Why should we let votes overturn an election? Because that is what an election is?

[Legion]

It is not a 3 day extension.

You might want to read the PA Supreme Court ruling.

"Based on our disposition of all of the claims set forth above, we grant relief on the claims set forth in Counts I, II, and V of the DEMOCRAT Party’s petition for review as follows and hold that: (Count I) the Election Code permits county boards of election to collect hand-delivered mail-in ballots at locations other than their office addresses including drop-boxes as indicated herein, see supra. at 20 n. 15; (Count II) a three-day extension of the absentee and mail-in ballot received-by deadline is adopted such that 35 Respondent has not asserted that the Pennsylvania Constitution offers greater protection under the circumstances presented. Thus, for purposes of our review, we treat them as co-extensive. [J-96-2020] - 63 ballots mailed by voters via the United States Postal Service and postmarked by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day , November 3, 2020, shall be counted if they are otherwise valid and received by the county boards of election on or before 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2020;ballots received within this period that lack a postmark or other proof of mailing, or for which the postmark or other proof of mailing is illegible, will be presumed to have been mailed by Election Day"

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/1589ec07-66e0-485c-b9be-9f7a03e99643-1.pdf

[Grokmaster]

Kavanaugh asked a question in a recent decision, why should we let votes overturn an election? The answer is because elections are decided by votes, not what Kavanaugh wants the results to be.

In particular, Kavanaugh complained that votes counted after midnight might change the results. No where did he come up with any proof that votes counted after midnight were worse than votes counted before midnight. Just that he wanted the right to cut short the count, if trump is winning. But what if trump is losing, then he wanted the votes to count.

SO YOUR PREMISE IS A FUCKING LIE.

THE LAW IS THE LAW. WHY DO FRAUDOCRATS SEEK TO VIOLATE ELECTION LAWS EVERY ELECTION ??


THE REAL QUESTION IS "WHY SHOULD WE LET ILLEGALLY CAST BALLOTS, OVERTURN LEGALLY CAST BALLOTS?"

[Nordberg]

Do you feel that the country hasn't been given sufficient time and resources to vote in a timely manner? What's with the "trickle in" votes ? But hey.... Let's give everyone until Christmas to get them in...and offer those who've already cast a ballot the opportunity for a redo...many are coming to their senses.....

Trump through Lajoy, has managed to slow down the mail for that express purpose. It is deliberate. You have to know that, I am sure the Reds will emphasize those rules at likely Dem precincts. This is just another right-wing suppression tactic.

[TexanManWithPlans]

Not if you think that modern technology would allow us to install a President the day after the election without amending the Constitution. I point out your mistakes.

According to all pertinent portions of the Constitution, could a President be inaugurated on November 4 this year?

You always seem to miss my point.

[PostmodernProphet]

you can beat demmycrats silly with the truth but they will still deny it.....

[Legion]

you can beat demmycrats silly with the truth but they will still deny it.....

Stop using the truth and use one of these:

[TexanManWithPlans]

You always refuse to answer questions. Gutless little black boy.

Lol. You're the idiot who thinks people using credit cards for cash back rewards risk going into debt. You also use the N word all the time here, which you would never do in public. When I do refute your numerous errors, you simply repeat them.

[CFM]

Lol. You're the idiot who thinks people using credit cards for cash back rewards risk going into debt. You also use the N word all the time here, which you would never do in public. When I do refute your numerous errors, you simply repeat them.

Any time you use a credit card you risk going into debt despite your best intentions.

You haven't refuted a single thing nor do you have any clue what I do in public. You're not around me so making that claim, while you may call it refuting something, is a baseless statement.

I asked you whether or not technology would allow us to inaugurate a President on November 4, 2020 based on current provisions in the Constitution and you refused to answer.

[TexanManWithPlans]

Any time you use a credit card you risk going into debt despite your best intentions.

You haven't refuted a single thing nor do you have any clue what I do in public. You're not around me so making that claim, while you may call it refuting something, is a baseless statement.

I asked you whether or not technology would allow us to inaugurate a President on November 4, 2020 based on current provisions in the Constitution and you refused to answer.

Based on current provisions? Of course not.

[CFM]

Based on current provisions? Of course not.

You stated in an earlier post, "if we could find a way to vote electronically and have it safe from hackers or glitches, we could install a new POTUS the day after the election". In a subsequent post, you say you knew what was in the Constitution. Making a statement like that proves you don't since the 20th amendment sets a January 20 date for inauguration. It was pointed out that the 20th set that date and you started crying that all I wanted to do was argue. Showing you that you were wrong isn't arguing.

[TexanManWithPlans]

You stated in an earlier post, "if we could find a way to vote electronically and have it safe from hackers or glitches, we could install a new POTUS the day after the election". In a subsequent post, you say you knew what was in the Constitution. Making a statement like that proves you don't since the 20th amendment sets a January 20 date for inauguration. It was pointed out that the 20th set that date and you started crying that all I wanted to do was argue. Showing you that you were wrong isn't arguing.

Jesus. You're so damn dense.

Yes, the Constitution states when a new president is to be installed. I never denied this. My point is that, in theory, if we could perfect online voting, we could move it to a sooner date. Inauguration Day used to be in March, until it was moved to January due to technological advances allowing us to tabulate votes faster. All I'm saying is that the same thing could happen again in the future.

Is it clear enough yet?

[CFM]

Jesus. You're so damn dense.

Yes, the Constitution states when a new president is to be installed. I never denied this. My point is that, in theory, if we could perfect online voting, we could move it to a sooner date. Inauguration Day used to be in March, until it was moved to January due to technological advances allowing us to tabulate votes faster. All I'm saying is that the same thing could happen again in the future.

Is it clear enough yet?

No, neither you nor I could move it to a sooner date. The way it was moved from March to January was through an amendment. The only way it could be moved from January until the day after the election would be to add an amendment that included changing the date set in the 20th amendment, the date the electors vote (currently the first Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in December, and the date in which the votes are counted (currently the first week in January). The latter two are dates set by Congress.

What all that means is it can't just happen because we want it to. There is a process involved that doesn't involve either or us nor 99.9% of the population.

[TexanManWithPlans]

No, neither you nor I could move it to a sooner date. The way it was moved from March to January was through an amendment. The only way it could be moved from January until the day after the election would be to add an amendment that included changing the date set in the 20th amendment, the date the electors vote (currently the first Monday after the 2nd Wednesday in December, and the date in which the votes are counted (currently the first week in January). The latter two are dates set by Congress.

What all that means is it can't just happen because we want it to. There is a process involved that doesn't involve either or us nor 99.9% of the population.

I have no desire to move it, and I know how amendments work.

[Nordberg]

The point we miss is that trump put Dejoy in a position to slow down the mail and he did it. Kavanaugh wants to reward Trump for pulling it off.
Brettys concurrence is poorly written with mistakes and crappy conclusions. The Dem's objections to him were justified. Now we have another right-winger on the court who will jump in to help Trump. Barrett will be another Brett. Trump controls the Supreme Court now.

[IBDaMann]

Kavanaugh asked a question in a recent decision, why should we let votes overturn an election?

Nope. He was asking why we should allow fraud to overturn an election.

The answer is because elections are decided by votes, not by what fraudsters want the results to be.

In particular, Kavanaugh argued that without a "deadline" fraudsters could place election results in limbo under the notion that we are somehow not allowed to declare a winner "yet" because we haven't "counted all the ballots" ... allowing those same fraudsters to continue to funnel in additional votes to support the losing candidate at their leisure until a sufficient number of fraudulent votes converts the loser into the winner, thus overturning the otherwise fair election.

Kavanaugh argued that a free and fair election necessarily requires a "deadline" after which the counting ceases and a winner is declared.

In what way is Kavanaugh in error?