Time Crisis Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Bajden jedva pobeđuje u situaciji kad bukvalno nema skoro nikakvog negativnog nasleđa, a Tramp je pritisnut sa svih strana. Za 4 godine (ako Tramp ne pandrkne u međuvremenu), imaće i Bajden sigurno štošta negativnog, Trampu će biti dovoljno samo da ide u kampanju sa "eto, jel sam vam rekao"
Joe D Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 4 minutes ago, Time Crisis said: Bajden jedva pobeđuje u situaciji kad bukvalno nema skoro nikakvog negativnog nasleđa, a Tramp je pritisnut sa svih strana. Za 4 godine (ako Tramp ne pandrkne u međuvremenu), imaće i Bajden sigurno štošta negativnog, Trampu će biti dovoljno samo da ide u kampanju sa "eto, jel sam vam rekao" da to tako ide, cesce bi incumbent gubio izbore. ovako smo imali cartera, busha i trumpa od drugog svetskog rata. ne bi ni narandzasti izgubio da nije bilo pandemije. i trump nece biti kandidat za 4 godine. nema sanse.
Time Crisis Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Just now, Joe D said: da to tako ide, cesce bi incumbent gubio izbore. ovako smo imali cartera, busha i trumpa od drugog svetskog rata. ne bi ni narandzasti izgubio da nije bilo pandemije. Da je normalna situacija verovatno i ne bi, ali i Bajdena čeka pandemija i efekti pandemije
pasha Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Dolaze neki miks signali. Foks javalj da Tramp mozda prizna poraz ali to je Foks, oni jednu agendu vrhuske republikanaca a oni ne verujem da su odusevaljni da se ovo puno razvlaci po sudovima. Sa druge strane neki konzervativni pravnici su ubedjeni da dobijaju na Vrhovnom sudu tj. da ce se ponisti svi glasovi koji su stigli nakon 20h izbornog dana i da ce zbog malih razlika u mnogim drzavama to omoguciti da Tramp ostane predsednik. Prvo ce obarati u Pensilvaniji a onda ce to ici na druge posle odluke Vrhovnog suda. Why Trump Will Triumph in PA Litigation On October 28, 2020, in Republican Party of Pennsylvania vs. Boockvar, SCOTUS declined “a motion to expedite consideration of a petition for a writ of certiorari”. Let’s explain what that is, and what’s at stake, and why Trump is going to follow up. A writ of certiorari orders a lower court to deliver its record in a case so that the higher court may review it. In this case, SCOTUS was being asked to issue a writ against the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, the highest court in that state. A petition [for a writ of certiorari] is a request by a litigant in the lower court, to a higher court, asking the higher court to order the lower court to issue the writ. In this case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania had decided against the Republican Party, so the Republican Party petitioned the Supreme Court of the US. Petitions can take a long time to resolve. A motion [to expedite consideration of a petition] is a request, by a litigant who has filed a petition, that the higher court accelerate its process of review. In this case, the Republican Party had filed the motion to expedite. Translated into common English: In Boockvar, the Republican Party sent a request to the US Supreme Court to review a lower court case, and then asked them to hurry up about it. The US Supreme Court declined the motion to expedite, e.g. it refused to hurry up. But - and this is very important - it did not deny the petition for the writ of certiorari. Thus the situation as it stands is that there is still a petition before the Supreme Court to review the situation in Pennsylvania, it just refused to do so before the election. Now that raises the question: What’s the situation in Pennsylvania? Let’s work through that. In 2019, the PA legislature passed a law called Act 77 that permitted all voters to cast their ballots by mail but (in Justice Alito’s words) “unambiguously required that all mailed ballots be received by 8 p.m. on election day.” The exact text is 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019-77, which stated: “No absentee ballot under this subsection shall be counted which is received in the office of the county board of elections later than eight o'clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.” I agree with Justice Alito: That is unambiguous. Act 77 also provided that if this portion of the law was invalidated, that much of the rest of Act 77, including its liberalization of mail-in voting, would also be void. The exact text is: “Sections 1, 2, 3, 3.2, 4, 5, 5.1, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 12 of this act are nonseverable. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void.” To again put this into common English, the Pennsylvania legislature passed a law that said mail-in ballots had to arrive by 8PM on election day to be counted, and then said that if the Court over-ruled that law, the entire law that permitted mail-in ballots was invalid. In the face of this clear text, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, by a vote of four to three, made the following decrees, summarized here by SCOTUS: Mailed ballots don’t need to be received by a election day. Instead, ballots can be accepted if they are postmarked on or before election day and are received within three days thereafter. Note that this is directly contravenes the text above. A mailed ballot with no postmark, or an illegible postmark, must be regarded as timely if it is received by that same date. In doing so, PAs’ high court expressly acknowledged that “the statutory provision mandating receipt by election day was unambiguous” and conceded the law was “constitutional,” but still re-wrote the law because it thought it needed to do so in the face of a “natural disaster.” It justified its right to do so under the Free and Equal Elections Cause of the PA State Constitution. Now, if you are a conservative, you are already angry. You despise this method of jurisprudence, which elite Harvard lawyers might call “living Constitutionalism,” and you believe that judges should enforce laws as written by lawmakers. You believe this case never should have gotten to SCOTUS because what the State Supreme Court did was egregious! . However, if you’re of a more liberal inclination, you’re probably happy with this outcome. You’re happy because it’ll help Biden win, of course; but in general, you’re likely to be fine with a high court establishing a new right if you think it protects oppressed people from majoritarian tyranny. If you’re a committed progressive, in fact, you likely will want to dismiss the entire case as just another defeat for outdated textualism in the face of living constitutionalism. It’s easy to frame this case as one of reactionary judges clinging to the letter of the law, while progressive justices overturn the letter of the law to reflect its true spirit. This is the view that CNN and MSNBC are promoting. Had the Pennsylvania Supreme Court simply ruled that Act 77 was unconstitutional under PA’s Free and Equal Elections clause, this would have been a classic “textualism” vs. “living constitutionalism” case. But it’s not. There is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution. Justice Alito writes: “The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.” Justice Alito is referring to the following clauses of the US Constitution: Art. I, §4, cl. 1, which states “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” Art. II, §1, cl. 2, which states “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.” Again, translating this into common English, the US Constitution grants state legislators the exclusive right to prescribe the time, place, and manner of holding elections, and to direct the appointment of the electors. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court didn’t just say “Act 77 is unconstitutional.” It re-wrote Act 77 itself, by judicial fiat, creating new rules for time, place, and manner, of holding elections. In doing so, the State Supreme Court violated the US Federal Constitution. And that’s the real case here. The US Supreme Court is going to rule that the State Supreme Court violated the US Constitution, the State Supreme Court’s ruling is going to be overturned, and the votes that arrived after 8 PM on election day will be discarded. On that basis, Trump will win Pennsylvania. Publish on Substack This site uses cookies. To find out more, read our privacy policy ✖ Close
pasha Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Kudlow: I think there will be a peaceful transfer of power We abide by the rule of law and so will this President There are some things to clean up but I will leave that to him President intends to keep on fighting until all the legal ballots are counted
pasha Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Ova je deo vrhuske i jasno se ogradjuje tj, pusta da Tramp ide sam sa svojim timom.
pasha Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Budja said: Ma kakva 2024. Mator je suvise. Problem ce biti ako krenu da se svete Tramparai tuzbama i zatvorom, pa naprave od njega zrtvu i centralnu pricu naredne cetiri godine. To je standardni model po kojem se operise u Juznoj Americi - Lula kao najbolji primer. Za stabilnost najbolji lek je ignorancija. Ne desava se to u SAD. Mogu mozda nesto marketinski ali ne sustinski. Doduse sve zavisi kako ovo dalje bude islo oko brojanja i sudova. Mislim da ce ga vrhuska Republikanaca pritisnuti da prizna rezultate za mir nakon izbora. Nije ni Tramp isao na Hilari iako onoliko obecavao 2016. Edited November 6, 2020 by pasha
vememah Posted November 6, 2020 Author Posted November 6, 2020 (edited) U Pensilvaniji se po tvrdnji novinara NYT ne broje glasovi stigli posle 8 uveče izbornog dana. Edited November 6, 2020 by vememah
Baldrick S. Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 U Pensilvaniji se po tvrdnji novinara NYT ne broje glasovi stigli posle 8 uveče izbornog dana. Tako pricaju i na cnn-u vec 2 dana ali samo zbog toga što čekaju da prvo izbroje glasove koji su stigli do 8 a ima ih još oko 150K pa ce onda da broje pristigle posle 8 i da ih zavedu. Tako je valjda sud odredio, kad su donosili zakon kad broje poštanske glasove.Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
vememah Posted November 6, 2020 Author Posted November 6, 2020 (edited) Ako Bajden pobeđuje bez naknadno pristiglih glasova, a izgleda da je tako, cela ta priča koju je pasha preneo sa Zerohedgea može da se obesi mačku o rep. Edited November 6, 2020 by vememah
pasha Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Ostaje da se vidi. Da li je takva situacija u Micigenu i Viskonsinu? Mada mislim da ce pritisnuti dovoljno Trampa da pristane da se ne razvlaci po sudovima.
adam Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 11 minutes ago, vememah said: Ako Bajden pobeđuje bez naknadno pristiglih glasova, a izgleda da je tako, cela ta priča koju je pasha preneo sa Zerohedgea može da se obesi mačku o rep. da. ovo su glasovi koji su stigli pre zatvaranja biralista.
Baldrick S. Posted November 6, 2020 Posted November 6, 2020 Malopre sam gledao vodju republikanaca u senatu Pensilvanije i kaže da će skoro 100% da razvlače Pens po sudovima ali ni jednom nije pomenuo broj glasova nego "zabranu prisustva posmatrača u procesu glasanja, sto pre sto tokom glasanja". Naravno da je Foks pokrio ovaj live intervju sa lajvom brojanja glasova u filadelfiji gde je u krupnom planu lik koji snima brojace sa bedzom "make america great again". Za kasnije pristigle u ostalim drzavama sam skoro siguran da sam čuo da su skoro svuda odvojili za posebno glasanje (ne posebno nego da budu fizicki odvojeni).Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Recommended Posts