Poll of the Day > Supreme Court Rejects Texas Lawsuit Challenging Biden's Victory

(+) Yeah! (+)

Yep, you guys are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guys, no one has ever thought they were the good guys but were actually not better than anyone else before

---

Muscles posted...

Yep, you guys are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guys, no one has ever thought they were the good guys but were actually not better than anyone else before

Do you think this makes you sound intelligent?

---

Muscles posted...

Yep, you guys are the good guys and everyone else is the bad guys, no one has ever thought they were the good guys but were actually not better than anyone else before

Says the guy who just wants to win some sort personal superiority "You're all bad but I'm great because I don't affiliate with you!"

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

They would be told they voted legally when they hadn't.

That's not disenfranchising them, though. They still voted. That they didn't vote "legally" matters a lot less than you think it does, because all parties involved made a good-faith assumption that the votes were legal. Hence, they were able to cast their ballot for the next US president, which is Joe Biden. That is not, by any definition of the word, "disenfranchisement", because those votes were cast and counted.

There is a bucketload of jurisprudence behind this. Even if 100% of Texas's allegations were true (reminder: all nine SCOTUS judges, along with several dozen lower court judges, have all determined that they are not), that would not lead to those votes being removed. The appropriate remedy for that - as has been done several times in the past - is telling the elections board of the offending states to fix their laws for the next election.

You cannot wait until after an election to challenge the laws under which that election was held and expect to have it impact the results. It is not a coincidence that the only states where voting rights were expanded that were sued by Texas were ones where Biden won; not a single Trump state was included in the suit, despite several changing their laws in the exact same manner that the respondents did.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

44 of the 50 states appear to have thought otherwise.

No, they did not.

Muscles posted...

As someone that hates both parties, it's true. I have a better look of it being an outside observer as opposed to being in the in group.

I'm reminded of this:

https://miro.medium.com/max/799/1*bqUzj3zU13ig7F24Hx7LeA.jpeg

Being in the middle is not always the correct path.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

Says the guy who just wants to win some sort personal superiority "You're all bad but I'm great because I don't affiliate with you!"

I'm just as bad as the rest of you, I'm not really superior to anyone, but neither are you guys so stfu about the right being the only bad guys

---

Muscles posted...

I'm just as bad as the rest of you, I'm not really superior to anyone, but neither are you guys so stfu about the right being the only bad guys

No one said that, you just got offended and inferred that.

BlackScythe0 posted...

No one said that, you just got offended and inferred that.

You did when you said

"I know you want try doing the "you're just as bad as us!" but we aren't."

There are really good people on both sides, just as there are really bad people on both sides. Sure if you compare yourself to the bad Republicans you can think you're better but there are many Republicans that actually care about people too, many that are super charitable good people that would help anyone. Of course you probably don't see or minimize the bad parts of your party.

---

Muscles posted...

You did when you said

"I know you want try doing the "you're just as bad as us!" but we aren't."

There are really good people on both sides, just as there are really bad people on both sides. Sure if you compare yourself to the bad Republicans you can think you're better but there are many Republicans that actually care about people too, many that are super charitable good people that would help anyone. Of course you probably don't see or minimize the bad parts of your party.

One side argues fraud without evidence the other didn't. I view arguing fraud without evidence to be bad. What exactly is the problem with my statement?

While you may be right about that specific argument, what you said didn't imply that was the only thing you were basing it off of, if that's your intention then I apologize but it seemed like you meant overall

---

shut up muscles you're as red as they come we all've seen the dumb shit you say

---

Muscles posted...

There are really good people on both sides, just as there are really bad people on both sides.

Do you think you live in a fucking anime or something?

---

darkknight109 posted...

That's not disenfranchising them, though. They still voted.

My original point was that in a scenario where the votes are not counted due to being ruled illegal it would not be the judge disenfranchising the voters due to their ruling. Their ruling is an acknowledgement that the state disenfranchised the voters due to improper voting procedure.

darkknight109 posted...

https://miro.medium.com/max/799/1*bqUzj3zU13ig7F24Hx7LeA.jpeg

Being in the middle is not always the correct path.

That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions. It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue. It's more like agreeing with this side more on this issue while agreeing with that side more on that issue.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My original point was that in a scenario where the votes are not counted due to being ruled illegal it would not be the judge disenfranchising the voters due to their ruling. Their ruling is an acknowledgement that the state disenfranchised the voters due to improper voting procedure.

That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions. It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue. It's more like agreeing with this side more on this issue while agreeing with that side more on that issue.

Trump lost fair an square, its true.

---

HellHole_ posted...

shut up muscles you're as red as they come we all've seen the dumb shit you say

I support legalization of all drugs, guy marriage, prostitution, pro choice laws, and think the military budget should should be cut, ohh and hate the police, how am I Republican? They hate people like me

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

My original point was that in a scenario where the votes are not counted due to being ruled illegal it would not be the judge disenfranchising the voters due to their ruling.

Except that's not even close to what happened, nor was it ever discussed in this topic.

Texas wasn't alleging that the six states in question illegally prevented people from voting or threw out legal ballots; they were actually alleging the exact opposite - that those states allowed too many people to vote and, in so doing, exceeded their mandate. Not only is that a batshit bonkers argument on its surface, their proposed remedy was, in essence, to disenfranchise every single voter in those states - even the ones whose votes would be valid under other voting schemes - which isn't even close to a suitable remedy. It's sort of analogous to saying, "My friend said he owns a dog, but his wife said he owns a golden retriever, and on that basis I am applying to court to have their marriage annulled."

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Their ruling is an acknowledgement that the state disenfranchised the voters due to improper voting procedure.

Excuse me, what?

The SCOTUS literally said that Texas has no standing to file this case and shot their ridiculous notion down, as well they should. Even the two most conservative members of the court only dissented in that they felt that the case should have been heard, but even then both of them said that they would not have granted Texas the sought after relief (specifically, tossing out some or all of the ballots in question).

That means your argument that the voting in those states was done illegally was just tossed 9-0 by the highest court in the land.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions. It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue.

Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

---

Muscles posted...

I support legalization of all drugs, guy marriage, prostitution, pro choice laws, and think the military budget should should be cut, ohh and hate the police, how am I Republican? They hate people like me

youre putting people into boxes

the world isnt really like that

---

How the hell does SKARD have this so backwards.

---

papercup posted...

How the hell does SKARD have this so backwards.

He is part of the cult.

Mead posted...

Trump lost fair an square, its true.

I don't see how that relates to what you quoted?

darkknight109 posted...

Except that's not even close to what happened

That's what makes it hypothetical.

darkknight109 posted...

nor was it ever discussed in this topic.

Read back through the chain of quotes and you'll see where it was discussed earlier in this topic.

darkknight109 posted...

their proposed remedy was, in essence, to disenfranchise every single voter in those states

I think we're back to where the hypothetical started.
The proposed remedy is not to disenfranchise voters. The proposed remedy is to acknowledge that the state disenfranchised voters.

darkknight109 posted...

Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

I can see the post by Muscles about being an outside observer and apply context to your use of the image.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I don't see how that relates to what you quoted?

Thats completely understandable, as easy to understand as the fact that Trump won and its time for the country to come together now.

---

Mead posted...

youre putting people into boxes

the world isnt really like that

I'd argue that the world actually puts us into boxes. It's hard to have civil conversations and disagreements because so many people have an "us or them" mentality. We resort to insults if someone doesn't agree with our point of view instead of trying to understand why someone might have a different one. I'm probably considered a Democrat because of most of my beliefs, but I dont really like to label myself as one because then people feel they already know everything they need to know about me.

GunslingerGunsl posted...

so many people have an "us or them" mentality.

Tribalism ruins the world.

---

GunslingerGunsl posted...

I'd argue that the world actually puts us into boxes.

that dick

---

Mead posted...

that dick

The world is one big dick

Are ya'll calling mother earth a futa?

BlackScythe0 posted...

Are ya'll calling mother earth a futa?

shit yeah bro

how else you gonna explain mountains, which are obviously breasts, but also places like florida

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's what makes it hypothetical.

Except we were never discussing a hypothetical - I have always explicitly been discussing the Texas case and your responses to me have never delineated a different hypothetical or specified why such a hypothetical would be in any way relevant to the topic at hand.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Read back through the chain of quotes and you'll see where it was discussed earlier in this topic.

The closest you got to that was this:

If voting laws were changed illegally then it would have been that state which disenfranchised the voters

Which was a response you gave to a paragraph where I was explicitly describing the Texas case and how Texas was seeking to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters. At no point did you ever say that you were making a separate hypothetical completely disconnected from the topic at hand.

If you're going to respond to me, stay on topic. If you want to make up fantasy situations that have nothing to do with what's being discussed, go make your own topic for it.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

The proposed remedy is not to disenfranchise voters. The proposed remedy is to acknowledge that the state disenfranchised voters.

Wrong.

Texas explicitly requested that the Supreme Court toss out the election results for the respondent states and instruct their legislatures to unilaterally appoint electors without regard to the votes of their populace.

Which, yes, is disenfranchisement.

And, to reiterate, Texas has never even alleged that anyone was disenfranchised; they've alleged that not enough people were disenfranchised, which is really dumb, but then again these are Republicans we're talking about.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I can see the post by Muscles about being an outside observer and apply context to your use of the image.

Then you're applying that context incorrectly.

At no point did I say that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations. In fact, I explicitly said otherwise when I said that "Being in the middle is not always the correct path."

---

darkknight109 posted...

Except we were never discussing a hypothetical

When you posted...
"Also worth noting that *even if* Texas had successfully proved that voting laws were changed illegally"
...you posed a hypothetical scenario.
Since then I've been trying to explain to you how other aspects of the situation would change in that scenario.

darkknight109 posted...

At no point did I say that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view

At no point did I say you said that.
And I can already see that at no point did you say that I said you said that.

darkknight109 posted...

I said that "Being in the middle is not always the correct path."

Fine, that image is a rather poor representation of being in the middle.
Whether "being in the middle" can also be called a "moderate position" doesn't change my thoughts on the image.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Since then I've been trying to explain to you how other aspects of the situation would change in that scenario.

Except you came up with a totally different hypothetical.

In your hypothetical, the voting laws were changed to disenfranchise voters, which was not what Texas alleged and was never something anything I implied or brought up.

Texas is alleging the exact opposite of what you're saying they're alleging - that people were allowed to vote whose votes should have been discounted (reminder: this claim is false and has been proven so several dozen times), not that people who tried to vote had their votes erroneously discarded.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

At no point did I say you said that.

Yes you did:

That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions. It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Fine, that image is a rather poor representation of being in the middle.

In what way?

---

darkknight109 posted...

Except you came up with a totally different hypothetical.

I didn't replace your original hypothetical. I drew a conclusion based on the framework you presented.

darkknight109 posted...

In your hypothetical, the voting laws were changed to disenfranchise voters,

I said that was the outcome of the changes to the law being made illegally. That's separate from being the intent of the changes.

darkknight109 posted...

Yes you did:

That's me saying "That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions.It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue."
Me saying you said that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations goes "You said that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations."

darkknight109 posted...

In what way?

Being in the middle is not about finding a middle ground in every issue. It's more like agreeing with this side more on this issue while agreeing with that side more on that issue.

---

Mead posted...

how else you gonna explain mountains, which are obviously breasts

Remember that Daily Show segment when Trump flew in a helicopter over some mountains and they dubbed in dialogue about him thinking they were tits

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I didn't replace your original hypothetical.

My hypothetical was if Texas was able to prove their case, which alleged that voting laws in respondent states were changed illegally and allowed too many people to vote.

You're arguing a hypothetical where the respondent states changed their voting laws and allowed not enough people to vote.

You 100% did change the hypothetical and you changed it to the polar opposite of what it originally was.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I said that was the outcome of the changes to the law being made illegally.

Which is wrong on several levels.

The laws weren't changed illegally, which has been established dozens of times in court, and Texas's case never alleged the outcome you're suggesting. They were, in fact, alleging the exact opposite of what you're saying here.

Seriously, how do you not understand this after it has been explained to you numerous times in this topic?

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's me saying "That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions.It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue."
Me saying you said that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations goes "You said that that picture was indicative of a moderate point of view and applicable in all situations."

Please define what the phrase "every issue" means in your definition and how it differs from "all situations".

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Being in the middle is not about finding a middle ground in every issue.

Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

---

keyblader1985 posted...

My sides

I'm saving that

---

Krow_Incarnate posted...

My sides

I'm saving that

best meme of 2020 imo

---

9-0 on a Conservative court. Oh man. 7-2 against hearing it. They didn't even hear it.

The Republican party is dividing in half into Trump fans and whatever the hell is left of that, Texas is threatening to secede again. All over made up election fraud allegations that are being thrown out all over the country.

Please never elect this fucking guy again. Or maybe do. He's tearing apart the Republican party just because he lost. No ideological reason.

---

They were never going to hear this. If they actually motioned in favor of the lawsuit, the country would have broken out in civil war over night. States cannot dictate laws and election results to each other. Accepting that states are their own legal entities is part of the deal of being an American. You cannot secede from this country, Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers told you no.

---

They can't secede, ok. How about we kick Texas out?

I'm sure they'll fare just fine on their own.

---

I think it's funny how some of the same people who are saying "courts don't decide elections, people do" were the ones who were counting on the Supreme Court to overturn the election results.

papercup posted...

They were never going to hear this. If they actually motioned in favor of the lawsuit, the country would have broken out in civil war over night. States cannot dictate laws and election results to each other. Accepting that states are their own legal entities is part of the deal of being an American. You cannot secede from this country, Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers told you no.

I seriously don't get the game plan. Why not find whackos in the states you want to contest and file suits on their behalf? Instead of Texass trying to lord over other states. So damn stupid!

GunslingerGunsl posted...

I think it's funny how some of the same people who are saying "courts don't decide elections, people do" were the ones who were counting on the Supreme Court to overturn the election results.

They also hate oppressive government regulation until cities try to create their own municipal broadband, then they can't get the state gov't to intercede fast enough.

darkknight109 posted...

My hypothetical was if Texas was able to prove their case, which alleged that voting laws in respondent states were changed illegally and allowed too many people to vote.

In your scenario Texas was able to prove its case. The case demonstrated that voting laws were changed illegally. Due to the changes being made illegally the ballots voters were sent were invalid to use for voting. Because people thought they already voted they didn't vote using valid ballots.

In your scenario who disenfranchised the voters?
Was it the court for ruling in favor of Texas?
Was it Texas for bringing the case?
Was it the state for sending voter invalid ballots?

My conclusion is that the state was at fault while Texas and the court are holding the state accountable. This conclusion is based on your premise of Texas being able to prove its case and what that would mean.

darkknight109 posted...

You're arguing a hypothetical where the respondent states changed their voting laws and allowed not enough people to vote.

One is the intent of their actions. The other is the consequence on their actions. I'm not substituting a different intent. I'm drawing a different conclusion about the consequence.

darkknight109 posted...

The laws weren't changed illegally, which has been established dozens of times in court

You quoted something where I was still discussing your scenario in which Texas was able to prove its case. I can only guess at how you think the actual events have a bearing on a hypothetical where things turned out differently.

darkknight109 posted...

Please define what the phrase "every issue" means in your definition and how it differs from "all situations".

That's a tough one. I'm not sure my position is that they mean different things. I wasn't considering whether they were interchange in the part you quoted. I was paying more attention the wording elsewhere.

darkknight109 posted...

Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise.

Are we just going the repeat the whole bit again?

My thoughts on the cartoon are as follows:
I think the cartoonist is making fun of someone but I'm not sure who. Clearly the issue represented by the 2 sides is not one where you can meet halfway on. One possibility is the cartoonist is making fun of moderates being indecisive about which political group to align with. In this depiction the moderate doesn't form an opinion about a given issue but simply approaches it the same way they approach all issues. The other possibility is the cartoonist is demonstrating how political extremists see moderates and are unable to understand them.

I hereby acknowledge that you did not say that this is your interpretation of the image. I am going off my own interpretation of the image to understand in what way Muscles' comments reminded you of it.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

In your scenario who disenfranchised the voters?

the GOP

by literally trying to throw out entire states worth of votes

---

Muscles posted...

As someone that hates both parties, it's true. I have a better look of it being an outside observer as opposed to being in the in group.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

In your scenario Texas was able to prove its case. The case demonstrated that voting laws were changed illegally. Due to the changes being made illegally the ballots voters were sent were invalid to use for voting. Because people thought they already voted they didn't vote using valid ballots.

In your scenario who disenfranchised the voters?

No one, because people who vote and whose votes were counted are not disenfranchised.

Even if Texas was able to prove its case that those voting laws shouldn't have been changed and the expanded voting shouldn't have occurred, that does not automatically render those votes invalid. Whenever a voter makes a good-faith effort to follow the voting instructions made by the government, those votes are considered valid, even if the instructions were later determined to be in violation of the law. As such, their votes would still be counted and considered valid based on all prior jurisprudence on the issue.

The only disenfranchisement that could possibly have occurred would be if the Supreme Court would have tossed those ballots. As long as they didn't do that, the voters were not disenfranchised by anyone.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

One is the intent of their actions. The other is the consequence on their actions.

Except it's not a consequence of their actions.

The ballots issued were not invalid, and that would remain true even under the hypothetical where Texas proves its case that the expansion of voting was unconstitutional. The ballots issued would remain secure and valid and would therefore be required to be counted. The only possible legal remedy for Texas's case - even if it were proven to be true - would be an instruction to the respondent states to remedy their voting laws prior to the next election.

You cannot retroactively invalidate ballots after the results of an election are known.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

You quoted something where I was still discussing your scenario in which Texas was able to prove its case.

And I was simply pointing out that the entire basis of that scenario is a complete falsehood, which has been established numerous times.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

That's a tough one. I'm not sure my position is that they mean different things.

Then you've pretty much conceded the point.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Are we just going the repeat the whole bit again?

That will depend on you. If you give me the same statement that I'd already responded to, I'm going to continue giving you the same responses.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I think the cartoonist is making fun of someone but I'm not sure who.

It's making fun of people who, like Muscles alluded to above, insist that the correct view is always in between the two sides in an argument. Sometimes that is true. But not always - sometimes, as in the cartoon, one side is just completely wrong and trying to tack out a middle ground is, in essence, being "half-wrong".

---

darkknight109 posted...

Even if Texas was able to prove its case that those voting laws shouldn't have been changed and the expanded voting shouldn't have occurred, that does not automatically render those votes invalid. Whenever a voter makes a good-faith effort to follow the voting instructions made by the government, those votes are considered valid, even if the instructions were later determined to be in violation of the law. As such, their votes would still be counted and considered valid based on all prior jurisprudence on the issue.

I thought you indicated differently earlier.

darkknight109 posted...

it still wouldn't lead to the end they want, which is overturning the election results. Disenfranchising tens of millions of voters who followed their states' instructions for voting in good faith is not a viable remedy to the issues that Texas raised

There. This makes it sound like those votes would then be deducted but not in large enough number to change the election results. Why bother talking about disenfranchisement at all if the votes can't be made invalid after the fact? I've only been going off of what you suggested would happen in that scenario.

darkknight109 posted...

The only disenfranchisement that could possibly have occurred would be if the Supreme Court would have tossed those ballots. As long as they didn't do that, the voters were not disenfranchised by anyone.

So making them invalid after the fact could possibly have occurred? I thought you just indicated it can't happen.

darkknight109 posted...

And I was simply pointing out that the entire basis of that scenario is a complete falsehood

I can tell the difference between a hypothetical scenario and actual events. Our discussion has shown that you have difficulty separating the two.

darkknight109 posted...

Then you've pretty much conceded the point.

It was never my point to begin with.

darkknight109 posted...

If you give me the same statement that I'd already responded to, I'm going to continue giving you the same responses.

I've already given you a different response in regard to that.

---

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I thought you indicated differently earlier.

I decidedly did not.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

This makes it sound like those votes would then be deducted but not in large enough number to change the election results.

No, it doesn't.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

Why bother talking about disenfranchisement at all if the votes can't be made invalid after the fact?

Because my original point was that Texas was asking the Supreme Court to disenfranchise tens of millions of voters - which is something they would absolutely never do, if you have any knowledge of the jurisprudence surrounding voter disputes. Your response was that the state had already disenfranchised them, which is something that I never suggested happened and that the Texas suit did not concede.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I can tell the difference between a hypothetical scenario and actual events.

Apparently not, given how this discussion has gone. So far, you still don't seem to have understand posts made at the start of the topic.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

It was never my point to begin with.

Of course it was - you posted: "That's a rather poor representation of moderate positions.It's not about finding a middle ground in every issue."

Then I posted: "Never said it was and I'm not sure why you'd think otherwise."

Now you've admitted that I was correct and that was not why the picture was posted.

SKARDAVNELNATE posted...

I've already given you a different response in regard to that.

Then don't ask if we're going to keep repeating ourselves when you clearly already know the answer.

---

---

This is not an elaborate debate. The claims made by Trump and his team have been debunked, end of story. Even if you haven't debunked every single one, just one or two caught lies should be enough.

Now let's go back to a simpler time, back to 2010, when Donald Trump was well known for his con artist career.

It's. Donald. Trump.

From the fake universities to the vax denial, the guy is fucking crazy, and always has been.

---

but they have concerns

---

Mead posted...

but they have concerns

As long as they're not serious concerns, we should be OK.

---