something like 50 courts threw out Trump’s claims of fraud for lack of evidence and Attorney General Barr said that there was no evidence of widespread fraud.
            Second, it is critically important to restore in all Americans faith in our election system. I favor a bipartisan commission chaired by Presidents Clinton and Bush structured after the base realignment commission with members who are widely known and respected to examine this year’s election to determine what went wrong, why, and how to remedy the problems identified. Congress would either have to accept or reject its recommendations and not just file them away to gather dust.

          • Why stop with the election? A Presidential Commission to examine why 500+ children are now lost to their parents, the election distortions, and just about everything else that happened in the past four years.

          • Mr. O’Keefe,

            I think there is more to be gained from this discussion with regard to future elections and the importance of ensuring election integrity.

            However, having seen the article by Mr. Bacon which discusses Senator Chase’s suggestion, I think it best to defer until after things settle down. I don’t wish to be associated with her, or to have anything I might say to be used by those who agree with her.

        • Sorry, I was not aware that there was another report out there from Allied Security Operations Group.

          This is a pretty slender reed on which to hang your evidence of massive fraud. First of all, both political parties agree that a mistake by a Republican elections clerk led to the erroneous election-night report.

          Now, ASOG disagrees and contends that it was the Dominion voting system that is at fault and that is was “intentionally” programmed to provide wrong results. It is not clear what qualifies this group to make such determinations. Also, its serious mistakes in other reports render its credibility highly suspect.

          There is going to be a hand count of the ballots in that county, beginning on Thursday. That should shed some light on the accuracy of the report and on the Dominion system. https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/12/14/michigan-company-officials-dispute-report-antrim-county-voting/6538325002/

          • “This is a pretty slender reed on which to hang your evidence of massive fraud.”

            I’ve never said that any one issue represents the totality of problems with this election. In each instance, I have provided an example or two which demonstrates that there are substantive issues which should concern anyone who cares about ensuring the integrity of elections.

            Additionally, when you have specifically asked me for documentation of an issue, on multiple occasions I have responded by asking you how many examples you would like me to provide.

            The significance of the report about the Dominion system is the flawed architecture of the system itself, not how many votes might have been in error in one tiny little county of one state.

            I also mentioned that prior to the November election, Democrats were also concerned about electronic voting systems. Now, any mention of concern generates condescending reticule and mockery.

            This quote is from a letter signed by Senator Warren, Senator Klobuchar and two others. It’s dated December 6, 2019. Why can Democrats express concern but not Republicans?

            “In 2018 alone ‘voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after they’d inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines
            [were] causing long lines in Indiana.’ In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously undisclosed vulnerabilities in ‘nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states.’ And,
            just this year, after the Democratic candidate’s electronic tally showed he received an improbable 164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county’s
            Republican Chairwoman said, ‘nothing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong. That’s a problem.’ These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the
            importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.”

            https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/H.I.G.%20McCarthy,%20&%20Staple%20Street%20letters.pdf

          • Check this out. It’s a report by PBS from October of this year talking about Dominion voting system in Georgia. Lots of concern before the election, but the second Biden takes the lead it’s blasphemy to speak about potential vulnerabilities.

            “They have set up a complicated system, which is centralized, and doesn’t seem to have any safeguards.”
            – Election security white hat hacker Harri Hursti.

            “The Poll Pads took as long as 30 hours to download the voter database, displayed the wrong races, and would randomly shut down. And the power-hungry ballot-marking devices blew circuit-breakers in numerous locations.”

            “Poll workers, many of whom had no hands-on training because of the pandemic, were often befuddled by the new technology.”

            “And in late September, another concern came to light. During testing, election workers found half the names of the 21 candidates for Senate intermittently disappeared from screens during the review phase. Dominion sent out a last-minute software patch.”
            – Miles O’Brien:

            “By analyzing the structure of the Q.R. codes, I have been able to learn that there’s nothing that stops an attacker from just duplicating one, and the duplicate would count the same as the original bar code.”

            “I’m worried that the Georgia system is the technical equivalent to the 737 MAX. They have just made a last-minute software change that might well have unintended consequences and cause even more severe problems on Election Day.”
            – J. Alex Halderman

            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/will-georgias-new-voting-machines-solve-election-problems-or-make-them-worse

          • Dick Hall-Sizemore

            I know very little about the new voting systems. I wish we could get the mechanical ones, those that had a lever to pull and made a lot of noise, back

            That said, it seems strange that this consulting group would conclude that the Dominion systems in Michigan had been intentionally programmed to report the wrong votes, when those in Wisconsin seemed to work fine. https://www.tmj4.com/news/election-2020/audit-of-dominion-voting-machines-in-wisconsin-shows-minor-issues-perfect-count-for-some-municipalities

          • And when you threw the lever, it opened the curtains behind you. Loved that thing, but write-ins were tough.

  20. James Wyatt Whitehead V

    There is always EO 2018.

Leave a Reply