THE SECRET REVEALED - How Joe Biden stole the election

[Bicycle Bill]

-"BB"-

[Darren]

Based on the recent SCOTUS decision which pitted churches versus Cuomo, Justice Roberts is irrelevant as a swing vote,

[ex-khobar Andy]

I was going to start a new thread on this but since Darren brought it up . . .

There is an excellent NYT piece on this today. I don't like to copy and paste whole articles from behind a firewall but if you've used up your 10 freebies for the month I suppose I might. It begins:

(By Adam Liptak). WASHINGTON — A few minutes before midnight on Wednesday, the nation got its first glimpse of how profoundly President Trump had transformed the Supreme Court.

Just months ago, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was at the peak of his power, holding the controlling vote in closely divided cases and almost never finding himself in dissent. But the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett late last month, which put a staunch conservative in the seat formerly held by the liberal mainstay, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, meant that it was only a matter of time before the chief justice’s leadership would be tested.

On Wednesday, Justice Barrett dealt the chief justice a body blow. She cast the decisive vote in a 5-to-4 ruling that rejected restrictions on religious services in New York imposed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo to combat the coronavirus, shoving the chief justice into dissent with the court’s three remaining liberals. It was one of six opinions the court issued on Wednesday, spanning 33 pages and opening a window on a court in turmoil.

The ruling was at odds with earlier ones in cases from California and Nevada issued before Justice Ginsburg’s death in September. Those decisions upheld restrictions on church services by 5-to-4 votes, with Chief Justice Roberts in the majority. The New York decision said that Mr. Cuomo’s strict virus limits — capping attendance at religious services at 10 people in “red zones” where risk was highest, and at 25 in slightly less dangerous “orange zones” — violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion.

Reasonable people can quarrel with the details but if we wait for a full scientific investigation of every circumstance Gov Cuomo can get it exactly right but many months too late.

I did ask Mr Google for some help since epidemics have been around for much longer than the Constitution and it cannot be the first time this has come up. The FFS (Founding Fathers) would have been no strangers to typhoid, yellow fever, cholera and the like. I found this, from the Republican Policy Committee:

Among other things it tells us that

- Since the founding of the United States, our courts have debated the government’s power to respond to epidemics.
- Courts have allowed governments at different levels to take strict measures to combat epidemics, while requiring that the actions be reasonable.
- Under some circumstances, courts have permitted involuntary quarantine and compulsory vaccination as legal expressions of state police power, even when those actions override religious freedom or the right to vote.

The idea that a quarantine order - which is essentially what the Covid restrictions are - cannot override normal constitutional safeguards is idiotic. If I had had typhoid in revolutionary-era Philly, Ben Franklin would have been fine with me being locked up for the duration. And the religious exception argument is, to me, precisely backward. Separation of church and state (and yes, I know, those words are not in the Constitution) to me means that government takes no role in religion unlike, say, the UK where Brenda is Head of State and also Churchperson-in-Chief. So if the rule is 'No assemblies of more than 10 people' that applies in a church or mosque or synagogue or pizza parlor or opera house with equal force.

To put it another way: the First Amendment does not mean that religious groups are special - it means that religious groups are NOT special.

[Sue U]

Based on the recent SCOTUS decision which pitted churches versus Cuomo, Justice Roberts is irrelevant as a swing vote,

WTF is that even supposed to mean? And even if you had any idea, how is it applicable to Trump's election litigation?

[BoSoxGal]

To put it another way: the First Amendment does not mean that religious groups are special - it means that religious groups are NOT special.

That certainly seems to have been the original intent, which one might think would matter to a bunch of Federalist Society justices.



We’re so fucked. I’ve never been more at peace with not having had children, especially any daughters.

[Darren]

Based on the recent SCOTUS decision which pitted churches versus Cuomo, Justice Roberts is irrelevant as a swing vote,

WTF is that even supposed to mean? And even if you had any idea, how is it applicable to Trump's election litigation?

That's my question.

Going off on a tangent: does it seem reasonable that all 900 of the military ballots received in Fulton County, Georgia would be 100% for Biden when the polls of military families prior to the election indicated otherwise.

There was not a single vote for Trump! I expect many here will fall back on the official media message since 2016 as the reason.

[MajGenl.Meade]

does it seem reasonable that all 900 of the military ballots received in Fulton County, Georgia would be 100% for Biden when the polls of military families prior to the election indicated otherwise.

There was not a single vote for Trump!

Darren - first, catch your rabbit. The above was an allegation (a claim, a statement) made in the suit filed by Republicans. EXCEPT, even they didn't say it was a fact:

3) all 900 military ballots in Fulton county that supposedly were 100% for Joe Biden

Someone "supposed" they were all for Biden? Who could have "supposed" that, do you suppose?

Strange things can happen - you might be able to produce some evidence that "all 900 of the military ballots" were for Biden.

Why don't you help us by providing that evidence?

[ex-khobar Andy]

Going off on a tangent: does it seem reasonable that all 900 of the military ballots received in Fulton County, Georgia would be 100% for Biden when the polls of military families prior to the election indicated otherwise.

There was not a single vote for Trump! I expect many here will fall back on the official media message since 2016 as the reason.

That was all found and explained. For some reason the Trump count did not transfer over. That was found during the normal QC of the count and corrected.

I'm not saying this is the reason but anyone who has spent a lifetime using spreadsheets knows how this sort of thing can happen. A piece of data (a number) gets entered as a text string instead of as a number. Someone accidentally hit the ' key and did not notice. Anyone who looks at the spreadsheet on a screen will not see this. 8197 as a text string appears identical to 8197 as a number. So when you process that column of data, that result is ignored. Happens all the time. (I once spent about four hours QCing a spreadsheet our public health expert had spent a few weeks on. 30 or 40 tabs IIRC. By the time I had finished I had added about $30 million to a damages claim by resolving this sort of error. That's why you do QC checks.)

[BoSoxGal]

Is that the difference of entering the numbers with the above numbers on the keyboard versus the number pad numbers?

I don’t do spreadsheets much so this is puzzling to me - the numbers look like text thingy, that is.

[Sue U]

Based on the recent SCOTUS decision which pitted churches versus Cuomo, Justice Roberts is irrelevant as a swing vote,

WTF is that even supposed to mean? And even if you had any idea, how is it applicable to Trump's election litigation?

That's my question.

So in other words, you have no idea what this decision means in and of itself, how it might be applicable to future rulings on entirely different cases involving entirely different areas of constitutional law, or why you even posted about it in this thread, do I have that right?

You go around the board making cryptic statements about unidentified or unexplained issues and events to suggest that something ominous is afoot, which invariably turns out to be bullshit. This shtick is really getting tiresome; you might was well be peddling QAnon nonsense. If you actually have something to say, just come out and say it; no need to pussyfoot around.

[Scooter]

He thinks it makes him look knowledgeable and insightful without actually having to say anything that has meaning.

[MajGenl.Meade]

That was all found and explained.

Andy, why the hell are you even allowing that there was something "found" that needed to be "explained"

His whack-a-doodle claim is that there does exist a batch of military mail-ins that turned out to be 100% for Biden and not one for Trump. Beyond belief, he wants us to agree.

That (a) didn't happen and (b) doesn't deserve the dignity of explanation

Darren - put up or shut up. Cite your proof that 800 military ballots were "found" and were "100% for Biden"

[Joe Guy]

Newsflash:

Rudy Giuliani claims to have photographs of thousands of dead people lining up to vote at polls in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Georgia. President-unelect Trump declared that the photos are proof of yet another fraudulent attempt by dead democrats to rig the election. "What else do you need as proof?", Trump tweeted.

JG, Unassociated Press

[BoSoxGal]

[ex-khobar Andy]

That was all found and explained.

Andy, why the hell are you even allowing that there was something "found" that needed to be "explained"

His whack-a-doodle claim is that there does exist a batch of military mail-ins that turned out to be 100% for Biden and not one for Trump. Beyond belief, he wants us to agree.

That (a) didn't happen and (b) doesn't deserve the dignity of explanation

Darren - put up or shut up. Cite your proof that 800 military ballots were "found" and were "100% for Biden"

There was an issue during the counting of Fulton County absentee and military votes - involving far fewer than 900 votes - which was found and corrected during the count. Any exercise involving thousands of people entering data will result in some errors and that's the purpose of quality control checking. It's like the so-called sudden disposal of thousands of Trump votes by CNN as they were keeping track on Election night. As far as I recall someone keyed in 50718 instead of 5718. (I just made those numbers up to illustrate the point.). Someone caught it and corrected it; but the Trumpists saw 45,000 votes disappear and assumed that funny business was afoot.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I know Andy, I know. He knows that. We all know that. Well done. But that wasn't his point, was it?

He wants to know why those military ballots were "100% for Biden". It's up to him to prove that statement to be true. There's nothing for sane people to explain or be defensive about.

If it looks like a canard, sounds like a canard, it probably is Dullard.

[Sue U]

I suggest you turn off ABC, MSNBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, etc. and search for voting irregularities, unconstitutional changes, legislative hearings, judicial orders and the like for an up to date understanding.

I'm still taking bets.

I sure hope you're gonna make good on those wagers, because the latest judicial order from the PA Supreme Court says, "No, GOP, you can't invalidate Pennsylvania's mail-in votes and have the Republican Legislature select a slate of Trump electors for the Electoral College especially when THESE WERE THE RULES YOU PUT IN PLACE A YEAR AGO THAT EVERYONE FOLLOWED IN BOTH THE PRIMARY AND THE GENERAL ELECTION SO DON'T START WHINING NOW THAT YOU LOST YOU SORE-LOSER LOSERS BECAUSE IT'S TOO GODDAMN LATE FOR YOU." (That may not be an actual direct quote but it's what the opinion says (they use the word "laches" instead), go ahead and check the link.)

If you didn't know, this PA suit is just a colossally gross bad-faith attempt to have mail-in voting declared unconstitutional (under the PA constitution) after the fact, for no purpose other than to overturn the election because Trump lost. There was no fraud or malfeasance or corruption or any wrongdoing alleged AT ALL. This was simply a case of "We don't like losing the election so please make us the winners, Your Honor."

After the Third Circuit's opinion yesterday and now with the PA Supremes decision today, the Trumpanistas are having a very bad weekend.

[Econoline]

"Laches"??? Hell, it's almost time for laktes (less than 2 weeks)!

[Guinevere]

The want of due diligence demonstrated in this matter is unmistakable. Petitioners filed this facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory provisions more than one year after the enactment of Act 77. At the time this action was filed on November 21, 2020, millions of Pennsylvania voters had already expressed their will in both the June 2020 Primary Election and the November 2020 General Election and the final ballots in the 2020 General Election were being tallied, with the results becoming seemingly apparent. Nevertheless, Petitioners waited to commence this litigation until days before the county boards of election were required to certify the election results to the Secretary of the Commonwealth. Thus, it is beyond cavil that Petitioners failed to act with due diligence in presenting the instant claim. Equally clear is the substantial prejudice arising from Petitioners’ failure to institute promptly a facial challenge to the mail-in voting statutory scheme, as such inaction would result in the disenfranchisement of millions of Pennsylvania voters.4
Accordingly, we grant the application for extraordinary jurisdiction, vacate the Commonwealth Court’s order preliminarily enjoining the Commonwealth from taking any further action regarding the certification of the results of the 2020 General Election, and dismiss with prejudice Petitioners’ petition for review. All other outstanding motions are dismissed as moot.

Petitioners!

[Sue U]

"Laches"??? Hell, it's almost time for laktes (less than 2 weeks)!

Also too jelly donuts.

It's the most wonderful time of the year.