The election litigation thread

Dutch Oven

Well-known member
Feb 12, 2019
7,047
2,537
113
Of course you think you're the resident expert on Peanuts as well as the law.
Just like Charlie Brown thinks this time he'll kick the ball.
I can see why you don't understand it. You are a lot like Snoopy.
 

Perry Mason

Well-known member
Aug 20, 2001
4,682
208
63
Here
I just remembered this... which I offer to you for the benefit of your entertainment, Dutchie... because it says volumes about the substance of your arguments...

"The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

Perhaps you will entertain me by clarifying why thinking romantically about the law is, somehow, undesirable?

Perry
 
Last edited:

shack

Nitpicker Extraordinaire
Oct 2, 2001
52,197
10,484
113
Toronto
another thing that is funny to me is that trump positively claims that he won and Biden lost.
Even funnier, yesterday trump claimed that for him to leave the WH, Biden has to PROVE that he got 80 million votes. Lunacy. When has a candidate ever had to prove that they got the number of votes counted. In this case, the biden of proof is on trump to prove that Joe did NOT get those votes. 36 tries and not yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

toguy5252

Well-known member
Jun 22, 2009
15,964
6,108
113
Even funnier, yesterday trump claimed that for him to leave the WH, Biden has to PROVE that he got 80 million votes. Lunacy. When has a candidate ever had to prove that they got the number of votes counted. In this case, the biden of proof is on trump to prove that Joe did NOT get those votes. 36 tries and not yet.
You are confusing Trumpworld and reality.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,734
60,990
113
You can't even interpret Peanuts correctly, why do you think you know the law better than anyone else?
He's more right than you.
Lucy is the villain for pulling away the football and Charlie is a sucker because he keeps thinking she won't do it.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,734
60,990
113
Even funnier, yesterday trump claimed that for him to leave the WH, Biden has to PROVE that he got 80 million votes. Lunacy. When has a candidate ever had to prove that they got the number of votes counted. In this case, the biden of proof is on trump to prove that Joe did NOT get those votes. 36 tries and not yet.
The state certification is the proof he got the votes. As usual, Trump is making shit up to have a story for his fans to cling to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mandrill

kherg007

Well-known member
May 3, 2014
9,262
7,473
113
Remember when trump lost Iowa caucus to Ted Cruz in 2016 he claimed fraud. Every republican primary he did not win he claimed fraud. Even when he lost popular vote to Hilary he claimed fraud. It's just what this hideous vile man does. He now says biden has to prove no fraud. Maybe because he didnt prove no fraud in 2016 v hilary his presidency is invalid.
 

Frankfooter

dangling member
Apr 10, 2015
93,185
23,121
113
He's more right than you.
Lucy is the villain for pulling away the football and Charlie is a sucker because he keeps thinking she won't do it.
Which is why Dutchie is Charlie, thinking that this time Trump is telling the truth and they have evidence of electoral fraud.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,734
60,990
113
Which is why Dutchie is Charlie, thinking that this time Trump is telling the truth and they have evidence of electoral fraud.
If the argument is "this time they have real evidence" is Lucy saying "this time I will let you kick the football" then that works, yes.
 

drc75

Active member
Jan 9, 2017
584
177
43
The appeal that was disposed of today was on a very narrow procedural order in the course of seeking injunctive relief (denial of the request of the Trump campaign to amend the application for an injunction). That's why only 3 members of the court sat on the matter. The appeal of the lower court decision on the merits has not yet been heard. No matter, a new complaint can be filed with additional allegations and affidavits, just not in time to prevent certification in the first instance, which was the objective of the first suit.
They sort of need real evidence to do much of anything other than wasting the court's time. Something that they've failed to do.
 

Valcazar

Just a bundle of fucking sunshine
Mar 27, 2014
32,734
60,990
113
They sort of need real evidence to do much of anything other than wasting the court's time. Something that they've failed to do.
I think Dutch Oven may be arguing that you can withhold your evidence and appeal on procedural grounds and then show all the evidence to the Supreme Court since that is the only court big enough for your win to matter.
 

Fun For All

Well-known member
Feb 9, 2014
11,507
5,743
113
I think Dutch Oven may be arguing that you can withhold your evidence and appeal on procedural grounds and then show all the evidence to the Supreme Court since that is the only court big enough for your win to matter.
That would be a dumb strategy...it's like "I'm not gonna play my best players until game 7"...
 

basketcase

Well-known member
Dec 29, 2005
61,971
6,853
113
You can't even interpret Peanuts correctly, why do you think you know the law better than anyone else?
Charlie Brown is a sympathetic character.

Maybe a psychedelic reboot where Charlie is a heroin addicted conman who imagines there are football to kick.
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts