If Republicans and conservative ideals are so awesome and so much better than those of Democrats and liberals, why the fuck do they need to constantly pull illegal shit to push forth those ideals?
That argument goes both ways.
It really doesn't, and you know that.
It does and you know that. Jesus.
Scenario 1. Scott sues because they are not being transparent with amounts of votes left and counted so far in a couple of Democratic areas. By law, he is correct. However, in Democratic view, he is trying to prevent ballots from being counted that could go against him. Republican view, without transparency you cannot trust the process and if you say how many votes you have from the beginning and as they are counted the number goes down, you can trust those results. With a possible never ending supply of votes due to no disclosure, naturally there will be distrust of the results.
Scenario 2. Democratic lawyers are going to sue that the ballots with no Senate vote were meant to vote for Nelson and should be counted or were marked for Nelson and not counted. By law, a vote is what a vote is. There is no I meant to. Democratic view, if someone intended to vote for someone it should count and this is voter supression. Republican view, the rules exist for a reason regarding this and if you could allow vote changes based on intent then you have to allow it for everyone which would destroy the process. Then whoever didn't vote should be given votes because they intended to vote and so on. A never ending cycle.
There is very rarely a clear cut correct side. It generally comes down to which side you think is correct.
Uh...I was talking about Donald Trump illegally appointing someone as acting AG (I say illegally since if Sessions was technically fired, then a new AG requires Senate confirmation, and if Sessions legitimately resigned, Trump can STILL only select a replacement from people who were already confirmed by the Senate, not Sessions' Chief of Staff who happens to agree with Trump's desire to hamstring the Mueller investigation.) I really don't care about the Florida stuff.
It quite possible is illegal. There is precedent for it, however. Despite it being ruled against.
"Experts debate whether Whitaker can be acting attorney general without Senate confirmation. One argument in support of the appointment relies on the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, which says a person may serve no longer than 210 days beginning on the date the vacancy occurs, or once a first or second nomination for the office is submitted to the Senate, from the date of such nomination for the period that the nomination is pending in the Senate. If the Senate rejects a presidents nominee, then the temporary replacement can serve for another 210-day period.
Conway and Katyal said that argument is flawed, citing the Supreme Court ruling last year that Lafe Solomon improperly served as the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board because he was not confirmed by the Senate. Former President Barack Obama appointed Solomon to the position in 2010."
Something tells me you weren't up in arms when Obama did it though. Wonder why. ---