I agree with that. While many (most?) commenters are marveling at the huge voter turnout, it should be noted that an approximate 80 million chose to sit out this election.
There is probably an opportunity in there somewhere for anyone who can figure out how to get these people out from under their rocks.
bp
<part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote:
Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So, say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit. Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out.Discretion being the key.
We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their communications have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you never know what they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear black clothes, masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly like beat an old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy pretending to be latino wasnt kidding.
Either way
--On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> wrote:
--I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what case/issue the SC should hear out. The "case" argued in public is nothing like anything presented in any court. It isn't like Trump's lawyers weren't given an opportunity. Q. Are you alleging fraud? A. No. Well OK then. You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege fraud. When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the SC and do the same. They will rightly tell you to pound sand. This basic script played out over and over again.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the issue a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more effectively than simply dismissing the case. An independent judiciary shouldn't have to consider political angles like that. The cases are being dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit. If that doesn't convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing it.
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
