Clumsy but Correct - President Trump and the Challenge of Restitution

[Right_in_Virginia]

BS....

We all know it was stolen, but there is nothing that can be done constitutionally to reverse the dirty deed. 

@catfish1957

Are you saying we must accept and live with the consequenes of the deepest, most profound illegality perpetrated on the citizens of the United States because the Constitution does not provide a specific remedy for this specific betrayal and overthrow of the government of the United States?

Is there not one applicable Constitutional intent, legal statute or precedent in all of US history pointing us toward a remedy?

Do we find the remedy using the tools we have, or do we surrender to the usurpers and blame our Founders?

[roamer_1]

In Texas vs Pennsylvania Alito, joined by Thomas, noted that in his view the Supreme Court did not “have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction.”

They did not say anything about how they might vote on the issues presented but they were correct in saying that SCOTUS does not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within its original jurisdiction. @roamer_1

Happily @Bigun , the court at large disagreed and the question remains unsettled. Because I do not need New York telling Montana what to do.

[catfish1957]

@catfish1957

Are you saying we must accept and live with the consequenes of the deepest, most profound illegality perpetrated on the citizens of the United States because the Constitution does not provide a specific remedy for this specific betrayal and overthrow of the government of the United States?

Is there not one applicable Constitutional intent, legal statute or precedent in all of US history pointing us toward a remedy?

Do we find the remedy using the tools we have, or do we surrender to the usurpers and blame our Founders?

@Right_in_Virginia

Okay big Talker, what do you suggest?  Armed insurrection?

[Bigun]

Happily @Bigun , the court at large disagreed and the question remains unsettled. Because I do not need New York telling Montana what to do.

WHY do you keep trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT @roamer_1

The issue is not New York telling Montana what to do and YOU damned well know it! The issue is whether SCOTUS has discretion to deny the filing of a case in which it has original jurisdiction!

[roamer_1]

WHY do you keep trying to CHANGE THE SUBJECT @roamer_1

The issue is not New York telling Montana what to do and YOU damned well know it! The issue is whether SCOTUS has discretion to deny the filing of a case in which it has original jurisdiction!

@Bigun

I believe that is why they didn't pick it up - Because it steps on the sole authority of the state legislature in the election process. In essence, in picking up the case, they are inherently asserting that there is NOT one sole authority, or that THEY are that sole authority... Either would be anathema.

And would certainly lead to a precedent that would in fact allow New York to tell Montana what to do.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Electors voted for Biden, hence Biden won. /argument

[Bigun]

@Bigun

I believe that is why they didn't pick it up - Because it steps on the sole authority of the state legislature in the election process. In essence, in picking up the case, they are inherently asserting that there is NOT one sole authority, or that THEY are that sole authority... Either would be anathema.

And would certainly lead to a precedent that would in fact allow New York to tell Montana what to do.

I DON"T CARE! The fact is that they DID NOT have discretion to deny the filing of the case! And that says not a word about what the outcome of the case might have been. @roamer_1

[Right_in_Virginia]

@Right_in_Virginia

Okay big Talker, what do you suggest?  Armed insurrection?

Why would you propose an armed insurrection when you haven't demonstrated the guts or the will to stand up to the usurpation?

This isn't a game @catfish1957    ----- so, let's move our disussion forward after you answer my question:

@catfish1957

Are you saying we must accept and live with the consequenes of the deepest, most profound illegality perpetrated on the citizens of the United States because the Constitution does not provide a specific remedy for this specific betrayal and overthrow of the government of the United States?

Is there not one applicable Constitutional intent, legal statute or precedent in all of US history pointing us toward a remedy?

Do we find the remedy using the tools we have, or do we surrender to the usurpers and blame our Founders?

[Cyber Liberty]

All of it.

The media didn't bury stories?

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Biden won the election when the electors voted for him. Period. As per the Constitution. 

[roamer_1]

The media didn't bury stories?

Sure they did. And they invented more. And it's not the first time, by any means.

[Right_in_Virginia]

Electors voted for Biden, hence Biden won. /argument

No, it's really not "/argument".

What the elector vote was based on is the crux of the matter.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

@catfish1957

Are you saying we must accept and live with the consequenes of the deepest, most profound illegality perpetrated on the citizens of the United States because the Constitution does not provide a specific remedy for this specific betrayal and overthrow of the government of the United States?

Well had we won enough Senate seats we could have possibly convicted Bidet after impeachment, but I doubt that's possible now. Or possibly the 25th amendment. Or another election in 2024. Other than that, continue typing impotently on the internet.

[Right_in_Virginia]

I DON"T CARE! The fact is that they DID NOT have discretion to deny the filing of the case!

Agree @Bigun   ----- And that they did STILL makes my head explode! 

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No, it's really not "/argument".

What the elector vote was based on is the crux of the matter.

That was the moment Trump lost the election once and for for all in my mind. Calls for "restitution" are just madness and stupidity.

[Kamaji]

That was the moment Trump lost the election once and for for all in my mind. Calls for "restitution" are just madness and stupidity.

Exactly.

[jmyrlefuller]

@catfish1957

Are you saying we must accept and live with the consequenes of the deepest, most profound illegality perpetrated on the citizens of the United States because the Constitution does not provide a specific remedy for this specific betrayal and overthrow of the government of the United States?

Is there not one applicable Constitutional intent, legal statute or precedent in all of US history pointing us toward a remedy?

Do we find the remedy using the tools we have, or do we surrender to the usurpers and blame our Founders?

It is not an "overthrow of the government." An overthrow of the government would have been Trump being physically forced out of the White House during his term.

But even so, the states are, in theory, free to choose their electors as they see fit. If that means sham elections, that means sham elections. Whether you like it or not.

There are remedies. But none of them would have resulted in him being given his seat for the term. Because if there was never a valid election to begin with, the seat is vacant.

[Kamaji]

It is not an "overthrow of the government." An overthrow of the government would have been Trump being physically forced out of the White House during his term.

But even so, the states are, in theory, free to choose their electors as they see fit. If that means sham elections, that means sham elections. Whether you like it or not.

There are remedies. But none of them would have resulted in him being given his seat for the term. Because if there was never a valid election to begin with, the seat is vacant.

Good points.  The Constitution is quite clear that a president's term ends on Jan. 20, and the termination of that term is not dependent on a successor having been elected, or the election of that successor having been certified.

[Bigun]

13th Amendment expressly says otherwise. They can always deny any case they want, because to say otherwise is involuntary servitude.

 

[Bigun]

Argree @Bigun   ----- And that they did STILL makes my head explode! 

It has certainly taken ALL the wind out of my sails WRT any hope of salvaging the republic @Right_in_Virginia

[roamer_1]

I DON"T CARE! The fact is that they DID NOT have discretion to deny the filing of the case! And that says not a word about what the outcome of the case might have been. @roamer_1

That would hold more weight @Bigun , if the SCOTUS had not been practicing discretion in original jurisdiction cases for a long time. This is not the only state v state case they have denied filing, by a long shot.

Even if you are correct at the core, enough precedence has occurred to make this particular denial uneventful. If it were the first or only, or only in a long while, then bias might be assigned.

But they have practiced discretion, appellate or original jurisdiction, for a while.
Changing that might require a congressional action to clarify the role. Either way, It ain't getting fixed right now.

[libertybele]

SCOTUS turned it's back on this country period. 

[Kamaji]

That would hold more weight @Bigun , if the SCOTUS had not been practicing discretion in original jurisdiction cases for a long time. This is not the only state v state case they have denied filing, by a long shot.

Even if you are correct at the core, enough precedence has occurred to make this particular denial uneventful. If it were the first or only, or only in a long while, then bias might be assigned.

But they have practiced discretion, appellate or original jurisdiction, for a while.
Changing that might require a congressional action to clarify the role. Either way, It ain't getting fixed right now.

Yup.

[catfish1957]

Why would you propose an armed insurrection when you haven't demonstrated the guts or the will to stand up to the usurpation?

This isn't a game @catfish1957    ----- so, let's move our disussion forward after you answer my question:

So you've devolved into asking me to answer a silly hypothetical after you wouldn't answer my silly one?

You are the one playing games.

[DefiantMassRINO]

Restitution for what?

Trump lost.  Losers get nothing.  That's America.  No participation trophy.  No restitution.  No reparations.

What's Hillary Clinton's restitution for having 2016 election stolen for her?

What's Al Gore's restitution for having 2000 election stolen from him?

How far back do we want to go to live in past grievances?

Let's see what happens with the election in Georgia today.