Election 2020

Trump Campaign Loses Another Court Appeal

On Christmas Eve, the Seventh Circuit rejected the Trump campaign's attempt to challenge the Wisconsin election results.

|

The Trump campaign's legal losses continue to mount. On Christmas Eve, in Trump v. Wisconsin Election Commission, a unanimous panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's rejection of the Trump campaign's claim that Wisconsin's election results were the result of unlawful changes in state election rules.

The decision, by Judge Michael Scudder, concludes that the Trump campaign's claims fail both due to laches and on the merits. The opinion begins:

Two days after Wisconsin certified the results of its 2020 election, President Donald J. Trump invoked the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution and sued the Wisconsin Elections Commission, Governor, Secretary of State, and several local officials in federal court. The district court concluded that the President's challenges lacked merit, as he objected only to the administration of the election, yet the Electors Clause, by its terms, addresses the authority of the State's Legislature to prescribe the manner of appointing its presidential electors. So, too, did the district court conclude that the President's claims would fail even under a broader, alternative reading of the Electors Clause that extended to a state's conduct of the presidential election. We agree that Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature and add that the President's claim also fails because of the unreasonable delay that accompanied the challenges the President now wishes to advance against Wisconsin's election procedures.

The opinion concludes that Trump does have standing to bring the challenge, but that the campaign unlawfully delayed raising challenges to the alleged illegality of Wisconsin's election administration. Yet the opinion does not stop there. Judge Scudder goes on to explain why the challenge fails on the merits. As the court concludes, "even on a broad reading of the Electors Clause, Wisconsin lawfully appointed its electors in the manner directed by its Legislature."

For those who case about such things, it is worth noting that the opinion in this case–just like the district court opinion below–was written by a Trump-appointed judge.

 

NEXT: Today in Supreme Court History: December 26, 1907

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The record of the elite strike force continues to resemble that of the Washington Generals.

    1. I think this makes it one-for-sixty.

      And the one “win” merely required the defendant to do something they were already doing.

      Now they’re beginning to be the defendants, and it’s not looking much more promising for them.

      1. How many clingers were smart enough to recognize that when they sent money to Trump Election Litigation — Elite Strike Force they were paying for Marc Elias’ grandchildren to attend Ivy League undergraduate and graduation schools?

        Fee awards, bar complaints, sanctions motions . . . the holiday season seems destined to be extended for competent election lawyers, at the expense of hapless Republican lawyers.

    2. In light of very recent events bernard11, I will need to rethink your recommendation about Nashville (over Knoxville) TN.

      wrt the original topic…The constitutional processes for contested elections during the ~10 week interregnum period of election to inauguration must followed in an open and transparent manner. The political result is less important to me in this instance than the respect and reliance on the constitutional processes for contested elections the Framers left us.

      1. Ok, but this is not a regular occurrence.

        Kind of mysterious, though.

        1. Yeah, it is. There is a lot not being told to us, I am sure.

          1. Trump just KNOWS there was chicanery about this election, because he was engaging in some. That’s why claims that there was no evidence of fraud doesn’t convince him. Of course, confessing that this is the case doesn’t win him any legal cases, and can’t overcome the fact that a majority of American voters don’t want him to be President.

  2. Remember, not my President? Remember the endless, pretextual, politically motivated allegations of collusion and of interference, the endless investigations, prosecutions, imeachment?

    President Biden, welcome to the lawyer scumbag attacks on our elections. It is your turn.

    The average person with a job commits 3 federal felonies a day. Lend me your laptop for an hour. I can get you hundreds of years of prison and $millions in fines for anyone, including the tablet of a toddler. This phony, pretextual attack by the lawyer profession must be stopped with arrests of these partisan lawyers. Trump should have had Mueller arrested. Trump should have had Pelosi arrested and in prison until she could explain how her net worth went from $80 million to $120 million after her election as Speaker. Please, do not say, her husband is a talented business man. I want to hear about the Chinese money she made for attacking our country from inside.

    1. No, they don’t.
      No, you can’t.
      Shut the hell up.

      1. Hi, Jason. Without access to any laptop, and all the personal shenanigans in it, including embedded child porn to be reported to the FBI for further investigation as to how it got there, including grey areas of the income tax return, the copyright infringements alone get dozens of years in federal stir and $millions in fines.

        Welcome to the Inquisition 2.0 and to its robust rent seeking business model for the scumbag lawyer profession.

        1. ^^^^^^^^
          Incoherent word salad.

          1. That is because Chinese Commie agents do not understand plain high school English.

            1. Nor, apparently, do you. Assuming that the categories of “Chinese commie agents” and “you” do not overlap.l

              1. And I’m still scratching my head to figure out how copyright infringement gets anyone “dozens of years in federal stir”, assuming that’s what he’s trying to say in his attempt at “plain high school English”.

                1. Commercial copyright infringement is a federal offense. You should have read that warning that used to be at the beginning of all the VHS movies.

                  I’m curious as to his theory that he can do something to my laptop that will land ME in prison. Hint: dimwit, if you copy child pron onto my device, you’re the one with some explaining to do, not me.

    2. Both the Mueller Report and the Senate Report confirmed the bulk of the 2016 Russian “hoax” to be true. The only part not confirmed is that extent that the Trump campaign actively sought out Russian assistance. Also these endless prosecutions also had quite a number of Trump campaign officials convicted of federal crimes.

      1. Molly, are you saying that Putin is stupid?

        Why would they *want* Trump? Trump supports greater American oil production which *hurts* Russia, which depends on high oil prices for its hard currency. Hillary (as Sec of State) gave Russia the uranium. Etc.

        WHY would Russia even *want* Trump?

        Now as to simply causing trouble, generic domestic disharmony, that’s something I can see Putin doing in a heartbeat. But they also supported parts of the 1960’s Civil Rights movement for the same reason — and that doesn’t negate the legitimacy of that.

        1. Trump has:

          – Undermined NATO’s security guarantee, scuttling for now any question of expansion over other nations within Russia’s “near abroad.”
          – Walked away from the conflict in Syria, allowing Putin to cement his interests there.
          – Initially promised sanctions relief (though he has largely failed to deliver, due to congressional resistance).
          – Pulled American troops out of Germany and is in the process of doing so in Afghanistan.
          – Made the country more vulnerable to cyberattacks by Russian actors and has even attempted to minimize the ones that were just reported.
          – Walked away from nuclear arms treaties with Russia.
          – Signaled indifference to Russian interference in the sovereignty of other nations in Russia’s near abroad.

          And so on. Indeed, it is hard to even speak of the ways in which Trump has subordinated American interests to those of Putin, because his very subservience makes the relevant issues less salient, to our minds. Like, when’s the last time anyone paid any attention to what’s happening in the Arctic?

          Meanwhile, Trump has polarized and politicized American foreign policy, which makes the U.S. a decidedly less reliable ally and partner – no one, not Europe, not Israel, not the UK, etc. – can count on any particular policy outlasting an administration. That is incredibly destructive to our interests and it boggles my mind that any Trump-supporter should think that’s a good thing. (E.g., “We’re not the world’s policeman!” – No, but would we rather be one of the “policed”?)

          As for oil production – to think that Hillary would have had any meaningfully different policy on this (or that Biden will) is silly. American oil production serves a different market than Russia’s does, most of it is driven by the private sector and market forces, and the margins where the presidency matters – i.e., on opening up more or less wilderness territory to exploration – aren’t enough for Putin to care about.

          1. “(E.g., “We’re not the world’s policeman!” – No, but would we rather be one of the “policed”?)”

            I think it’s China, not Russia, which is working on that currently.

          2. Undermined NATO’s security guarantee, scuttling for now any question of expansion over other nations within Russia’s “near abroad.”

            This is a good thing. NATO should have disbanded when the USSR fell apart. Alternatively, it should not have expanded other than East Germany. Had we done that, we might have never gotten Putin, who was elected because the Russian people reacted to the US’s attempts to force it off the world’s stage and to pretend it was no longer a rightful superpower.

            Keeping NATO around got us involved in several conflicts, resulting in the flouting of international law restrictions on military interventions, and cost us a ton of money for zero reason. The notion that Germany is going to swallow up MODERN Europe is stupid.

            Walked away from the conflict in Syria, allowing Putin to cement his interests there.

            Also good. We have zero business or right to be in Syria. We need to get out of the regime change business, and the human rights justification is BS- the worst human rights violator in the region is Saudi Arabia, and we didn’t even punish them after they bankrolled the killing of 3,000 American citizens on 9/11.

            Pulled American troops out of Germany and is in the process of doing so in Afghanistan.

            Good. We have no business in either country. We will also save all sorts of money if we get out of these places, and in the case of Afghanistan, it will also save American lives to pull out.

            Signaled indifference to Russian interference in the sovereignty of other nations in Russia’s near abroad.

            When we give Guantanamo back to the Cubans, you can talk to me about what the Russians are doing in their “near abroad”. What they are doing is acting like the superpower they are, just like we do and just like China does. The United States has no business dictating what happens on Russia’s borders, unless we want to cede to Russia the right to dictate our relationships with Mexico, Canada, and the Carribean nations. Oh wait, this only goes one way?

            1. “NATO should have disbanded when the USSR fell apart. Alternatively, it should not have expanded other than East Germany. Had we done that, we might have never gotten Putin, who was elected because the Russian people reacted to the US’s attempts to force it off the world’s stage and to pretend it was no longer a rightful superpower.”

              It’s not even that as much as Russia being paranoid about invasions (for good reason) and wanting to have friendly buffer states to the East of it. That started with the Ukraine (etc) and then expanded into the Warsaw Pact.

              Never forget that they thought that NATO’s “Able Archer” in 1983 was for real and that we were going to invade them.

              So you can see their take on former buffer states like Poland joining NATO…

              1. Russia funds its government by exporting natural gas to Europe and soon China. The reason Trump made sense from Putin’s perspective is because the natural gas industry is tied to diplomacy for myriad of reasons and so putting distance between America and the EU from a diplomatic perspective serves Putin’s interests.

                1. And asking Europe to use US LNG versus Russian gas means what?!?

                  Trump pushed this — and while LNG involves greater expenses, Trump had countries willing to abandon Russian vapor gas for American LNG. Because they wouldn’t be dependent on Russia….

                  1. LNG can’t compete with piped natural gas from Russia. Plus guess what LNG involves—heavy diplomacy between America and the EU.

                    1. But it can lower the price of piped gas.
                      Less money for Putin…

                    2. Nope, it’s a proverbial drop in the bucket at best.

            2. I generally agree with you on most of that.

              “The notion that Germany is going to swallow up MODERN Europe is stupid.”

              Germany has an awful lot of influence in the EU, maybe enough to argue that they already have swallowed up modern Europe.

              1. But that’s not the sort of swallowing NATO is premised on. Indeed, if anything, that type of swallowing is probably made even more possible by NATO.

            3. Regardless of your opinions, each of these measures benefited Putin.

              1. Which is irrelevant, because the United States doesn’t get to choose Russia’s leadership, and strengthening or weakening Putin shouldn’t be the guiding star for American policy.

                If you don’t like Putin, there were things we could have done a long time ago that would have made a Putin less likely (though honestly any conceivable Russia with any leader was going to be a superpower competitor to the United States with substantial espionage capabilities and which dominated the former Soviet Republics).

                But having decided to try to use the end of the Cold War to make our bid for world domination, we aren’t going to change what Russia has become, as it was a direct, defensive reaction to what the US did.

                1. But the original question was “why would Putin want Trump?” So..it seems we all agree on the answers?

                2. But having decided to try to use the end of the Cold War to make our bid for world domination, we aren’t going to change what Russia has become, as it was a direct, defensive reaction to what the US did.

                  No. Why is it that leftists always want to deny every country but the U.S. agency? The same people who would never accept the argument that Trump is a direct, defensive reaction to what Obama did always want to blame the U.S. for the bad behavior of foreign actors.

                  1. David:

                    Russia has plenty of agency. E.g., Putin has poisoned a bunch of political enemies in foreign countries in novel ways. That’s on Putin. Not us.

                    But the geopolitical situation that gave rise to Putin was very much a product of our desires to dominate the world at the end of the Cold War. Blowback is a significant issue in foreign policy. It’s not a matter of denying Putin agency, but in understanding that the United States’ illusions that we would run the world after the end of the Cold War were incredibly costly.

                3. “Which is irrelevant, because the United States doesn’t get to choose Russia’s leadership, and strengthening or weakening Putin shouldn’t be the guiding star for American policy.”

                  It’s certainly relevant to a discussion about what the Russians want out of the US’s president.

        2. WHY would Russia even *want* Trump?

          Because Trump’s election promised to:

          1) Weaken the country.
          2) Weaken the country’s alliances.
          3) Weaken the country’s commitment to American values.
          4) Support Putin.
          5) Undermine Putin’s enemies.

          1. Hi, David. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. Ding.

            1. Excellent self-burn.

        3. “Molly, are you saying that Putin is stupid?

          Why would they *want* Trump?”

          Saddling your most significant geopolitical opponent with inept, incompetent leadership is a great way to achieve your goals. THAT’S why they wanted Trump.

      2. All convictions were for paper work infractions unrelated to the results of the election. As I said, I can do that to anyone, including a toddler.

        1. No, they’re for covering up collaborating with the Russian government to undermine the 2016 election.

          That’s a pretty awful talking point, meant as a tonic for the true believers only.

          1. I so no Russian ad or post. Nor did anyone else. You are denial about the good judgment of real Americans away from the coasts. I had an intense hatred for what the Democrat Party did to our country for 8 years. Obama was Carter class awful President, one of the very worst.

            My health insurance deductible went from $500 to $6000 the next year. This Democrat Harvard Law indoctrinated lawyer took my health insurance, and gave it to a tax sucking parasite.

            1. Real Trump supporters strongly support Obamacare which is why the Trumpiest states like West Virginia, Louisiana, and Kentucky have fully implemented Obamacare. You are most likely a Cruz Republican and nobody likes you people and your brand of conservatism is extremely unpopular.

              1. Wrong, Sebastian. No one like Daivd [sic] because he’s an unhinged lunatic. Wait for it: he’ll be whining about Hillary’s emails next.

              2. All three states have Dem Governors….

                1. Exactly—Trump supporters voted for Democrat governors (and Senator Manchin) in order to fully implement Obamacare.

            2. Kids, kids. Both parties are horrid, but in different ways!

              In these fights where we elect the second-most hated person in America, be joyous you were co-opted into one side or the other, so they and their relatives can continue to get mysteriously rich, being stock picking and investing geniuses. The legislators, to a man and woman, are all super lucky they all married such geniuses, or else they’d be stuck at a pauper’s congressional salary as they served us their entire lives! Served us!

              1. This is quite simplistic. People that succeed in one area often also do the same in others. LeBron James is making tons of money from his Liverpool investments. That’s not ‘corruption,’ it’s an illustration of what I’m talking about supra. What’s an actual invite to corruption is things like hiring your kids, pardoning your daughter’s father in law, that kind of incestuous stuff.

              2. Yeah, facile attacks like ‘all politicians are bad, yo’ is really lazy.

                It may feel nice and validating, but if you don’t deal with people – including politicians – on an individualized, case-by-case basis, you’re replacing facts with narrative.

              3. “Kids, kids. Both parties are horrid, but in different ways!”

                They’re not EQUALLY horrid, however. One is full of (gasp) people who honestly want the federal government to work effectively, and solve problems for actual people. The other is made up of people who are deathly afraid of a functioning government who fight it at every opportunity.

                1. The both-sides-ism is just an effort to deflect criticism, just as pointing it out when some Democrat somewhere says something stupid.

                  Sure, there are individual corrupt, dishonest, and even destructive Democratic politicians, but the entire Republican Party is nothing but corrupt, dishonest, and destructive.

            3. real Americans away from the coasts.

              No, that’s not racist at all.

    3. It’s unfortunate when people don’t know being bold from being unhinged.

    4. “Trump should have had Mueller arrested. Trump should have had Pelosi arrested and in prison”

      Yeah, Trump should have “saved” us from the totalitarians, by jailing anyone who opposed him. Because that’s how freedom works.

  3. Get ready America, the Democrats have wonderful plans for you!

    1. I will enjoy seeing the suffering of the Democrat constituencies, since they did the best ever under Trump. I look forward to the feminists in my suburb getting forced to house homeless Democrat addicts in their upstairs bedrooms.

      1. I am guessing you need a place to live.

        1. I’m sure he’s quite comfortable in his parent’s basement.

    2. Getting crushed by your betters in the culture war has made you quite cranky, Cal. Relax . . . it’s only going to get worse for bigoted conservative misfits, and the only respite will involve being replaced by better Americans in our electorate as our nation continues to improve against your wishes.

      Happy holidays, clingers! Santa has brought you a new president.

      1. Happy Holidays, Cheaters. Santa has brought you a drug addict next door, if not inside your home.

        1. ” Santa has brought you a drug addict next door, if not inside your home.”

          Woho this is a new conspiracy revelation! Santa is working with American pharmaceutical companies, hadn’t heard that one before. How long has Santa been in thrall to Perdue?

      2. Kirkland, read up on the French Revolution.

        The children of the revolution inevitably wind up eating their own.

      3. Merry Christmas – I suppose you yourself don’t expect to be “replaced” – maybe you’ll be raptured?

  4. Bomb in downtown Nashville destroys a city block and was probably targeting cops. Very little coverage in the fake media. Had this bomb been a product of a white supremacist, even mere speculation, it would be the only thing we would be hearing about with calls to take down more Confederate statues (regardless of some actual linkage).

    1. As usual, Trumpkins claim that things they only learned about from the media were not covered by the media. (And who says that it wasn’t the product of a white supremacist?)

      But you know where one can truthfully say that there was very little coverage? Trump’s twitter feed.

      1. David, (a) what would you have Trump say, and (b) how is his tweeting *anything* going to help the investigation?

        1. A) He’s the “President,” though he has no interest in performing any of the duties of a President. One of those duties would be to reassure the public that the situation is being investigated, justice will be done, and that the public has no need for alarm.

          B) Who said his tweeting would help the investigation? Strawman much?

          If a domestic terrorist’s bomb had gone off during the Obama administration and he didn’t bother SO MUCH AS FUCKING MENTIONING IT, you would have immediately developed 3 hernias to go along with your “5 degrees” and the other mish-mash of nonsense you claim to have.

          1. “If a domestic terrorist’s bomb had gone off during the Obama administration and he didn’t bother SO MUCH AS FUCKING MENTIONING IT, you would have immediately developed 3 hernias to go along with your “5 degrees” and the other mish-mash of nonsense you claim to have.”

            No, I would have presumed that (a) someone in law enforcement had explained to the boy president why he needed to keep his mouth shut — and that (b) this time he actually was bright enough to listen.

            Nothing good will come from POTUS commenting on active criminal cases — e.g. Nixon’s comments on Charles Manson….

            1. You’re so full of shit I can smell it through the internet, Ed.

              Gov. Bill Lee: “Early this morning, an explosion occurred in downtown Nashville around Second Avenue and Commerce Street. Federal, state, and local law enforcement partners are on the scene to investigate what we believe was an intentional act.

              We will supply all of the resources needed to determine what happened and who was response. Please join @MariaLeeTN and me in praying for those who were injured and we thank all of our first responders who acted so quickly this morning.”

              https://twitter.com/GovBillLee

              Your excuses don’t make any sense, and have no relevance. Par for the course with you Trumptards. Now shut the fuck up.

              Trump doesn’t give a shit about his responsibilities because he lost the election and he’s too busy pouting to even bother pretending to care about America anymore.

              He did find the time, however, to tweet or re-tweet 34 times since the incident, to complain about his imaginary election fraud concerns and air his grievances against everyone whom he thinks betrayed him. Not a single word about the bombing.

              Too busy being a pathetic little bitch to care.

              1. There’s a formal procedure for a President to declare a “Disaster” and anything Trump says could screw that up.

                He’s gone to the point of declaring the airspace around it, for one nautical mile, a “national security exclusion zone” where planes will potentially be shot down — that’s definitely “doing something” and as *I* don’t have access to the PDB, I don’t know that there isn’t a good reason for Trump to remain silent.

                I do find it interesting that authorities were checking a 4-block area for radiation. Maybe that was an abundance of caution and protocol — and maybe it wasn’t.

                Unless you personally know what the various agencies (including the FBI) have told Trump, I suggest that it is rather ignorant for you to presume to know why he isn’t tweeting about the bombing.

                Remember too that there is always the risk of motivating a copycat, and a Trump tweet could motivate someone on either extreme.

                1. “There’s a formal procedure for a President to declare a “Disaster” and anything Trump says could screw that up.”

                  While it IS true that if there IS a way to screw it up, Trump will find it and trip over it, the fact is that all Trump has to do is not contradict the bureaucracy when they start acting like there was a “disaster”. The grownups will take care of everything that needs to be done, as has been the case for not just the last four years, but decades before that, as well.

                2. There’s a formal procedure for a President to declare a “Disaster” and anything Trump says could screw that up.

                  No.

              2. “Trump doesn’t give a shit about his responsibilities because he lost the election and he’s too busy pouting to even bother pretending to care about America anymore.”

                He’s trying to figure out how he can squeeze a bit of personal profit out of his last month in office. I can only assume his asking price for a pardon has gone up since the supply is going to be limited, and when they’re out of stock there will be no more available from him at any price.

    2. Lots of coverage. Front page stories at CNN, NYT, WaPo.

      No one knows yet who the bomber is, or what the motivation was.

      Stop lying.

      1. The real stuff has been all over the AM and short wave bands since last night. Media is not covering anything except the usual “nothing to see here” whitewash job.

        1. These are your followers, Volokh Conspirators. Delusional, bigoted, half-educated, obsolete malcontents. It’s what you deserve.

          1. I never understood why AK disparages himself on here so much…?

            1. Better check those short waves of truth more, I guess!

        2. I’m sure the RW liars are out in force.

        3. You’re an idiot Jimmy. You need to see a psychiatrist.

          1. This is a good representative sampling of those tolerant followers that AK must like….

            1. You’re a bald-faced liar. Your kind does not deserve ‘tolerance.’ Ridicule is the appropriate word.

              The “Fake News” MSM covered this story, despite your claims otherwise. It was also not likely targeting cops, because it had at least a 15-minute warning repeating over and over again that the vehicle was going to explode. Cops don’t just pull up next to such things and start playing cards and eating sandwiches. The most likely scenario, considering the placement, and warning message beforehand, was to cause damage to the AT&T building.

              Occam’s Razor and all.

              If you want people to ‘tolerate’ you, stop being a lying, partisan, conspiratorial dipshit.

              1. Happens a lot around here but thanks for proving my point.

                1. Another Tu quoque from the ‘party of personal responsibility’ folks…

                  1. Yeah a so-called tolerant person posts about how some people don’t deserve tolerance….OK…..

                    1. On average, You get back the sort of treatment you give to other people. so your complaint about how other people don’t tolerate you says something about yourself without meaning to (oops).

                2. As usual, you’re silent on being called out on your conspiracies and lies.

                  By all means, keep whining about your feelings as if anyone cares. Lol.

                  1. I think you overestimate the amount I care about you and/or feelings. I just love pointing out bald hypocrisy (and also when I am right which is most of the time.)

                    1. No hypocrisy here. You claimed I was a ‘tolerant follower’ that AK likes. Notably, I never confirmed your label. I said YOU don’t deserve tolerance, which is objectively true based on your deliberate and repeated decisions to lie and then run away like a little bitch when called out on it.

                      You’ve been proven to be a liar over, and over, and over again to the point where you might as well ask to have the Trump family adopt you.

                      As usual, you still have no response to being called out on your latest lie, claiming the MSM didn’t cover the Nashville bombing.

                      You’re pathetic.

                    2. “(and also when I am right which is most of the time.)”

                      You’re wrong (again). I mean (still).

              2. No, cops try to protect property by trying to defuse it.
                It’s just that the cops who do that didn’t get there in time — which is why they are still alive…

                1. He is just sad there were not a bunch of dead cops. That is all.

                  1. Bullbleep, Jimmy.

                    I’m saying this was intended to kill cops by a schmuck who underestimated their response time. This is good.

                    But they WERE arriving and WOULD have tried, and (I presume) would have been unsuccessful — tragically dying in the process.

                    I don’t know what part of what I wrote above isn’t clear, but perhaps we could re-read it?!?

                    1. He was referring to the commenter up in the string who said that because no cops died obviously the bomber was not trying to target cops. I think that guy is just sad cops didn’t actually die (ignoring his obvious logical fallacy.)

                    2. “He was referring to the commenter up in the string who said that because no cops died obviously the bomber was not trying to target cops.”

                      Or he was as effective at targeting cops as you are at targeting truth.

                2. Maybe you’re still stuck in the 1960s, but these days when a suspected explosive device is being investigated, the police use robots to assess the situation first.

                  No police officers from EOD would’ve died in the bombing.

                  1. 1: Notwithstanding lethal shards of flying glass and falling bricks, with a large explosion confined within a narrow corridor of solid 19th Century masonry buildings, what would have been the lethal perimeter from the overpressure?

                    2: How many of our EOD servicemen died in Iraq, and from what?

                    And those deaths weren’t in a confined space like this…

                    1. 1) Irrelevant. No police officers died from this blast despite them having set up a perimeter because they had notice the vehicle was going to explode. Why don’t you share with us the answer, since I’m quite sure that you wouldn’t ask a question and expect a response from someone else that you have no fucking knowledge of yourself.

                      2) Again, irrelevant. IED’s don’t come with a warning that they’re going to explode.

                      No police officer would’ve investigated that vehicle in person, or attempted to disarm the bomb, until after the timer expired and no explosion occurred. Maybe you’re stupid enough, but thankfully they aren’t.

                      What other irrelevant things would you like to talk about? Vietnam? The weather in the artic this year? The Chinese calendar?

                3. “No, cops try to protect property by trying to defuse it.”

                  That’s not how it works. The first step to disposing of a bomb is to move to a location where it doesn’t matter if it goes off. Then, you set it off, using your own explosives if necessary. All that Hollywood “cut the red wire” stuff is bullshit.

        4. Why do you think that’s “the real stuff” rather than mentally ill people?

    3. You post your fantasies about violence against liberals all the time. When any kind of violence actually occurs, you are quick to declare it not your side.

      You’re pathetic, and will live in frustration.

      1. You mean like that time you straight up lied and said the “Grand Reset” was some right wing dream of a violent civil war….?

        https://www.weforum.org/great-reset/

        1. I don’t know or care what the grant reset is; you’re the one who invoked it when talking about “We all know what is coming soon enough…”
          ——————————————
          Did you read what you linked, Jimmy? Because it sounds like what’s coming is self-important rich guy wankery:
          As we enter a unique window of opportunity to shape the recovery, this initiative will offer insights to help inform all those determining the future state of global relations, the direction of national economies, the priorities of societies, the nature of business models and the management of a global commons. Drawing from the vision and vast expertise of the leaders engaged across the Forum’s communities, the Great Reset initiative has a set of dimensions to build a new social contract that honors the dignity of every human being.

          Re-adjust your tin foil maybe.

          1. My point was you had the knee jerk reaction that it was something it was not based upon your biased preconceived notions of the world. And you were completely wrong. Probably should stick to just watching MSNBC and talking with other libs in your own little bubble. The rest of the world is not meant for you.

            1. Yeah, I took your explanation of “We all know what is coming soon enough…” to be an actual explanation.

              Silly me, to assume you’re in good faith.

              You’ve mostly proven you are a coward who will not back up their constant threats.

              Accusing liberals who come to VC of not having broad media diets is pretty fail as well.

              1. Yes we all know what is coming. The libs think that they are going to make the next agenda push. That is what is coming. And that is what I said. Then you accused me of advocating violence (which I didn’t) along with your standard unfounded statements (including above).

                This is why no one takes you serious and why you have no credibility.

                1. “Yes we all know what is coming.”

                  Yes, the political gridlock of a second John Quincy Adams administration with the economic malaise of a second Jimmy Carter administration.

                2. LOL, keep lying about what you’re talking about.

                  You got Ed to believe you!

                  1. Relying on other people to be as stupid as Ed is not a wise bet. You can sell a good deal of horseshit to people who desperately want to believe, but there’s a limit to how much horseshit the market will bear.

                3. “Yes we all know what is coming.”

                  A great deal of bitter disappointment for one “Jimmy the Dane”, but other than that, not much.

      2. “You post your fantasies about violence against liberals all the time. When any kind of violence actually occurs, you are quick to declare it not your side.”

        If it had been detonated in front of an abortion clinic, with credible speculation that there was an intent to kill additional abortion providers, I’d be worried that you might be right.

        But that’s not what happened.

        It took out 911, not Planned Parenthood’s phones…

        1. Telling you think I’m saying it was a conservative.

          I did not, I just said calling it as from a liberal is dumb.

          I’m not making any such statements, because I’m not a storyteller such as yourself.

          1. but…but… but…
            if it doesn’t fit the preferred worldview, did it really happen?

    4. Jimmy, in fairness the cops have locked the story down quite well, right on down to banning the airspace (from news choppers). And to some extent, they need to do this to separate the truly guilty from the mentally ill — if someone was really guilty, they’re going to know things that the cops already do, and their confession has to match. Conversely, knowing too much often trips up the guilty.

      That said, if the reports of recorded gunshots are true — that’s something that definitely will bring lots of cops. (And if they were real gunshots, that’s even more interesting…)

      I’m also amazed that (a) that a fire “restarted” in the AT&T building last night and (b) that the lack of natural gas to run their emergency generators itself is precluding them restoring service.

      My guess is there is a lot more that we aren’t being told here because while yes, their equipment requires electricity and I have no doubt that both the electric & gas are shut off, but we’re not talking electric furnaces here…

      Most of the older TELCO equipment ran on 24 volt DC, and modern electronics is inherently low-voltage DC. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a good chunk of their power consumption is HVAC to remove the heat generated by their equipment. Still, I highly doubt their primary line power is anything more than basic three phase 120/208 “Wye” connection (if even that) — and you can supply that with Diesel generators in the street and (thick) extension cords run in the front door — it’s how they power the rides at county fairs.

      There’s lots of commercially-rentable generators on trailers (there’s even rentable steam boilers on trailers), any of the standard voltages you need, not to mention what the National Guard has. That’s doable, and any competent electrician knows that. So we get to how the fires “restarted” last night and what was burning. (Now if there were concerns about a Halon system tripping, that’d be a different story.)

      if the goal was to kill cops and to take out their phone/computer service (with the latter being accomplished), then whom would be interested in doing this? Not Team MAGA…

      1. Now if there are concerns about the structural integrity of the building itself — that would explain a lot of things because Nashville is a 24-hour drive from anywhere in the country, and AT&T has to have spare parts.

      2. “That said, if the reports of recorded gunshots are true — that’s something that definitely will bring lots of cops. (And if they were real gunshots, that’s even more interesting…)”

        Gunshots happen in urban centers for all kinds of reasons. At this point even assuming the reports of gunshots are true, there is no reason to connect them to the bombing.

        1. And cops respond to them. Shot spotter technology???

          1. “And cops respond to them.”

            Yes they do, but that’s not a rational basis to connect gunshots to the bombin.

            1. But cops saying that they discovered a vehicle announcing that it was a bomb in the course of responding to reports of gunshots, and witnesses saying that they called the cops after hearing what they thought was “automatic weapon fire” both ARE rational reasons to connect the two.

              1. No they are not.

              2. The Nashville police believe the suspect (who has been identified and was likely in the RV when it exploded) was acting alone.

          2. “And cops respond to them.”

            Unless they’re happening in a school. Then the cops “establish a perimeter”.

      3. “Most of the older TELCO equipment ran on 24 volt DC, and modern electronics is inherently low-voltage DC. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised if a good chunk of their power consumption is HVAC to remove the heat generated by their equipment. Still, I highly doubt their primary line power is anything more than basic three phase 120/208 “Wye” connection (if even that) — and you can supply that with Diesel generators in the street and (thick) extension cords run in the front door — it’s how they power the rides at county fairs.”

        Generators won’t help if the electrical wiring was compromised by fire.

        1. “Generators won’t help if the electrical wiring was compromised by fire.”

          Both Home Depot and Lowes sell wire by the foot — from *big* spools — and if asked nicely in an emergency, likely could get lots of spools of wire to Nashville within 24 hours, if necessary by pulling them out of stores in other states.

          It isn’t like they don’t want to sell it…

          1. And it takes time to safely run wire through the walls of a large building. Stringing it open isn’t safe.

            1. But before they even do that, they need to identify compromised circuits without starting new fires.

              1. And that’s what ohm meters are for. $10 at WalMart…

            2. Ever been to a county fair? Ever notice the black round things you are stepping on?

              UL recognizes temporary wiring (i.e. “stringing it open”) for I believe 90 days. It’s perfectly safe for temporary use.

              1. NB: Certain kinds of wire — not your standard THHN or Romex, but what are essentially giant extension cords with four rather than three wires inside, and all four being a lot thicker.

                1. We use those exclusively in my plant, even in the offices. Seems like overkill to me, but we’ve never had an extension cord catch fire.

                  1. There may be some OSHA specs involved.

                    It’s also very easy to overload a basic 16 gauge extension cord, and it’s easier & saver to oversize than not. Some of them may also have funky fittings because they are more than the standard single-phase 120 volts.

                    1. The difference between interior-grade wiring and outdoor-grade wiring is largely in what kind of material is used to jacket the wire. Plenum-grade cable doesn’t use PVC as jacket material, because burning PVC releases chlorine gas, and you don’t want that inside your building.

                    2. “The difference between interior-grade wiring and outdoor-grade wiring is largely in what kind of material is used to jacket the wire. Plenum-grade cable doesn’t use PVC as jacket material, because burning PVC releases chlorine gas, and you don’t want that inside your building.”

                      WRONG!

                      By definition (NEC & NFPA) the cables you are speaking of (e.g. Cat 5) are required to be under 50 volts, and yes, anything used inside a plenum (air duct) now has to meet additional requirements because of concerns about lethal combustion gasses (not just Chlorine) being distributed by the HVAC system.

                      BUT the “T” in THHN/THWN wire stands for “Thermoplastic” with PVC being used. This is your standard electrical wiring, and it’s rated up to 600 volts. Yes, it’s a problem when it burns, and that’s why the NEC requires Schedule 40 pipe conduit instead of tubing for large buildings. (“H” is heat, “W” is wet, “N” is nylon coated and manufacturers found it cheaper to meet all the specs than to have two different product lines.)

                      And what I was talking about was SOOW cable — Service, Oil, & Water/Weather resistant. It too probably gives off nasty stuff when burning, but again, it isn’t in an air duct.

                    3. Odd how you screech WRONG! in all caps and then proceed to concede that what I said was true. Well, that would be an odd thing for a non-moron to do.

    5. “Bomb in downtown Nashville destroys a city block and was probably targeting cops”

      Giving an audible warning that a bomb is about to go off in front of an office building is a poor way to target any sort of humans.

      Now that we know that the bomber was an old white dude from the suburbs, are you sticking with this theory? If not, do you ever stop to wonder if maybe some of your assumptions about the world are poorly founded?

      1. Considering the heaviest damage was to an AT&T building, in searching for a motive, they should probably be looking for a grudge against AT&T, was he a disgruntled ex-employee, a customer with a billing dispute?

        1. AT&T’s corporate logo resembles the Death Star. So you target the small thermal exhaust port below the main port, and hope to set off a chain reaction in the main reactor. The target is only two meters wide.

  5. I’m not at all happy about the court’s reading of the elections clause.

    “The state legislature gets to choose the manner in which the electors are chosen. They chose an election. There was an election. Elections clause satisfied!”

    By this reasoning, the state legislature could chose a proportional scheme like Maine, the state courts could decide winner take all was better, and everything would be peachy. Did anyone seriously take the elections clause to give the legislatures this little power? Anyone at all?

    It’s a joke.

    1. And the worst part is that these rulings are resulting in the election law violations being extended to this run off election!

      1. With violence already being openly promised if the Dems don’t win.

        And the FBI is doing a search at the home of the suspected Nashville bomber, who is speculated to have died in the explosion.
        I have no doubt that the media knows who is registered as living there, and the fact we’re not hearing that speaks volumes…

        1. WTF are you talking about. No volumes are being spoken. Would you get a brain?

          NBC is reporting the name of the resident of the house.

          Federal agents on Saturday searched the home of Anthony Quinn Warner, 63, in connection with the Nashville explosion on Christmas Day, according to multiple senior federal law enforcement officials.

          1. Imagine, your job is to certify election results. Then, when you’re going about certifying the results (or choosing not to…) imagine, getting pictures of mutilated bodies with the comments “Be a shame if something happened to your daughter at school”

            https://www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2020-12-23/charge-filed-in-threats-against-michigan-election-official

            1. That was election was stolen lunatics like you.

        2. “With violence already being openly promised if the Dems don’t win.”

          And no muttering about 2nd-amendment solutions coming from the right gallery whatsoever, of course.

      2. You sound like someone that would support a national election for president with national laws governing that particular election. So I assume you oppose the Electoral College which perpetuates having 50 state elections to determine who gets elected to the only 2 national offices we have??

        1. What I would support is the rule of law, which means the laws on the books actually being followed. And if you don’t like the laws on the books, go to the legislature to get them changed.

          That’s not what happened this year, and it isn’t what is happening in Georgia right now.

          1. From the opinion: The Wisconsin Legislature expressly assigned to the Commission “the responsibility for the administration of … laws relating to elections,” WIS.STAT. § 5.05(1)”

            1. And I suppose you don’t recognize any difference between administering laws and violating them? The court didn’t, but most people understand they’re not the same thing.

              1. Balancing between different laws doesn’t necessarily mean violating them. Except in your imagination.

          2. Georgia is completely controlled by Republicans, so any changes are being made by them, and they are making changes to make it harder to vote.

            1. Undoubtedly, they’re only making it harder to vote for those categories of voters who can’t be counted on to vote for Republican candidates.

          3. That’s not what happened this year, and it isn’t what is happening in Georgia right now.

            It’s exactly what happened this year, and is what is happening in Georgia right now.

        2. “You sound like someone that would support a national election for president with national laws governing that particular election. ”

          Isn’t that Team Trump’s position? That the states violated the law somehow by holding elections following state laws on how to hold an election?

      3. “And the worst part is that these rulings are resulting in the election law violations being extended to this run off election!”

        Run off election in the 7th Circuit?

      4. There are no election law violations. None. Zero. Zilch.

        1. They counted votes which were not for Mr. Trump. That’s gotta break some law, somewhere.

    2. That quote is not in the opinion. You can’t bash an opinion based on a quote that you made up.

      1. That’s why I didn’t attribute it. It’s a paraphrase.

        From the ruling: “The district court concluded that the President’s challenges lacked merit, as he objected only to the administration of the election, yet the Electors Clause, by its terms, addresses the authority of the State’s Legislature to prescribe the manner of appointing its presidential electors.”

        The district court explicitly limited the “manner of appointing” to the legislature having chosen an election, and set aside all the details of how the election was to be run as mere “administration” beyond the reach of the Electors Clause. It was an extraordinarily narrow reading of “manner”. Then went on to rule that, in having assigned the work of administering election laws to the Elections Commission, they had authorized that commission to just make up shit as they went along. They turned the ministerial work of the Elections Commission into a policy making job that authorized violating express terms of state election laws.

        IMO, I have accurately summed up the district court’s conclusion, which was adopted here: The legislature said electors would be selected by a public vote, there was a public vote, clause satisfied.

        1. The Rs have been arguing in court for the last few months that the state legislatures have ultimate and un-reviewable authority to decide how electors are chosen, even to the point of throwing out the results of an election. So by that logic, if a state legislature wanted to delegate the details to a state agency, then that would be their choice alone.

          1. “So by that logic, if a state legislature wanted to delegate the details to a state agency, then that would be their choice alone.”

            Brett is only OK with that if the state legislatures directs a state agency to select Republican electors. He’s not a secret partisan idiot, he’s quite open about it.

        2. I’m not sure Brett read the opinion. He doesn’t quote from it, just creates a straw an to get angry at.

          1. Look at the words following, “From the ruling”; They’re a quote from it. This decision simply adopted the district court’s reasoning, and I find the district court’s reasoning unpersuasive.

            1. No. You started this thread my making up a quote then creating an absurd scenario regarding activist judges. That is quite different from you just not liking the reasoning of the actual decision.

              1. In saying that he doesn’t like the reasoning of the actual decision, you’re implying that he understood it. This assumption may need further inspection.

          2. I’m quite sure that Brett doesn’t understand the opinion. Brett has no grasp of how legal interpretation works. He thinks that there is one true way to interpret the text of a law, and anyone who interprets it differently is just acting in bad faith. I really think he’s on the spectrum.

            1. ” Brett has no grasp of how legal interpretation works. He thinks that there is one true way to interpret the text of a law”

              Naw, he’s OK with any interpretation that favors his preferred political party, and anything that doesn’t favor them is evil and vile and not to be tolerated by normal, decent folk such as himself.

        3. ” That’s why I didn’t attribute it. It’s a paraphrase. ”

          The distinction between single and double quotation marks is for godless commie elitists!

        4. ” The legislature said electors would be selected by a public vote, there was a public vote, clause satisfied.”

          The only complaint you had was that the public didn’t vote the way you hoped they would.

        5. The district court explicitly limited the “manner of appointing” to the legislature having chosen an election, and set aside all the details of how the election was to be run as mere “administration” beyond the reach of the Electors Clause. It was an extraordinarily narrow reading of “manner”.

          It also ruled, alternatively, that if manner included administration, Trump still lost because the laws were followed.

          From the District Court: “the record shows defendants acted consistently with, and as expressly authorized by, the Wisconsin Legislature. Second, their guidance was not a significant or material departure from legislative direction.”

          From the Seventh Circuit: “But perhaps the better construction is to read the term “Manner” in the Electors Clause as also encompassing acts necessarily antecedent and subsidiary to the method for appointing electors—in short, Wisconsin’s conduct of its general election. Even on this broader reading, the President’s claims still would fall short.”

          IMO, I have accurately summed up the district court’s conclusion,

          Yes, which is why I call you this website’s living Dunning-Kruger poster boy. You don’t know enough to know that you are misunderstanding.

          1. The real problem, for Brett, is that the laws were not administered according to a plan which disenfranchised people who voted for Mr. Biden. This is how he thinks an election should be run: The people who agree with him get to vote, and the people who disagree with him do not get to have their votes counted. If you start with that fundamental understanding, then the election was stolen because Biden voters’ votes were counted, and there were a lot of them.

    3. Do you think state courts can engage in judicial review of state laws?

      1. QA,

        Brett has had this explained to him any number of times. He persists in repeating his tendentious comments.

        1. Yes, I’ve had the position I rejected explained to me any number of times, and still find it unpersuasive.

          1. OK, so again, Do you think state courts can engage in judicial review of state laws?

            1. Of course they can engage in judicial review of state laws.

              The point is that Presidential election related state laws are a special case, because the legislature isn’t exercising a state power when it enacts them, it’s exercising a delegated federal power. And that power was delegated to the legislature alone, not to the state as a whole.

              So, if a state court upends the state legislature’s chosen means for appointing Electors, it’s a federal matter, which the state judiciary don’t have the last word under.

              For normal legislation, the state judiciary can get away with saying up is down and day is night, and the matter can’t be appealed to the federal courts, because the state courts are considered by the federal judiciary to have the last word on what state laws mean, no matter how blatantly they get it wrong.

              For this particular sort of state law, that’s not true.

              1. But in this case, the court is deferring to the legislature’s chosen method to pick electors. And picking electors is not a federal power, it is a power given by the Constitution to the legislatures. Federal powers come from the federal government.

                1. “And picking electors is not a federal power, it is a power given by the Constitution to the legislatures.”

                  Given by the FEDERAL constitution.

                  1. What is that all caps supposed to signify? That if the ‘FEDERAL’ constitution gives a State powers then the State doesn’t have to follow it’s own (state) constitution in exercising them?

                    1. “That if the ‘FEDERAL’ constitution gives a State powers then the State doesn’t have to follow it’s own (state) constitution in exercising them?”

                      That’s an interesting question…

                  2. There is no federal jurisdiction, Brett. And it turns out when courts decide to get to the merits anyhow, you still lose on the facts.

                    You can’t stop confusing what the law is with what you want it to be. And what you want it to be seems no more substantive than an ‘I win’ button.
                    That’s why you don’t bother to quote the cases, and why your comments all sound the same regardless whether you’re in federal or state court or what jurisdiction or any number of things that would make a material difference.

                    Thanks to Trump being such an idiot, your thin not-actually-jurisprudence is laid bear to everyone except yourself.

                  3. The things a state legislature can do and the way they decide to do them are both limited by state constitutions, Brett. Did you forget this or just find it inconvenient to your party-line argument(s)?

              2. The Founders presumably were aware that the Legislatures they conferred this power on made laws under their state constitutions as reviewed by their state courts. You really think that in explicitly saying only ‘legislatures’ they were giving the state legislatures license to make election laws for federal elections that were contrary to their state constitutions? For example, if a state constitution gave residents the right to carry in all public places the state legislature could make a law banning carrying at polling places for federal (but not state and local) elections? Or if a state Constitution were interpreted to give residents the right to wear political messaged clothes in a polling place the legislature could override that right in federal (but not state and local elections)?

              3. the legislature isn’t exercising a state power when it enacts them, it’s exercising a delegated federal power. And that power was delegated to the legislature alone, not to the state as a whole.

                As usual, you state as a plain fact a matter that is not a plain fact at all.

                The Supreme Court has previously found that references to the state legislatures in the Constitution refer to the the states’ law-making power broadly, and do not assign the legislature in isolation unique powers.

                You know that, of course, but don’t like the implication.

              4. “Of course they can engage in judicial review of state laws. ”

                So you’re conceding that state legislatures can act in ways that they are not actually authorized to do by either state or federal Constitution.
                When they attempt to do so, those acts are actually null, and when courts exercise judicial review, what they’re actually doing is pointing out which acts of the legislature are null, not making them null, just recognizing when it happens.

                This knocks your argument into a hat. because your unstated premise is that the legislature can do no wrong when it uses power delegated to the states by the federal Constitution.

                Not that the fact that your argument lacks merit will cause you do abandon it, naturally.

              5. The best part of Brett’s dumb idea here is that he is managing to disagree with both the state courts’ interpretation of state constitutional and statutory law and the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal constitution, in favor of Brett’s idea of what state law and the U.S. constitution mean.

                The state court says that Wisconsin’s administration of Wisconsin’s election complied with state law. Brett says, “I know the One True Way to interpret Wisconsin law, so I disagree.” Then the U.S. courts said that whether Wisconsin’s administration of Wisconsin’s election complied with state law is not a constitutional issue. Brett says, “I know the One True Way to interpret the U.S. Constitution, so I disagree.”

                1. “The best part of Brett’s dumb idea here is that he is managing to disagree with both the state courts’ interpretation of state constitutional and statutory law and the federal courts’ interpretation of the federal constitution, in favor of Brett’s idea of what state law and the U.S. constitution mean.”

                  This is something he admitted upthread.
                  “Yes, I’ve had the position I rejected explained to me any number of times, and still find it unpersuasive.”

                  So stop trying to tell him something he doesn’t want to hear.

    4. When are you going to bother to answer direct questions related to the pardons, Brett?

      Coward.

      1. What do you think I do, hourly review every comment thread I’ve ever participated in?

        1. You posted multiple follow-ups to the thread in question, yet somehow never bothered to address the challenge, even after other comments mentioned how you never address anything you’re challenged on and just run away.

          This happened just over the last three days. You’ve also run away with your tail between your legs when called out on your selective quoting and deliberate distorting of context in an effort to push your falsehoods.

          1. You posted multiple follow-ups to the thread in question

            You know you can post links to specific comments, right? The rest of us certainly aren’t going to go back fishing for whatever you might be talking about in your multiple angsty paragraphs.

            1. All you need to know, Brian, is that Brett, as always, posted unsupported nonsense and disappeared as soon as he was challenged to provide proof. But that’s our Brett, isn’t it?

              1. All you need to know, Brian

                Oh, ok. Someone’s definitely feeling frisky. Does it get worse after the inauguration?

                It turns out I missed that moshpit of an article — just went back and found it myself. Thanks so much to both of you.

                Having done that, it’s clear enough why neither you nor Jason wanted to point to specifics. The only outstanding question I see is in classic “have you stopped beating your wife yet” form. Crossing articles to crow/bitch about the lack of an answer to that sort of question is an… interesting choice.

                If there was something else, feel free to point it out.

                1. Wasn’t the question simply ‘can you name one pardon Trump shouldn’t have granted?’ How is that ‘have you stopped beating your wife yet form?

                  I mean, if you can’t find any of Trump’s pardons to smell like fish that’s….cultish.

                  1. Wasn’t the question simply ‘can you name one pardon Trump shouldn’t have granted?

                    Well, no, since we can all clicky clicky on the linky linky I finally provided after “you people” refused.

                    For the lazy, it wasn’t a question — it was a directive. And an utterly pointless one, unless you’re into purity tests. Which apparently Jason C is (unless he was just drunkposting last night, which is entirely possible looking at the entire range of the frothing).

                    1. Evidently you missed the statement made by Brett before he ran away that prompted the challenge:

                      “If you’ve got enough animus towards Trump, you can find evil in anything he does.”

                      Notably, Brett CANNOT find evil in anything Trump does, and the moment he’s challenged to do so with what should have been an extremely easy exercise in morality, he runs off and hides.

                      Semantics and excuses aside, you’re just as bad as he is. Cultists gonna cult.

                    2. “If you’ve got enough animus towards Trump, you can find evil in anything he does.”

                      Notably, Brett CANNOT find evil in anything Trump does

                      Um, I think it’s crystal clear you need a remedial lesson on Venn diagrams.

                      That’s probably a task better approached sober. How’s that coming?

                    3. Judging by Brett’s behavior and comments, my observation is 100% correct.

                      Your Venn diagram comment is idiotic, and unsupported by Brett’s history here. It’s starting to look like you belong where he’s demonstrated himself to be as well. Maybe that’s why you’re so hung up on the issue.

                      Just one cultist desperately trying to distract from the failings of another.

                    4. “Um, I think it’s crystal clear you need a remedial lesson on Venn diagrams.”

                      Here’s your remedial diagram.

                      One circle, labeled “rational people”

                      Another, completely non-overlapping circle, labeled “Republicans” with a dot inside it labeled “Brett”.

                2. Even Pat Toomey has something negative to say about some of the pardons.

                  https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/27/toomey-trump-pardons-450759

                  You people, when backed into a corner, will find any reason to avoid answering questions. What’s your excuse now?

                  1. “You people?”

                    Normally that’s ___ist — but apparently some ___ are less untouchable than others. Surprise surprise.

                    1. If you object to being called a racist, stop saying racist things and stop doing racist things, and eventually, people will forget that you are a racist.

                      Alternatively, you can keep acting like a racist and complain about being called a racist, and see if anything changes.

                    2. Racist? You’re unhinged. Put up or shut up, as the saying goes.

                    3. If the shoe fits, quit complaining when people talk about your choice in footwear.

            2. P.S. He’s a lot like Sidney Powell and Rudy Guiliani in that regard.

        2. In the time you took to write this you could have made a brief comment about how you see the pardons.

          But, I can’t blame a Trump fan for not addressing them. Draining the swamp indeed…

        3. I wouldn’t bother wasting your time. The libs around here are not interested in discussion. The standard liberal line here is “you must include a footnote citation for anything you state” if it goes against the orthodoxy or the narrative. Everything else is accepted. Pointing out double standards will result in the same treatment.

          Hopefully this can all be corrected soon enough…

          1. “I wouldn’t bother wasting your time. The libs around here are not interested in discussion.”

            projection.

            ” The standard liberal line here is “you must include a footnote citation for anything you state” if it goes against the orthodoxy or the narrative.”

            Says the guy who likes to complain “your citation fell off”.

            “Pointing out double standards will result in the same treatment.”

            Pointing out your mistakes doesn’t seem to cause any change in behavior.

            1. You are just making stuff up now as the left around here does when they need filler material.

              1. Your imagination is very vivid.

          2. The standard liberal line here is “you must include a footnote citation for anything you state” if it goes against the orthodoxy or the narrative.

            The trouble is that a number of us, including myself, have gone to the trouble of checking on some of the claims RWer’s make here, and, without much effort, found them to be false. The claims were never retracted, no apologies were issued, etc.

            So, speaking for myself, I don’t accept claims from those commenters without documentation. There are those who simply don’t argue in good faith.

            1. “..without much effort, found them to be false.”

              Well, yes, the “without much effort” part is telling. Seeing that major tech companies engage in active disinformation and censorship it I’m sure you don’t find it difficult to engage in confirmation bias.

              1. If you don’t like the information you’re getting from the tech companies, stop using them. That should fix the problem.

                1. You confuse information I get (not from tech companies) with what you think it “real” which is part of your problem….

                  1. No, I absolutely DO NOT confuse the information you get with anything that is real.

                    As noted previously, you have an extremely vivid imagination.

                    And nothing you said this time around changes the fact that if you object to the tech companies and their policies, you should stop using their products. Sit at home in the dark and just let the information flow to you using the channels that don’t involve any tech companies.

              2. Your response to people saying you just say crap without anything to back it up is…saying crap without backing it up.

                1. that’s what people do when they have nothing to back up what they say except imaginary voices telling them how true what they say is.

          3. “I wouldn’t bother wasting your time.”

            You waste lots of my time.

        4. “What do you think I do, hourly review every comment thread I’ve ever participated in?”

          Doesn’t saying your name three times in front of a computer monitor summon you into existence?

    5. The Maine scheme is not “proportional”. It does not look at the state wide popular vote and decide candidate A got 1/nth of the votes so he get’s 1/nth of the electors.

      1. It’s more proportional than winner takes all.

        Anyway, that’s beside the point: Does the legislature get to make binding rules about anything besides, “People will vote at some point”?

        Apparently not, so far as the judiciary are concerned.

        1. As Molly points out here the legislature made a binding rule that the commission could make rules administering the election.

          1. This is only OK to Brett if the commission makes rules that favor his party. If they make fair rules, they’re denying his party their fair advantage.

        2. “It’s more proportional than winner takes all.”

          It’s not proportional in even the smallest degree imaginable.

        3. ” Does the legislature get to make binding rules about anything besides, ‘People will vote at some point’?”

          Depends on what authority they were granted. If they have autghority to make binding rules, then they can make them. But if they do NOT have the authority, the rules they make are not binding because (duh) they didn’t have the authority to make that rule.

        4. Anyway, that’s beside the point: Does the legislature get to make binding rules about anything besides, “People will vote at some point”?

          Of course.

          And if state officials refuse to follow those rules, said legislature can impeach them.

          It could go to court before the election and secure a court order that officials had to apply the rules differently.

          What can’t happen is that a random interloper from outside the state come in and get a federal judge to decide differently.

          1. The real objection is the attempt to have valid votes discarded after they turned out to be for the “wrong” guy.

    6. By this reasoning, the state legislature could chose a proportional scheme like Maine, the state courts could decide winner take all was better, and everything would be peachy. Did anyone seriously take the elections clause to give the legislatures this little power? Anyone at all?

      Yes. Everyone. Does anyone on the planet think that the framers intended that federal courts would decide what the meaning of state election laws was, and whether state officials had complied with those state election laws?

      Whether a state official complies with state law was, and is, a matter of state, not federal, concern. If a state legislature felt that its prerogatives were being challenged, it had its own remedies that did not involve asking the federal judiciary to intervene. If a state’s voters felt that their wishes were being ignored, they had their own remedies that did not involve asking the federal judiciary to intervene.

      1. Back up a second. There are a couple of restraints placed on the states by the federal Constitution. If those are violated, then federal judges can, in fact, enforce them. Until the Conservatives can put enough justices on the Supreme Court to overrule the 15th amendment, anyway.

        1. Yes, of course federal courts can decide whether states have violated the federal constitution or federal law. That’s not what I was addressing; I was addressing whether a state official complies with state law. The constitution says that voting can’t be abridged on the basis of race/sex/age over 18/etc. If the Trumpkin complaints were that these states were doing that, it would be perfectly appropriate to go to federal court.

          But what Brett and these frivolous lawsuits want to do is something entirely different. They want to federalize state law. Their argument, with no basis in anything, is that because the constitution says that state legislatures can set the manner of choosing electors, that every single decision made by a state official presents a federal constitutional question of whether that official is complying with state law. If a legislature says that voting dropboxes are allowed, but not within 500 feet of a liquor store,¹ then (according to them) it’s a question for the federal judiciary whether a particular dropbox set up by a county election clerk is within 500 feet of a liquor store. That’s just lunacy. No sane person thinks that’s what the Electors clause means.

          ¹No, I don’t know why; it’s just a hypothetical.

          1. “No sane person thinks that’s what the Electors clause means.”

            You’re still over-focused on the wrong thing. (Mr. Trump has led you astray).

    7. “By this reasoning, the state legislature could chose a proportional scheme like Maine, the state courts could decide winner take all was better, and everything would be peachy.”

      From the holding:

      “The complaint does not allege that the Commission’s guidance documents shifted Wisconsin from a general election to some other manner of appointing electors, like those used in other states in the past.”

      The problem is that the President’s lawyers didn’t allege or prove a violation of Wisconsin state election law. This is because the complaint was that the entity the Wisconsin state legislature assigned with responsibility for handling elections, handled the election. That’s the point distinguishing this from Bush v. Gore. The President is basically complaining that the Legislature gave the Commission authority to do X, and the Commission did X.

      The President needed to win in state court, and he couldn’t do that, either.

      1. “The President needed to win in state court, and he couldn’t do that, either.”

        No, he needed to win at the polling places, and since he didn’t do that, no sane, rational person supports his staying in office past next month.

  6. The court wrote: We would not go further and ask, for example, whether Wisconsin’s officials interpreted perfectly “[i]solated sections” of the elections code.

    The Wisconsin Legislature expressly assigned to the Com-mission “the responsibility for the administration of … laws relating to elections,” (end quote)

    Legislators write laws, someone else always and everywhere has to administer them. The court made a whole lot of hay out of nothing. The court simply decided not to examine whether the commission followed the laws. Without some evaluation whether the commission remained faithful to the laws while administering those laws they are granting whoever administers elections in each state a free pass to do as they please.

    Had this court simply taken the steps to evaluate the commission’s actions vis-a-vis the laws in place at the time of the election and found them reasonably tailored to those laws(or not), we would have an actual hearing of the complaint rather than yet another punt -though with the semblance of having done their duty.

    1. State courts had already done that evaluation.

      You’re asking a federal court to second guess the correctness of a state court (actually the state court system) interpreting state law.

      1. And we all know that the sanctity of state courts is only when those decisions fit into the liberal agenda. Voting rights are great federal questions when it is southern states (that happen to vote Republican) but not so great when it comes to questionable decisions that seem to help Democrats. Same goes with the death penalty, civil rights, gay marriage, and any other question.

        State Courts = good if supports liberal agenda.
        State Courts = bad if not.

        1. Conveniently enough, here’s the WI S.Ct. on the state law issues: https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/ORDER-3.pdf

          Just because you don’t like the result doesn’t mean the issues were ignored.

          1. Whoop, that was in reply to Mike H, not JtD, apologies for messing up the threading.

        2. These decisions were not about voting rights, but thanks for playing.

          1. “voting rights” is only the right to vote if you are a democrat or can’t figure out how to properly register, prove your identity, or cast a ballot in a timely manner.

            People who are capable of doing all the above also have a right to have their ballot counted and not diluted because courts create exceptions for losers who cannot (or will not) follow the rules.

            1. Cool. “Gun rights” only apply to people who take and pass a safe-handling class, and register their weapons with the government.

              1. Not in the way you think, but yes you also need to follow the applicable rules to own a gun. Courts don’t make exceptions for people who can’t seem to follow the rules to own guns. “Oh you didn’t want to fill out that form for the background check? Well that is fine you shouldn’t have to do that because it is inconvenient…” would be the equivalent for guns on how the courts treat the right to vote.

                1. 🙂

                  Oh, you couldn’t follow that rule about not having a loaded shotgun in a motor vehicle and now it’s gone off (why the law was passed — there were a *lot* of accidental discharges in vehicles in the 1930’s). No big deal. So you killed someone — no big deal…

                  1. there were a *lot* of accidental discharges in vehicles in the 1930’s).

                    No, there weren’t.

                2. “yes you also need to follow the applicable rules to own a gun.”

                  But “keeping” and “bearing” cannot be infringed. I read that somewhere.

              2. If only gun rights got the treatment of voting rights.

                1. y’see, what happened was is that one party in the US decided to throw all its effort into overcoming voting rights. Despite some peoples’ misinformation, that hasn’t happened for gun rights.

            2. You can strawman all day, as is becoming increasingly your thing.

              Well that, and hint about political violence and then lie about it.

              Seems like you’re finding it harder to care enough to put in the effort these days.

              1. Alas all you can do is make up stuff, which is your MO. And this is why no one takes you seriously.

                1. Call me dishonest all you want, Jimmy. I know what I am (and it ain’t that), and I’m pretty sure you know what you are.

                  1. He seems to have a bit of a problem with psychological projection.
                    He knows that HE isn’t honest, so he assumes that nobody is. That’s what makes him a proper subject for mockery.

            3. People who are capable of doing all the above also have a right to have their ballot counted and not diluted because courts create exceptions for losers who cannot (or will not) follow the rules.

              Still not voting rights.

              Making it easier to vote, even if you don’t want it to be so, is not infringing on the rights of people who voted, you aristocratic fussbucket.

              1. Yes you do have a right to not have your vote diluted by making it so those who don’t follow the rules all the sudden are allowed to do so.

                1. Where does it say that?

                  1. Common sense tell you that you can’t change the rules because you are a loser who does not follow the rules.

                    1. I asked about where the right was. This has nothing to do with a right.

                      Second, if you successfully change the rules, it does not matter why, those are the rules.

                      Third, appeals to common sense is how you know you have nothing.

                    2. “Common sense tell you that you can’t change the rules because you are a loser who does not follow the rules.”

                      Somebody get Mr. Trump on the phone. He needs to hear this.

                2. Be honest about what you are saying. People with the legal right to vote who follow all the rules that the election authorities claim to be in force at the time of the voting should have their votes disallowed because Donald Trump and his malcontent catamites don’t like the fact that Trump lost the election. It has nothing to do with the rule of law or people not following the rules as all these votes that you want disallowed were cast by people following the rules as presented by competent authority.

                  1. “BUT I WANTED *MY* GUY TO WIN!!!”

    2. Mike, are you insisting Trump really won in Wisconsin? If not, why not shut up?

      Or are you in favor of overturning the presidential election on the basis of an inconsequential technicality? What are you advocating here, and why?

  7. Obviously, we should set up our election systems so that whoever lost the last election makes the rules for the next election. This instantly solves the problem of gerrymandering, because if you draw all the districts so that you win all the seats, you won’t be drawing the districts next time around. How much do we, collectively, want to limit volatility in our political representation.

    1. Or when the liberals have something called the “Lincoln Project” and talk about setting up a rigged system whereby Democrats are structurally always in power and then talk about how they need to get rid of a duly elected President using by whatever means, lawful or not, we ought to take them at their word treating them accordingly.

      1. Where do you get this shit, Alex Jones?

        1. Our very own AK has been parroting this shit since Summer. All over the internet. Nothing “alex jones” about it.

          1. RAK has never talked about unlawful means to do anything.

      2. The Lincoln Project

        (a) was not “the liberals,” but actual conservatives who care about actual conservative principles rather than the cult of personality known as Trumpism;
        (b) did not involve talk of any “rigged system”;
        (c) did not endorse Democrats structurally always being in power;
        (d) did not talk about getting rid of a duly elected president by using unlawful means.

        1. Are you attempting to deploy facts against Mr. the Dane?

          This will have no effect.

      3. ” talk about setting up a rigged system whereby Democrats are structurally always in power”

        I live in a state that has a predominantly Republican legislature, who reacted to having voters choose a Democrat as governor by stripping a wide swath of authority from the governor. Is that the sort of rigged system you’re referring to?

    1. Poor Mr. the Dane does not seem to recall that the “cancel culture nazis” came from his side of the aisle.

Please to post comments