Jump to content

2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]


Recommended Posts

Posted

Hanen says that if he even found plaintiffs to have standing, he'd have denied the request to enjoin counting of drive-in votes already cast. Specifically says they are valid votes cast by registered voters who had ID checked.

Posted

Hanen dismissed for lack of standing.

Said if 5C overturned, he would not toss cast ballots but would enjoin tomorrow's drivethrough voting. Intervention granted for people who already voted (just in case).

Posted
26 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Dude- anyone who is right of center is run off of this sub forum.  Look around. Other than a very occasional drive by there's basically nobody here who isn't totally and completely in lockstep with being 100% all dem all the time, and to the extent where that position takes any fire it's from the commie section of the board in bad_teammate. 

You're fucking out of your mind.  I don't have the energy to educate you, but holy shit, I hope you are trolling, because otherwise my family's 4 degrees from Wash U are seriously compromised.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Helobious said:

What does “no standing for plaintiffs” mean exactly?

 

1 minute ago, 'stache said:

People can only bring lawsuits if they have a personal stake in the case (with very few exceptions). That's called standing. If you don't have standing court's can't hear the case. That's about as simple as I can explain it.

You have to have a stake in a dispute.  So, if Helobious and 'stache have a contract fight, and Brisket thinks that Helobious has a really good argument, and he's my friend, and I really want a ruling for him....I can't sue 'stache for breach of contract.  I'm not a party to the contract, so I have no standing.

This applies across the board.  I'm not a voter in Iowa, so I can't sue about voting fights in Iowa.  That sort of thing.  And it's required for a court to have jurisdiction -- courts only have jurisdiction over fights between real parties in interest.  That's the shorthand.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
56 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is the fucking insanity that is literally the mainstream position of the GOP.   Fucking look at it.  It's fucking batshit insane.  And it's the mainstream belief.

You'll like my comment. 😃

Posted
7 minutes ago, Helobious said:

What does “no standing for plaintiffs” mean exactly?

That they didn't have the right to bring the case or controversy to the court- so the court will not rule on the merits of the case.  

Posted

There has to be a case or controversy to be in federal court under Article III. To have standing, plaintiff must have suffered an injury. Something concrete. Not hypothetical. Also it must be traceable back to defendant. And it must be something the court can redress. 

Plaintiffs couldn’t show they suffered an injury in fact so they can’t sue. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Hefeweizen said:

It’s because it’s drive through and you sit in the car.  If they were standing in the cars they would have.....

 

standing.

 

7 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

spacer.png

these two posts back-to-back are why i come here 🤣

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bama Chick said:

 

We're all just living in the worst fucking bizarro-simulation.  These people will literally cheer/chant anything that enormous fucking idiot says.  There isn't one single policy position he can articulate or his audience would understand.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
5 minutes ago, elfenix said:

sure there is.  it's just over in DT and the football board grievance-signaling about "SJW" and "wokeness"

I said sub forum earlier or later in my post or earlier or later in another post. That's what I meant there. I inelegantly typed site.  Actually, b/c I'm only a semi literate monkey I initially typed "side" and later corrected to site. 

Posted

The judge seems to be hinting that "you idiots should have tried this injunction much earlier" before people voted this way.  The common sense idea that voters relied on this method as legit, and that it would be unfair to disenfranchise these specific votes is very correct to me.

Posted
33 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Dude- anyone who is right of center is run off of this sub forum.  Look around. Other than a very occasional drive by there's basically nobody here who isn't totally and completely in lockstep with being 100% all dem all the time, and to the extent where that position takes any fire it's from the commie section of the board in bad_teammate.  This board is completely a left wing echo chamber.  100% total and complete.

This is 100% bullshit.

I have never been and will likely never be a Democrat. There are plenty of people like me still on this subforum.

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
1 minute ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

So to put it in non lawyer terms, this was a frivolous lawsuit? 

Nah.  To get to frivolous you really need to have no good faith belief that you have standing or an actual chance at winning. I don't think this rises to that level. 

Posted
3 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Wait, no one here is down with seizing the means of production and turning the United States into Venezuela? 

I'm "left of center" so this is obviously the only thing I support.

Posted
1 minute ago, SizzleChest said:

More of a "none ya business, now go fuck off" ruling.

If the 5th circuit touches I’ll be very surprised. The appeals court is to lean heavily on the trial court’s examination of the evidence in reaching a conclusion.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Wulaw Horn said:

Nah.  To get to frivolous you really need to have no good faith belief that you have standing or an actual chance at winning. I don't think this rises to that level. 

It fucking should.

Posted
9 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

 

You have to have a stake in a dispute.  So, if Helobious and 'stache have a contract fight, and Brisket thinks that Helobious has a really good argument, and he's my friend, and I really want a ruling for him....I can't sue 'stache for breach of contract.  I'm not a party to the contract, so I have no standing.

This applies across the board.  I'm not a voter in Iowa, so I can't sue about voting fights in Iowa.  That sort of thing.  And it's required for a court to have jurisdiction -- courts only have jurisdiction over fights between real parties in interest.  That's the shorthand.

Shouldn't "no standing" have been decided very early this morning then, so they could skip all the bullshit arguments about whether a tent is a structure?

Posted

 

Just now, Texaspython said:

If the 5th circuit touches I’ll be very surprised. The appeals court is to lean heavily on the trial court’s examination of the evidence in reaching a conclusion.

agree 5th will uphold. disagree on the reasoning.  doesn't seem like disputed underlying factual issues are determining standing here.  looks like a pure legal question.  are these morons the right ones to be making this moronic argument?  probably no deference to hanen.

Posted
1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Shouldn't "no standing" have been decided very early this morning then, so they could skip all the bullshit arguments about whether a tent is a structure?

There's the practical consideration of the need to dispose of this case one way or the other before tomorrow. Had he ruled early on standing and they sent an appeal to the appellate court, only to have that overruled and then sent back for him to hold a hearing on the merits, it would have taken more time.

Posted
3 minutes ago, Beau Vine said:

Shouldn't "no standing" have been decided very early this morning then, so they could skip all the bullshit arguments about whether a tent is a structure?

Court wants to make a full record, so all bases for grant/denial of relief can be considered on appeal.

Posted
1 minute ago, Beau Vine said:

Shouldn't "no standing" have been decided very early this morning then, so they could skip all the bullshit arguments about whether a tent is a structure?

Maybe the judge was just screwing with them to try to help run the clock out? I don't know the inner workings of appeals at all, but I assume your case can become weaker as you come up against a deadline.

If I was Hotze I would stop trying to get an appeals ruling today, and start planning how to fight if many Harris County and state races end up close. Fight to get these drive-thru votes tossed later on. However it seems like he is going to lose everywhere.

Posted
1 minute ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

They addressed on CNN this AM.  You can go in and invalidate your ballot and vote in person.

Unless of course you're an old trying to avoid the COVID.  Or disabled.  Or don't have a way to a polling center.  Or a thousand other reasons that might have led a person to mail in a ballot.

  • Hook 'Em 3
Posted
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Maybe the judge was just screwing with them to try to help run the clock out? I don't know the inner workings of appeals at all, but I assume your case can become weaker as you come up against a deadline.

If I was Hotze I would stop trying to get an appeals ruling today, and start planning how to fight if many Harris County and state races end up close. Fight to get these drive-thru votes tossed later on. However it seems like he is going to lose everywhere.

I don't think he's smart enough to think that far ahead. At least I've seen no indication that he is. 

Posted
1 minute ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

That being said, as you well know the people most active on this board today are largely the same core group that dominated Hornfans West Mall in 2003 - then and still center-right conservatives. The GOP has changed. That's the difference.

Perfectly and accurately summarized.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted

SIAP. Remember the NY real estate agent filmed yesterday tearing up Biden signs and yelling at the woman filming?  He's gone from his job that he had for 20 years.

https://www.inman.com/2020/11/02/corcoran-drops-agent-caught-trashing-biden-signs-in-viral-video/

In recap, he wasted his day tearing down Biden signs in a state in which Biden is coasting towards a big victory, got fired, and possibly ruined future job prospects. When someone asks him how his weekend went, he has quite the response.

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Haha 2
Posted

Well at this point it's turnout, and the math that tilts strongly for Biden.

The one thing that strikes me most every election, is WHY does the GOP always run on lies?  Cornyn is actually a great supporter legislatively of Obamacare and the mandate to insure those with preexisting conditions?  When the exact fucking opposite is true. 

I hope we can turn Texas blue, or at least turn the Texas leg blue.  I think there is a decent chance not a great chance, but a sliver that nobody would have predicted.  I think we are gonna look back and see that younger folks did show up in better numbers, and a more diverse electorate is gonna make a difference.  I am especially hoping that we can retire my gerrymandered Michael McCaul representation...

  • Hook 'Em 2


×
×
  • Create New...