[edit: I see I have missed almost a page of posts, so this will seem out of context. Sorry about that. The Croesus post I'm thinking of is the one about renting office space for ex-Presidents.]
That post was on another thread, for those who want some context.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The Georgia recount is turning very ugly. There is now an implication by SecState Raffensperger, a staunch Republican and by reputation a very straight arrow that there is indeed an attempt to rig the vote going on. By Republicans! He received an unsolicited phone call from Lindsey Graham suggesting he look at a course of action to invalidate votes for address matching reasons.
Hells bells. Lindsey Graham has no business ringing the SecState anyway. He’s denying that there was any implication of course, but the phone call itself is improper.
The Georgia recount is turning very ugly. There is now an implication by SecState Raffensperger, a staunch Republican and by reputation a very straight arrow that there is indeed an attempt to rig the vote going on. By Republicans! He received an unsolicited phone call from Lindsey Graham suggesting he look at a course of action to invalidate votes for address matching reasons.
Hells bells. Lindsey Graham has no business ringing the SecState anyway. He’s denying that there was any implication of course, but the phone call itself is improper.
Raffensperger appears to be under siege.
"So Lindsey, are you asking me to overturn US democracy by stealing this election from the rightful winners? Before answering, you may like to know that my calls are recorded."
He was quite open about expecting the election to wind up at the Supreme Court, and very openly made a point of installing a new Supreme that he believes will be on his side. Whether Justice Amy CB would be is another matter.
I don't think so. I'm not a fan of her opinions to say the least, but she's a rigorous thinker, and I'd be quite surprised if she even bought Gorsuch's nonsense about the state legislatures. But given that Pennsylvania isn't going to come down to "late" ballots, and Trump wins NC whatever, the point is moot.
Barrett's record is very conservative on voting rights - I certainly wouldn't look to her to decide on principle that people should be entitled to have their vote counted, for example, but it's far from clear to me that she'd go along with Gorush's creative interpretation of "legislature".
One thing I think would be true of all the Supremes, appointed by Trump or otherwise, is that they are from a legal background, they'll have served their time on multiple different courts working their way up the system in which the courts decision (after all reviews, appeals etc) is final. Anyone want to bet on any of them accepting that actually the courts can have no say in something as important as what makes a vote legal?
That's typical Ship ... someone always knows better! Thanks @Powderkeg for the correction.
And, typical if the internet, there are always distorted implications. The (inferred) implication is that she lacked experience, this is false.
It is true that Kagen was not a judge prior to being a supreme court justice. But that is not the meaning of judicial experience.
Understanding and interpreting the law, which is the purported job of a Supreme Court judge, is not learned in solely or even primarily from the bench.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
And with the court case in Pennsylvania being heard today (the judge has rejected an appeal from the Trump side for postponement) Biden’s majority has now risen to 74 thousand.
The judge is a Republican. That’s not likely to do Trump much good.
The Georgia recount is turning very ugly. There is now an implication by SecState Raffensperger, a staunch Republican and by reputation a very straight arrow that there is indeed an attempt to rig the vote going on. By Republicans! He received an unsolicited phone call from Lindsey Graham suggesting he look at a course of action to invalidate votes for address matching reasons.
Hells bells. Lindsey Graham has no business ringing the SecState anyway. He’s denying that there was any implication of course, but the phone call itself is improper.
2016 Georgia Code
Title 21 - Elections
Chapter 2 - Elections and Primaries Generally
Article 15 - Miscellaneous Offenses
§ 21-2-604. Criminal solicitation to commit election fraud; penalties
Universal Citation: GA Code § 21-2-604 (2016)
(a) (1) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a felony under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.
(2) A person commits the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree when, with intent that another person engage in conduct constituting a misdemeanor under this article, he or she solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or otherwise attempts to cause the other person to engage in such conduct.
(b) (1) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the first degree shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than one nor more than three years.
(2) A person convicted of the offense of criminal solicitation to commit election fraud in the second degree shall be punished as for a misdemeanor.
(c) It is no defense to a prosecution for criminal solicitation to commit election fraud that the person solicited could not be guilty of the crime solicited.
(d) The provisions of subsections (a) through (c) of this Code section are cumulative and shall not supersede any other penal law of this state.
Soliciting someone else to commit election fraud apparently carries the exact same penalties in Georgia as actually committing election fraud yourself. Just sayin'.
And with the court case in Pennsylvania being heard today (the judge has rejected an appeal from the Trump side for postponement) Biden’s majority has now risen to 74 thousand.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
Yes, I’ve seen the argument that Lindsey Graham crossed the legal line. As Furtive Gander said, I wonder if Raffensperger has a legally admissible recording.
My bias may be showing but I really do hope so. A classic case of the biter bit. Raffensperger has had death threats and his wife has COVID-19. There is unspeakable behaviour going on simply because people are afraid to speak the truth to power.
I saw the withdrawal of counsel, also that Giuliani has registered as a lawyer in this case. Increasingly desperate throws of the dice.
That's typical Ship ... someone always knows better! Thanks @Powderkeg for the correction.
And, typical if the internet, there are always distorted implications. The (inferred) implication is that she lacked experience, this is false.
It is true that Kagen was not a judge prior to being a supreme court justice. But that is not the meaning of judicial experience.
I’ve never encountered an American lawyer who used “judicial experience” to mean anything other than experience as a judge. I have over 30 years of experience as a lawyer, and almost all of those 30 years have been spent in trial and appellate courts. I spent my first few years post-law school years as a law clerk to a judge. I would never describe myself as having any judicial experience, because that’s simply not what the term “judicial experience” means here, broad readings of dictionary definitions of “judicial” notwithstanding.*
*Perhaps there’s a Pond Difference at work here. I notice that if you scroll down just a little on the page to which you linked, you get:
judicial
in American English
(dʒuˈdɪʃəl )
ADJECTIVE
1. of judges, law courts, or their functions
2. allowed, enforced, or set by order of a judge or law court
3. administering justice
4. like or befitting a judge
5. carefully considering the facts, arguments, etc., and reasoning to a decision; fair; unbiased
I practised in law for ten years and have continued to take an interest in it for a further 30+ years, and I have never encountered the phrase judicial experience meaning anything other than experience as a judge.
Please. I think the initial post about Kagen was more about casting aspersions than it was a point of accuracy or pedantry.
I am not a mind reader, I can only go on this posters past postings, so I'm possibly be incorrect.
Please. I think the initial post about Kagen was more about casting aspersions than it was a point of accuracy or pedantry.
I am not a mind reader, I can only go on this posters past postings, so I'm possibly be incorrect.
The initial post said “Kagen, who had ZERO judicial experience when Obama nominated her in 2010.” This is a completely accurate statement.
And it was a statement explicitly (as evidenced by the intro of “The notable exception being”) responding to @Alan Cresswell ’s statement that
One thing I think would be true of all the Supremes, appointed by Trump or otherwise, is that they are from a legal background, they'll have served their time on multiple different courts working their way up the system in which the courts decision (after all reviews, appeals etc) is final.
(Emphasis added.)
No need to be a mind-reader or assume intent to cast aspersions. @Powderkeg, whatever his intent, was absolutely correct about what he said. Your claim that Kagen really did have judicial experience because she had legal experience fails at countering any inferred implication that she lacked legal experience, because legal experience and judicial experience are not the same thing.
It's a fair point. Kagan had no time on the bench anywhere when Obama appointed her. Barrett had three years in the seventh circus. Both are basically law professors.
Roberts only spent a couple of years as a judge before being appointed to the supreme court. Thomas spent 16 months as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Roberts spent much of his career in private practice; Thomas worked mostly for the government.
Gorusch, Alito, Breyer, Kavanaugh, and Sotormayor all served more than a decade on the bench before their appointments.
Your claim that Kagen really did have judicial experience because she had legal experience fails at countering any inferred implication that she lacked legal experience, because legal experience and judicial experience are not the same thing.
Please. Unless you assume the poster is a lawyer, the broader definition is as applicable.
Your claim that Kagen really did have judicial experience because she had legal experience fails at countering any inferred implication that she lacked legal experience, because legal experience and judicial experience are not the same thing.
Please. Unless you assume the poster is a lawyer, the broader definition is as applicable.
Oh please, yourself. As I said, there may be a Pond Difference, but I’ve never heard anyone on this side of The Pond use “judicial experience” to mean anything other than “experience as a judge.” The “broader definition” you refer to is a definition I’ve never encountered from anyone—lawyer or non-lawyer (and yes, I’ve heard plenty of non-lawyers talk about “judicial experience”). “Judicial experience,” in my experience here, is always used to mean “experience as a judge.”
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
In the most recent Military Timespoll of active-duty military personnel, only 37% said they would vote for Trump. He is not going to get enough votes from the military to put him over the top.
My acquaintance with the US military is limited, either talking with servicefolk on leave during the wait for their train or aeroplane, or at Ottawa BBQs with people on assignment in Canada (rather a large number I discovered, but found that there are hundreds of Canadian servicefolk on assignment/duty in the US, so perhaps it balances) so it's more than a collection of anecdotes than a poll, but the grunts were well inclined away from Trump-- the majority with whom I spoke were African American or Hispanic and breathtakingly Norman-Rockwell patriotic. The BBQ officers (one general, a clump of colonels, and then a clowder of captains) rolled their eyes (metaphorically)-- most of these were well-educated (MA and PhD) and had several languages, and had served in uncomfortable settings. I think they largely thought of him as an undisciplined and lazy commander-in-chief. On the basis of this admittedly limited selection of anecdotes, I would be surprised if he had a majority of military votes.
Your claim that Kagen really did have judicial experience because she had legal experience fails at countering any inferred implication that she lacked legal experience, because legal experience and judicial experience are not the same thing.
Please. Unless you assume the poster is a lawyer, the broader definition is as applicable.
Oh please, yourself. As I said, there may be a Pond Difference, but I’ve never heard anyone on this side of The Pond use “judicial experience” to mean anything other than “experience as a judge.” The “broader definition” you refer to is a definition I’ve never encountered from anyone—lawyer or non-lawyer (and yes, I’ve heard plenty of non-lawyers talk about “judicial experience”). “Judicial experience,” in my experience here, is always used to mean “experience as a judge.”
As an American English speaker, I can't imagine it meaning anything else.
As Nick pointed out, there are other ways of getting judicial experience. I think the fact that Kagan clerked in the Washington DC Court of Appeals and was considered the "pick of the litter" by that court helped her become a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshell who wanted to put a spark in his opinions.
The point is, clerks are the ones that do the research and write the opinions for the justices.
She is well qualified. Even Anton Scalia said he hoped Obama would nominate her for her sharp intellect.
Maybe I misread the thread, but I don't think the argument is over her qualifications: just over the meaning of the phrase "judicial experience." Like the other lawyers, I have always considered that phrase to mean "experience as a judge."
The thing is, you don't need "judicial experience" to be a Supreme Court Justice...or any other kind of judge. By the very nature of being a lawyer, each one of us is used to listening and evaluating the other side's arguments. We look for weakness, we recognize strengths, we form counter arguments to best support our position but we also know which of our arguments are weak and which are strong. And you dump the really weak garbage because you don't want to bother the judge with them. As a judge, you do the same thing except that you are free from the burden of having to satisfying a client: you can actually take the argument that works best, is strongest.
In other words, every experienced attorney has the experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. No "judicial experience" is required.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
The fix is in, at least temporarily, in Wayne County, to block certification of those votes. If upheld it will overturn a 148 thousand majority for Biden in Michigan. Biden’s majority from that county, which includes the Detroit vote, was I think over 250 thousand votes. It’s an unprecedented move by a panel of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans who voted on party lines. A tie means refusal to certify, Apparently the certification process goes up to a higher level on 23 November.
The ostensible reasons is that there are some check total faults in the summary polling books. Not entirely sure what that means nor how severe the discrepancies are.
It’s an explosive decision. Who knows what it might provoke on the streets?
As Nick pointed out, there are other ways of getting judicial experience. I think the fact that Kagan clerked in the Washington DC Court of Appeals and was considered the "pick of the litter" by that court helped her become a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshell who wanted to put a spark in his opinions.
The point is, clerks are the ones that do the research and write the opinions for the justices.
That’s actually the opposite of what I said. I said that experience as a law clerk is not judicial experience. It may be extremely valuable and contribute significantly to a person’s legal qualifications, but I don’t know anyone who would call it judicial experience.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The fix is in, at least temporarily, in Wayne County, to block certification of those votes. If upheld it will overturn a 148 thousand majority for Biden in Michigan. Biden’s majority from that county, which includes the Detroit vote, was I think over 250 thousand votes. It’s an unprecedented move by a panel of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans who voted on party lines. A tie means refusal to certify, Apparently the certification process goes up to a higher level on 23 November.
The ostensible reasons is that there are some check total faults in the summary polling books. Not entirely sure what that means nor how severe the discrepancies are.
It’s an explosive decision. Who knows what it might provoke on the streets?
It now looks as though the decision has been reversed, Michigan SecState Jocelyn Benson said they had now voted to certify and directed her to audit the precincts with discrepancies.
Sounds like a deal was struck. Jocelyn Benson observed that minor discrepancies were common but not an indication that votes had been improperly cast or counted. Look out for tweets.
It now looks as though the decision has been reversed, Michigan SecState Jocelyn Benson said they had now voted to certify and directed her to audit the precincts with discrepancies.
Sounds like a deal was struck. Jocelyn Benson observed that minor discrepancies were common but not an indication that votes had been improperly cast or counted. Look out for tweets.
Media account here, for those who want more details.
Judge Brann is mulling over judgment but has cancelled the Thursday hearing for cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. Obviously he's going to kick it. If he thought there were anything to the case he wouldn't prevent defence cross examination. I suppose he might kick Giuliani as well. Its basically just a question of which way he kicks it and what he says to do that. Judgment expected Friday.
It may be a good suggestion that if you can't cope with being fired you shouldn't be working for a boss who's catch-phrase is "you're fired!".
Despite the TV catchphrase, Donald Trump is apparently a coward who tries to avoid firing people face-to-face. His preferred medium is a tweet. Given Trump's history, the more important thing is to be paid for services up front.
Still, I don't think lack of competence is a firing offense in either the Trump campaign or the Trump administration*. Incompetence actually seems to be preferred, and I don't mean that ironically or as a post facto analysis. Donald Trump prizes loyalty above everything else, including competence or a grasp on objective reality. Because of this he's stocked his administration* with a collection of grifters, incompetents, and nepotism hires. (There is some overlap between these categories.) In other words, these are all people who would never get a high ranking job in any other presidential administration and they know it. They know this is their one shot at the political big time and if Trump goes down it's all downhill for them. Hence the fanatical loyalty of his inner circle.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Speaking of objective reality, Biden’s majority in Pennsylvania is now about 82 thousand. Or out of sight in the eyes of anyone normal.
As Nick pointed out, there are other ways of getting judicial experience. I think the fact that Kagan clerked in the Washington DC Court of Appeals and was considered the "pick of the litter" by that court helped her become a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshell who wanted to put a spark in his opinions.
The point is, clerks are the ones that do the research and write the opinions for the justices.
That’s actually the opposite of what I said. I said that experience as a law clerk is not judicial experience. It may be extremely valuable and contribute significantly to a person’s legal qualifications, but I don’t know anyone who would call it judicial experience.
Should I throw in the fact that Kagan was the Solicitor General of the United States during the Obama administration? She would argue the American government's side in any case that the Court would want to consider.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
In Georgia, as the first hand by hand recount nears its end, it seems likely that the GOP will ask for a second scan recount. And in Wisconsin, some $3 million dollars have been forked out to pay for a partial recount of counties which voted heavily for Biden.
Giuliani has made no secret of his intention to get some case to the Supreme Court.
The long, long process grinds on. There appear to be no legal remedies for challenging a sore loser. The only way legally seems to be to evaluate his challenges. Trump can put obstacles in the way at every stage. Vote count, certification, selection of Electoral College members, EC Vote, confirmation by Congress. I presume the person who bet £1 million on Biden still awaits collection of winnings. He might have to wait a bit longer.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
As Nick pointed out, there are other ways of getting judicial experience. I think the fact that Kagan clerked in the Washington DC Court of Appeals and was considered the "pick of the litter" by that court helped her become a clerk for Justice Thurgood Marshell who wanted to put a spark in his opinions.
The point is, clerks are the ones that do the research and write the opinions for the justices.
That’s actually the opposite of what I said. I said that experience as a law clerk is not judicial experience. It may be extremely valuable and contribute significantly to a person’s legal qualifications, but I don’t know anyone who would call it judicial experience.
Should I throw in the fact that Kagan was the Solicitor General of the United States during the Obama administration? She would argue the American government's side in any case that the Court would want to consider.
You can. That is legal experience that certainly adds to her qualifications—excellent qualifications that I’m not for a second denying—but it’s not “judicial experience” under any understanding of that term that I’ve encountered prior to this thread.
A law clerk is not a judge, as anyone who has worked as a law clerk can tell you. Neither is the Solicitor General. They are valuable roles that can provide valuable experience, but they do not provide the experience of being a judge.
A law clerk is not a judge, as anyone who has worked as a law clerk can tell you.
It should be noted that Supreme Court clerks often write the initial drafts of Supreme Court opinions and dissents. In that sense being a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice is kind of like an "apprenticeship" in the trade of judging.
The top two leaders in the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature are expected to visit the White House Friday, according to a source with knowledge of the plans.
The visits by Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, and House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, will come as a legal fight plays out in the battleground state with President Donald Trump attempting to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.
Democrat Joe Biden won Michigan 51%-48% or by 154,000 votes, according to the current unofficial results. All 83 counties have approved their tallies, according to the Department of State. And the Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet Monday to consider statewide certification.
But Trump's campaign suggested in a Thursday statement the Wayne County Board of Canvassers didn't certify the results in Michigan's largest county. Two Republican members of the Wayne County canvassers agreed to certify the results on Tuesday night but have since signed affidavits saying they regretted their votes and would like to rescind them.
I'm still convinced this particular election was not close enough for these kind of tactics to work. What's more worrisome is that the Republican Anti-democratic party is perfectly fine with this and has abandoned any former commitment to representative democracy. Future presidential elections are going to be fraught.
The Democrats really need to find a way to spin all this as "Fuck you Repugnicans for making the election last another three months" while at the same time still managing to sound like gracious victors.
Oh, and I think someone somewhere was asking how to avoid this type of thing in the future? My two cents...
1. Keep the Electoral College. Abolition would make abolitionist politicians really unpopular in sparsely populated states and regions.
BUT...
2. Completely federalize the voting process. IOW people will still be voting for Electors to represent their individual state, but all 51 elections will be conducted under the auspices of one federal agency. This will radically simplify the process of investigating allegations of fraud.
3. Have the inaguration occur days, not months, after the election, as happens in non-laughingstock democracies. A three-month window is basically a playground for vexatious litigants.
Comments
That post was on another thread, for those who want some context.
Hells bells. Lindsey Graham has no business ringing the SecState anyway. He’s denying that there was any implication of course, but the phone call itself is improper.
Raffensperger appears to be under siege.
"So Lindsey, are you asking me to overturn US democracy by stealing this election from the rightful winners? Before answering, you may like to know that my calls are recorded."
It is true that Kagen was not a judge prior to being a supreme court justice. But that is not the meaning of judicial experience.
Understanding and interpreting the law, which is the purported job of a Supreme Court judge, is not learned in solely or even primarily from the bench.
The judge is a Republican. That’s not likely to do Trump much good.
For reference:
Soliciting someone else to commit election fraud apparently carries the exact same penalties in Georgia as actually committing election fraud yourself. Just sayin'.
Don't know for sure, but I'm guessing that the Trump campaign's request for a postponement has something to do with their lawyers withdrawing from the case last night.
My bias may be showing but I really do hope so. A classic case of the biter bit. Raffensperger has had death threats and his wife has COVID-19. There is unspeakable behaviour going on simply because people are afraid to speak the truth to power.
I saw the withdrawal of counsel, also that Giuliani has registered as a lawyer in this case. Increasingly desperate throws of the dice.
Also Clarence Thomas had never heard a case (as judge) before he was put on the Court.
*Perhaps there’s a Pond Difference at work here. I notice that if you scroll down just a little on the page to which you linked, you get: That’s more in line with Merriam-Webster.
I am not a mind reader, I can only go on this posters past postings, so I'm possibly be incorrect.
And it was a statement explicitly (as evidenced by the intro of “The notable exception being”) responding to @Alan Cresswell ’s statement that (Emphasis added.)
No need to be a mind-reader or assume intent to cast aspersions. @Powderkeg, whatever his intent, was absolutely correct about what he said. Your claim that Kagen really did have judicial experience because she had legal experience fails at countering any inferred implication that she lacked legal experience, because legal experience and judicial experience are not the same thing.
Roberts only spent a couple of years as a judge before being appointed to the supreme court. Thomas spent 16 months as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court. Roberts spent much of his career in private practice; Thomas worked mostly for the government.
Gorusch, Alito, Breyer, Kavanaugh, and Sotormayor all served more than a decade on the bench before their appointments.
Pennsylvania Supreme Court has rejected the Tr*mp suit.
Guardian live link
How many are left, does anybody know?
There is this update from yesterday, but I am not sure it is complete.
(I am not sure if the FT report, which has more detail, is paywalled)
Not the case that Croesos and I were discussing: the one where Giuliani stepped in. Mind you, that one isn't going brilliantly either.
My acquaintance with the US military is limited, either talking with servicefolk on leave during the wait for their train or aeroplane, or at Ottawa BBQs with people on assignment in Canada (rather a large number I discovered, but found that there are hundreds of Canadian servicefolk on assignment/duty in the US, so perhaps it balances) so it's more than a collection of anecdotes than a poll, but the grunts were well inclined away from Trump-- the majority with whom I spoke were African American or Hispanic and breathtakingly Norman-Rockwell patriotic. The BBQ officers (one general, a clump of colonels, and then a clowder of captains) rolled their eyes (metaphorically)-- most of these were well-educated (MA and PhD) and had several languages, and had served in uncomfortable settings. I think they largely thought of him as an undisciplined and lazy commander-in-chief. On the basis of this admittedly limited selection of anecdotes, I would be surprised if he had a majority of military votes.
As an American English speaker, I can't imagine it meaning anything else.
The point is, clerks are the ones that do the research and write the opinions for the justices.
She is well qualified. Even Anton Scalia said he hoped Obama would nominate her for her sharp intellect.
The thing is, you don't need "judicial experience" to be a Supreme Court Justice...or any other kind of judge. By the very nature of being a lawyer, each one of us is used to listening and evaluating the other side's arguments. We look for weakness, we recognize strengths, we form counter arguments to best support our position but we also know which of our arguments are weak and which are strong. And you dump the really weak garbage because you don't want to bother the judge with them. As a judge, you do the same thing except that you are free from the burden of having to satisfying a client: you can actually take the argument that works best, is strongest.
In other words, every experienced attorney has the experience to be a Supreme Court Justice. No "judicial experience" is required.
The ostensible reasons is that there are some check total faults in the summary polling books. Not entirely sure what that means nor how severe the discrepancies are.
It’s an explosive decision. Who knows what it might provoke on the streets?
It now looks as though the decision has been reversed, Michigan SecState Jocelyn Benson said they had now voted to certify and directed her to audit the precincts with discrepancies.
Sounds like a deal was struck. Jocelyn Benson observed that minor discrepancies were common but not an indication that votes had been improperly cast or counted. Look out for tweets.
Media account here, for those who want more details.
First, count all the votes in each state.
Next, both parties sue to get as many of their opponents' states as possible reversed.
At the end, the party with the most number of EC votes still standing is declared the winner.
Anyway, they put elected politicians in jail from the beginning, figuring it saves time.
If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable.
Judge Brann is mulling over judgment but has cancelled the Thursday hearing for cross examination of the plaintiff's witnesses. Obviously he's going to kick it. If he thought there were anything to the case he wouldn't prevent defence cross examination. I suppose he might kick Giuliani as well. Its basically just a question of which way he kicks it and what he says to do that. Judgment expected Friday.
Despite the TV catchphrase, Donald Trump is apparently a coward who tries to avoid firing people face-to-face. His preferred medium is a tweet. Given Trump's history, the more important thing is to be paid for services up front.
Still, I don't think lack of competence is a firing offense in either the Trump campaign or the Trump administration*. Incompetence actually seems to be preferred, and I don't mean that ironically or as a post facto analysis. Donald Trump prizes loyalty above everything else, including competence or a grasp on objective reality. Because of this he's stocked his administration* with a collection of grifters, incompetents, and nepotism hires. (There is some overlap between these categories.) In other words, these are all people who would never get a high ranking job in any other presidential administration and they know it. They know this is their one shot at the political big time and if Trump goes down it's all downhill for them. Hence the fanatical loyalty of his inner circle.
Should I throw in the fact that Kagan was the Solicitor General of the United States during the Obama administration? She would argue the American government's side in any case that the Court would want to consider.
Giuliani has made no secret of his intention to get some case to the Supreme Court.
The long, long process grinds on. There appear to be no legal remedies for challenging a sore loser. The only way legally seems to be to evaluate his challenges. Trump can put obstacles in the way at every stage. Vote count, certification, selection of Electoral College members, EC Vote, confirmation by Congress. I presume the person who bet £1 million on Biden still awaits collection of winnings. He might have to wait a bit longer.
It is now pretty clear what they want to take to the Supreme Court. They are probably expecting Judge Brann to toss their late submission.
A law clerk is not a judge, as anyone who has worked as a law clerk can tell you. Neither is the Solicitor General. They are valuable roles that can provide valuable experience, but they do not provide the experience of being a judge.
It should be noted that Supreme Court clerks often write the initial drafts of Supreme Court opinions and dissents. In that sense being a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice is kind of like an "apprenticeship" in the trade of judging.
I'm still convinced this particular election was not close enough for these kind of tactics to work. What's more worrisome is that the Republican Anti-democratic party is perfectly fine with this and has abandoned any former commitment to representative democracy. Future presidential elections are going to be fraught.
Oh, and I think someone somewhere was asking how to avoid this type of thing in the future? My two cents...
1. Keep the Electoral College. Abolition would make abolitionist politicians really unpopular in sparsely populated states and regions.
BUT...
2. Completely federalize the voting process. IOW people will still be voting for Electors to represent their individual state, but all 51 elections will be conducted under the auspices of one federal agency. This will radically simplify the process of investigating allegations of fraud.
3. Have the inaguration occur days, not months, after the election, as happens in non-laughingstock democracies. A three-month window is basically a playground for vexatious litigants.