HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Trump forces file Bush v ...

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:42 PM

Trump forces file Bush v Gore complaint to stop Wisconsin recount

Filed late Friday December 1 in federal court, Great America PAC and the Stop Hillary PAC have sued the Wisconsin Election Commission under Bush v. Gore, claiming that the varying standards used to count votes (machine counts and hand counts) violate the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. https://www.scribd.com/mobile/document/332954119/Wisconsin-recount-complaint

Note that this is Republicans suing Republicans to stop the recount.
And that it is the Republican Wisconsin Election Commission that allowed counties to choose machines or hand count against the request of both Stein and Clinton, thus setting up this challenge.

The complaint also falsely claims there is a federal mandate to finish up the recount by the safe harbor date under 3 USC 5 of December 13. However, because electors can be subject to challenge if certified after this date, it is the excuse to ask for injunctive relief, by saying Trump will be irreparably damaged in his victory if this date passes by without certification of electors.

Let us please not have any comments like "I thought Bush v. GORE wasn't a precedent?" If that were in fact true, it makes the situation worse because courts can reach an opposite decision, or the same decision, on identical facts. Not being a precedent does not mean "can't happen again."

For those who have felt reassured that they "have paper ballots" (Which are then scanned by machines) please watch how recounts actually go, how they are actually fought vigorously, saddled with onerous requirements like those in PA, and stuck with many millions of dollars in fees while other folks complain about the fundraising- You can expect repeats of all of this more or less with every presidential recount. YOUR PAPER BALLOT ISN'T WORTH ANYTHING MUCH BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER YOU CAN'T GET TO IT except with extreme difficulty and probably not on time in the opinion of Republican friendly courts.

The only way to have a fair election is to get it right on election night. And you can never KNOW it's right with machines. You can only be a believer.
The reason the system demands public confidence even in advance (!) of both a result and the reports of irregularities or not, is that any lack of confidence rips the veil off elections, and you realize you've been had, your paper ballot was false security.


And although one can in advance say the chances are against any given recount because the election law is itself filled with traps and a form of rigged game, anyone who opines that the recount won't be successful because of margin size doesn't know what they are talking about because errors with machines need not and often aren't tiny errors they can be large. Whereas with hand counts, if they are recounted the errors are typically rather small and margins of more than a fraction of a percent are difficult to overcome.

Bottom line: the machines declare who will be President, and literally nobody knows what those ballots really say, and many people including election officials fight like hell to keep anyone from ever finding out.

Still reassured you got paper ballots? You shouldn't be.


Solution: The ONLY way to guarantee our rights - especially when we need voting rights the most, which is to remove a crooked government and to "kick the bums out" is to use precinct hand counted paper ballots, making sure there are both enough people and enough random observers by using the jury summoning system. (Which is way better than doing a 10 day jury trial for most people). Instead, the alleged rush to get election night results justifies machines, then the rush to certify justifies cancelling recounts.

So, please enjoy this corrupt, collusive litigation of Republican PACS suing a Republican state administration to stop a citizen/Green/Democratic Party statewide recount because the Republican administration set it up in a way Republicans don't like!




30 replies, 3120 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 30 replies Author Time Post
Reply Trump forces file Bush v Gore complaint to stop Wisconsin recount (Original post)
Land Shark Dec 2016 OP
spanone Dec 2016 #1
LisaM Dec 2016 #2
Coyotl Dec 2016 #3
Land Shark Dec 2016 #5
Cracklin Charlie Dec 2016 #7
Land Shark Dec 2016 #13
Coyotl Dec 2016 #14
lonestarnot Dec 2016 #18
Land Shark Dec 2016 #30
roamer65 Dec 2016 #4
Land Shark Dec 2016 #9
mopinko Dec 2016 #6
Land Shark Dec 2016 #8
McCamy Taylor Dec 2016 #10
Land Shark Dec 2016 #15
colsohlibgal Dec 2016 #11
bdamomma Dec 2016 #12
moondust Dec 2016 #16
lonestarnot Dec 2016 #17
C Moon Dec 2016 #19
LS_Editor Dec 2016 #20
Land Shark Dec 2016 #24
pnwmom Dec 2016 #21
barbtries Dec 2016 #22
Land Shark Dec 2016 #25
barbtries Dec 2016 #28
MadLinguist Dec 2016 #23
Land Shark Dec 2016 #26
red dog 1 Dec 2016 #27
Land Shark Dec 2016 #29

Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:44 PM

1. K&R...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:56 PM

2. While I don't expect the recounts to change anything....

I have to wonder about the fierce opposition to them by the GOP. Maybe there really is some "there" there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 01:57 PM

3. The corruption of democracy continues apace. How can we trust elections after this one?

 

And they make them all the more untrustworthy the more they insist, "Just trust us and our machines."



Exit polls take a lot of heat, but here we have apples and apples, both unadjusted exit polling and the same Senate races two terms later. How can they explain the doubling of red shift?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:18 PM

5. Good question Coyotl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Coyotl (Reply #3)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:28 PM

7. This graph should not be ignored.

It is evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cracklin Charlie (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:57 PM

13. Great way to visualize some of the evidence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Reply #13)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 03:15 PM

14. And the states w/o Senate races have half the 2016 red shift!

 

We have data for 29 states. The nine states without contested Senate seats have 2.4% red shift

Same thing happened to a lesser degree in 2004 (1.9% national mean for 50 states), more red shift in races with contested Senate seats.



Roy Blunt was trailing in MO. Johnson was trailing in WI.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cracklin Charlie (Reply #7)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 03:46 PM

18. Very pursuasive, we need beyond reasonable doubt, which may or may not be prohibited from discovery.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lonestarnot (Reply #18)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 09:33 PM

30. Election officials can't prove a legal election occurred at any level of proof

So why does a criminal standard of proof apply here?

Well, I get it. I just want to point out that election officials can't prove anything, they have ZERO evidence. Activists start out with some evidence, in the form of exit polls & their analysis, reports of irregularities, and so forth. The reason they are so adamant about maintaining public confidence is that without it the whole thing utterly collapses, without even so much as dust left.

When an election official certifies an election, they have no idea, they just believe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:04 PM

4. Figures...the lying scumbags run to Bush v Gore for cover.

A decision so bad even the Supremes didn't want it to be precedent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to roamer65 (Reply #4)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:39 PM

9. Yeah they want to keep options open to rule the opposite if shoe on other foot. Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:22 PM

6. so nice to see you posting landshark.

you are just the sort of du'er they were hoping to shut out by hacking this site.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mopinko (Reply #6)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:38 PM

8. Thanks mopinko! Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:42 PM

10. Really? Bush V. Gore was not supposed to set a precedent (SCOTUS own statement)

It was only supposed to apply to Bush V. Gore because of it being about Bush.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #10)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 03:16 PM

15. Please read the OP, not being a precedent only makes it worse

There is no such thing as a negative non-precedent, i.e. "can't happen again. "

All "precedent " means is that a subsequent case on the same facts must be decided the same way. All options remain open of it is not a precedent. A Democrat could go to SCOTUS in the exact same position of Bush and lose if it is not a precedent.

But the portion of the opinion being relied upon here was per curiam, and not a close vote.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:45 PM

11. Bad Memories

The damage the Supreme Court caused by stopping the 2000 Florida recount is staggering.

The right doesn't want any recount, any real accountability, of election results. So what if every mismatch between exit polling and the final result all favor the right.

Our elections are worthy of a Banana Republic.

Paper ballots and secure custody and counting need to happen but the democrats just will not push it, they are like an abused wife afraid to fight back against an abusive spouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 02:48 PM

12. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 03:24 PM

16. Recounts are a threat

to election rigging.

"Must. Be. Stopped. Permanently." - GOP

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 03:45 PM

17. Yammering Yam doesn't want to be put on display for his cheat.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 03:56 PM

19. The GOP is hiding something. Tricks they've been using for the past 15 years.

We must be on the brink of uncovering them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 04:26 PM

20. Bush v Gore itself states it does not set a precedent, and is limited to that case.

Unprecedented in the Supreme Court's history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LS_Editor (Reply #20)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:07 PM

24. Not being precedent (if true) only means that same case could be decided either way next time

You are misunderstanding precedent. There is (binding) precedent and there is other authority which is called persuasive authority. All legal opinions are argued to be the way a court should rule, and if something is precedent and the court is the samended court or a lower courts then there is supposed to be an obligation to stay consistent with prior precedent.

Even if BvG is somehow not precedent, it is still how it was done once before and it can happen again. Courts consider and follow nonprecedents all the time.

You are inappropriately reassuring yourself with the idea of "not a precedent." BvG is going to be relitigated here. And the portions that will be relitigated are not 5-4 rulings, they're from the per curiam opinion about the need for statewide uniformity. That is an attractive legal claim IT IS WHAT WE TRIED TO GET. Now we can lose because Republicans screwed up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 04:26 PM

21. There is another alternative. Automatic partial recounts of a random sample

of paper ballots, beginning immediately after the initial count has ended. Then, if too many discrepancies are found ("too many" being a specific percent), an automatic full recount.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 04:46 PM

22. question.

when bush v gore was decided, didn't the SC specifically state that it could NOT be used as precedent for later cases?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to barbtries (Reply #22)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:11 PM

25. See #24. It hardly matters what they said if cases are factually quite similar.

"Not a precedent" absolutely does NOT mean anything remotely like "Democrats can never lose this way again."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Reply #25)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:28 PM

28. well it's moot this election

since the democrats already lost. i was just thinking that the citation would have not been valid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 04:52 PM

23. Land Shark! I remember your great posts from the dark days of the 2004 theft

I feel like I am greeting you at someone's funeral though. Lovely to see you, sorry it's under these horrible circumstances.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadLinguist (Reply #23)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:13 PM

26. Thanks much, well, we see each other when there is common cause. :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:22 PM

27. K&R

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Land Shark (Original post)

Sun Dec 4, 2016, 05:32 PM

29. Larry Tribe has, however, since said no jurisdiction for Bush v Gore ( political question doctrine)

If he is right in admitting his "mistake" then courts have no say. State legislatures will just jam through a slate of electors, just as Florida was going to do within days of BvG.

That would mean it really isn't any precedent but also would be no comfort at all that this is the case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread