Trump argues against counting all the votes: ‘Must have final total on November 3rd’

annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
Trump argues against counting all the votes: ‘Must have final total on November 3rd’

President Donald Trump on Monday argued against counting all of the votes cast in the 2020 presidential election.

While traveling from a campaign rally in Pennsylvania to the swearing-in of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, Trump suggested that voting should end on election day and the incomplete results should be accepted.

“Big problems and discrepancies with Mail In Ballots all over the USA,” Trump claimed.

“Must have final total on November 3rd,” Trump demanded.

The comments were a continuation of Trump’s efforts to discredit the legitimacy of the election as he trails Joe Biden in the polls.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
There's little doubt how this would've gone post-Coney Barrett.

The Supreme Court will allow Pennsylvania to count mailed-in ballots received up to three days after the Nov. 3 election, rejecting a Republican plea in the presidential battleground state.

The justices divided 4-4 Monday, an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that required county election officials to receive and count mailed-in ballots that arrive up until Nov. 6, even if they don’t have a clear postmark, as long as there is not proof it was mailed after the polls closed.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
It must be infuriating that he spent all that time trying to slow down the mails to rig the election, and then the court just stops him cold.
 
annabenedetti

annabenedetti

like marbles on glass
The Barbarian said:
It must be infuriating that he spent all that time trying to slow down the mails to rig the election, and then the court just stops him cold.
Click to expand...

There will be more cases coming before lower courts and very possibly the Supreme Court. This was their long game. Stack the courts, challenge the states, disqualify, disenfranchise and uphold the suppression tactics against the votes of the people, and if necessary, have the conservative-leaning SC with Coney-Barrett, shoved in literally days before the election, rule in favor of the GOP. She made an unethical decision to accept a sham nomination, she'll have to live with that on her oh-so-handmaidenly conscience.

I'm hoping and expecting Biden to expand the courts, federal and supreme.
 
ok doser

ok doser

lifeguard at the cement pond
annabenedetti said:
She made an unethical decision to accept a sham nomination ...
Click to expand...

Yes this is a common claim that I've seen from the left over the past couple weeks ever since RBG died and it became clear that Trump was going to nominate a replacement for her quickly. But never is it explained how the nomination is as you say "a sham".

Care to explain?
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
annabenedetti said:
I'm hoping and expecting Biden to expand the courts, federal and supreme.
Click to expand...

Like refusing to give Obama's appointees a hearing, and rushing a nomination through just before an election, increasing the number of justices is perfectly legal, even if it plays to partisan advantage. That's the new standard, introduced by Trump and company. They will, if Biden be comes president and allows it, shriek in outrage that the democrats are doing what they did when they had the power.

And they will have no one but themselves to blame.

And given Trump's numerous usurpations that are now precedent, Biden would have quite a lot of power to wield in making changes.

Poetic justice.


BTW, we have 9 justices, because then we had only 9 circuit courts. Today we have 13 circuit courts. There you go.
 
The Barbarian

The Barbarian

BANNED
Banned
If they existed. The problem is, the law can't be changed now, because Americans took control of Congress from him in 2016 Blue Wave election. And there's a fair chance that the Senate will also go blue in 2020.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top