It is obvious to me. No “law” passed in contravention of a Constitution is ever valid.
Then it’s a good thing you’re not a lawyer. Laws are valid until challenged and proven invalid.
How do you know? Lawyers disagree on a great many points of law and battle over such stuff in court.
Right. Which proves that none of this is obvious. If anything was obvious, there wouldn’t be any court battles.
Agreed.
More and more to me this appears a matter which will need to be decided by the SCOTUS.
And there Amy Coney Barrett will save President Trump’s bacon.
I hope.
After that all we will need is Michigan and Arizona. 
Thereafter Biden can fold up his tent and go back to his beloved Wilmington basement.
And I hope that they rule on the merits of the law and common sense, not on the bacon that gave them their lifetime appointment.
1 Like
Love it!! You 2 are great debaters. 
Dream on 
I would expect a 5-4 SCOTUS vote for Trump, with Roberts voting with the Democrats. Absent sweet Amy I would give Trump no chance.
The pessimist in me could see a 5-4 ruling that the law was invalid, but not to invalidate the votes cast while that law was the law. Further, I agree with glitch – they couldn’t possibly invalidate just the mail-in votes, they’d have to invalidate the entire election in that state. This wouldn’t automatically give anything to Trump.
1 Like
Couple of things:
First, in Pennsylvania the post November third mail-in vote was earlier segregated. So that would be easy to invalidate which might alone throw the election there to Trump. But more importantly:
The articles we posted focus only on Pennsylvania. I honestly have no clue about the other two states, about the details in those states.
And, again, Trump would need to win all three to defeat Biden. So this is no slam dunk even if Trump is able somehow to win in Pennsylvania.
However, this territory generally does appear to me to be more potentially fruitful for Trump than claims of fraud, and more of a threat to Biden as a practical matter.
No. He lost. “By like, a lot!”[/Trump]
That’s before any received after Nov3.
Then those voters who’s votes are tossed get to sue for being fraudulently induced into casting their vote that way. And they’ll win.
There’s no way for this to result in Trump being handed the win. At the absolute best, he gets a new election.
Trump has always betrayed his own supporters and associates. It’s what he does and he’s done it his whole life. Not a new pattern.
It doesn’t matter to him as he’s a socio/psychopath.
3 Likes
Birds of a feather: Trump called Welsh a “friend of mine for a long time, from the beginning.”
Yet if he panders to his supporters, you’re the first in line to throw him under the bus for that too…
Cant you just accept that he does what he thinks is “right” (whether you agree or not), and it really doesnt matter how that affects anyone? If this was someone you had any respect for, you’d be praising his unwillingness to pull punches as personal/political favors.
1 Like
Biden voting… oddities
Good lord, even that article states that this quote has been attributed to him in various places since 1999.
Besides, there may not be any evidence that he said it, but there isnt any evidence he didnt, either. So it wasnt in a recorded speech - saying it while having drinks with a couple friends would still be him saying it.
Is that even a picture of Roosevelt? We better get on “fact checking” that one too…
Only the most anally obsessed hate-mongers feel the need to fact check generic “words of wisdom” type quote attributions.
And I cant believe I’m even responding to such an asinine trash piece.
#3 seems like the only one that really means anything. As to the rest, unexpected things happen all the time.
Except…
Barnes added that in those “big cities in swing states run by Democrats…the vote even exceeded the number of registered voters.”
It’d seem that if correct, this would the sole basis of the legal challenges? As in, that one sentence would literally be the entire argument? And it’d be a pretty open and shut decision, tossing out those results, without needing to take so much as a brief recess?
But this is the first article even mentioning this anomaly? I’m thinking that it is misleading, and doesnt mean what it says it means.
1 Like