Surreal Alternate Reality
Please note that Pennsylvania issues Blistering Rebuke of Texas’ lawsuit seeking to invalidate millions of votes.
Statements by Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro
- “Texas seeks to invalidate elections in four states for yielding results with which it disagrees. Its request for this Court to exercise its original jurisdiction and then anoint Texas’s preferred candidate for President is legally indefensible and is an affront to principles of constitutional democracy.”
- The lawsuit, rests on a “surreal alternate reality.”
- “Texas’s effort to get this Court to pick the next President has no basis in law or fact. The Court should not abide this seditious abuse of the judicial process, and should send a clear and unmistakable signal that such abuse must never be replicated.”
- “Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four sister States run their elections, and Texas suffered no harm because it dislikes the results in those elections.”
Correct on All Four
Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro is clearly correct on all four counts.
“This case is hopeless,” said SCOTUSblog publisher Tom Goldstein, who argues frequently before the court.
Hopeless Case
Also consider Big Problems with Texas’ Bid to Overturn Biden’s Win at the Supreme Court
The lawsuit, which Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed Monday, calls on the court to delay the electoral vote in the four targeted states, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, to allow investigations of voting issues to continue. That would be unconstitutional, said Edward Foley of the Moritz College of Law at Ohio State University.
The second hurdle is that Texas has no legal right to claim that officials elsewhere didn’t follow the rules set by their own legislatures. The United States doesn’t have a national election for president. It has a series of state elections, and one state has no legal standing to challenge how another state conducts its elections any more than Texas could challenge how Georgia elects its senators, legal experts said.
The court filings also appear to have been prepared in haste. For example, the lawsuit says the four states that Texas wants to sue have a total of 72 electoral votes. The total is actually 62.
Officials from both parties in the states named in the lawsuit ripped Paxton’s challenge as “a publicity stunt” loaded with “false and irresponsible” allegations.
False and Irresponsible Allegations
Let’s dive into the Texas Filing for absurd charges.
Expert analysis using a commonly
accepted statistical test further raises serious questions as to the integrity of this election.The probability of former Vice President
Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—independently given President Trump’s early lead in those States as of 3 a.m. on November 4, 2020, is less than one in a quadrillion, or 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000.The same less than one in a quadrillion statistical improbability of Mr. Biden winning the popular vote in the four Defendant States—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin— independently exists when Mr. Biden’s performance in each of those Defendant States is compared to former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s performance in the 2016 general election and President Trump’s performance in the 2016 and 2020 general elections.
Statistical Madness
Robert Madsen on American Thinker takes a deep dive into statistical madness in A Summary of the Texas Election Lawsuit.
The Texas lawsuit claims the odds of Biden overcoming Trump’s lead and winning any of the states after the point indicated was one in a quadrillion. And therefore, the odds of winning all four was one in a quadrillion to the fourth power. The lawsuit did not provide information on how that number was determined. This may seem an exaggerated to some. It is enough to state that the odds of winning any one of the states was highly unlikely and the odds of winning all four were extremely unlikely. For example, if the odds of winning any one of the states was numerically much less extreme but still highly unlikely, say something like one in twenty, then the odds of doing that in all four states would be 1 in 160,000. Twenty beans in a jar: 19 white and 1 black. Reach in without looking and be lucky enough to pull out the one black bean. Chances of doing that again is 1 in 400. Clearly indicative of cheating if someone claims to have done that four times in a row. As I said the statistical analysis behind the claim of odds of 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 are not given so I cannot speak to that. But even if the odds were orders of magnitude better than that, they were still astronomically small. At any rate, the merits of the lawsuit do not depend on any certain level of odds of Biden overcoming a lead that had been established by 3:00 A.M. the day after election
.
Trump Bets on Longshot Texas Election Lawsuit
The Wall Street Journal also shreds the lawsuit in Trump Bets on Longshot Texas Election Lawsuit
Mr. Trump called the lawsuit “the big one” in a tweet Wednesday. “The Supreme Court has a chance to save our Country from the greatest Election abuse in the history of the United States,” the president tweeted Thursday.
Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel called the Texas lawsuit “a publicity stunt.” Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul said the suit was “genuinely embarrassing.” Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro called the allegations “meritless” and “beyond reckless.”
A group of Republican former officials filed a friend of the court brief calling Texas’s claim “a mockery of federalism and separation of powers. It would violate the most fundamental constitutional principles for this Court to serve as the trial court for presidential election disputes,” they argued. Signers included a foremost Supreme Court advocate, Carter Phillips, along with former New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman, former Missouri Sen. John Danforth and Lowell Weicker, a former Connecticut governor, senator and congressman.
The only question before the Supreme Court is whether Texas has permission to file its case. Most cases that come before the justices have first gone through lower courts, but the Constitution authorizes states to file suits directly with the Supreme Court. The court’s practice, however, has been to accept such cases only when they involve disputes that cannot first be heard elsewhere.
The Texas suit is the brashest attempt yet by GOP officials to invalidate the election, and constitutional scholars said they doubt the Supreme Court will entertain a suit proposing to disenfranchise millions of voters.
“If Texas gets its way, the Supreme Court will basically be throwing out a presidential election despite no evidence of fraud or that the results aren’t accurate,” said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladek, calling the lawsuit one of the most bizarre court filings of the 2020 election cycle. “It’s crazy.”
Texas rests much of its argument on a disputed statistical analysis by economist Charles Ciccetti, who claims Mr. Biden’s odds of winning the four defendant states were “1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,” given that Mr. Trump carried them in his 2016 race against Hillary Clinton.
Laughable Claims
It never helps your case when you make laughable, easily-disproved, claims.
- It was well understood, nearly universally, that Trump’s initial lead was based on election day votes.
- It was also well understood that mail in votes would be counted last.
- Finally, it was well understood that mail in votes were overwhelmingly Democratic in nature.
All of those points were made well in advance of the counting.
I commented on that on August 30 in On Election Night, We Might Not Know Who Won
Election Night Scorecard
On October 31, I gave more detailed expectations in Election Night Scorecard: Here’s What to Watch
Michigan Results: It’s going to take a few days. The earliest absentee ballots can be processed is Nov. 2, which likely does not leave enough time to count them all by election night. The secretary of state estimates that it could take until Friday, Nov. 6, for all ballots to be counted and a winner to be declared.
Michigan Shifts: Margins will probably shift toward Democrats in the days after Nov. 3 as mail votes are added to the results.
Pennsylvania Results: It’ll be slow going. Although around half of Pennsylvanians are expected to vote absentee, those ballots can’t start being processed until 7 a.m. on Nov. 3. Simply put, that’s not enough time for many counties to count them all before the day is over. (For example, Bucks County plans to count ballots 24 hours a day and still doesn’t expect to be done until the end of the week.) Overall, election officials estimate that “the overwhelming majority” of votes will be counted by Friday. That said, don’t rule out an even longer wait. During the June primary, about half of counties were still counting a week after the election. No matter what, we’ll definitely know the outcome by Nov. 23 — the deadline for counties to stop counting.
Pennsylvania Shifts: Election-night results are expected to be disproportionately made up of Election Day votes, which will probably skew Republican. Then, as absentee ballots are counted in the ensuing days, the state will probably experience a blue shift.
Wisconsin Results: It may take all night, but we should have all results by Wednesday morning. Despite not being able to process absentee ballots until Election Day (which originally stoked fears of a delayed count), many counties say they will be able to count everything on election night: Washington County plans to have all results by 10:30 p.m. Eastern; Kenosha, Sheboygan and Fond du Lac by 1 a.m. Eastern; Waukesha County by 4 a.m. Eastern; and Milwaukee County sometime between 4 and 7 a.m. Eastern. The governor has predicted that we will know the outcome of the election “hopefully that night and maybe at the latest the very next day.”
Wisconsin Shifts: Most municipalities count absentee and Election Day votes together, but others — including Milwaukee — count them separately and may release absentee votes all at once toward the end of the night, which could nudge races toward Democrats.
Contrary to the laughable claim of 1 in a quadrillion, the late shits toward Democrats was called well in advance then repeated.
Had I seen that preposterous claim, I would have wanted to file my own friend of the court briefing.
Morally and Ethically Bankrupt
John Kasich is a former Republican governor of Ohio.
An Attorney General With Principles
If you are worried the Supreme Court will decide for Trump, you should instead be shaking your head at how preposterous this setup is and how laughable the claims are.
Mish
Supreme Court correctly declines to get involved. The case never had merit, and this was inevitable, and was just for show. The point was to build support for his argument that the whole system as against him (it actually reinforces the point that he simply lost).
Now we wait for the next shoe to drop. The next step seems inevitable. I am sure that Trump will invoke the law from the 1800’s, and force every Republican Congressman and Senator to put on paper whether they are with him or against him. After that, we will wait to see if Trump thinks his control over the military is strong enough to suspend the Constitution, arguing that they system is broken, so it can’t be allowed to continue, and then makes himself President (aka Dictator) anyway.
Canada is looking better every day.
This just gets sillier, The States of New California and New Nevada have joined the suit and filed Amicus briefs. They don’t even say what they are.
MISH- when are you going to move from discussing Trump (because most have moved past this) to the Great Reset
Below is the exact point of the debate.
taking action allegedly would. Moreover, acting
decisively will not only put lower courts but also state
and local officials on notice that future elections must
conform to State election statutes, requiring
legislative ratification of any change prior to the
election. Far from condemning this and other courts
to perpetual litigation, action here will stanch the
flood of election-season litigation.
If the supreme court hears this, which they probably will, how ever it turns out, half the voters will be pissed off. Get out your popcorn.
Well I see my US Senator, Senator Candy Crush (Josh Hawley) has jumped on board supporting this crap… Anything to advance in what used to be a great political party that has been reduced to sewage under Trump.
Mish, this is a case of Constitutional law, something I studied in undergrad. Texas has a strong case based on Constitutional law. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea of another 4 years, but on strictly legal grounds, there is a strong case
I’d say you were lucky that you didn’t have to repeat that class..
I’d say you were lucky that you didn’t have to repeat that class..
Argument Ad Hominem is always the go to of the logically challenged
When you boil this case down to it’s core, there are no allegations that there were any votes cast by people who were not entitled to vote. The allegation is that Pennsylvania made it too easy to vote, and that more people voted than would have voted if they had made it more difficult to vote. Thus, the case is that Texas has a vested interest in other states making it more difficult to vote.
I don’t think that’s true, but even if it is, you have to keep in mind the distinction of equity from law. The two have origins in different courts in England. Law has no remedy for this, so you have to turn to equity. There you run into a variety of problems. Most pronounced is the doctrine of laches. It would obviously be unfair to tell people “these are the rules for voting”, and then, if they followed the rules, to not count their votes. Thus there is no relief that can be granted.
“The allegation is that Pennsylvania made it too easy to vote”
The problem is those changes were not made by the state legislature, the only body legally allowed to make such a change
But hasn’t the question of these changes already been decided by the State Supreme Courts? They let the ‘rules’ stand (and it may be that they may have not agreed with the way the changes were made, but they still ruled on them, nonetheless).
And now the US Supreme Court has basically said the same thing – Texas has no case because this is an issue decided internally by each state and the individual states take care of any disputes. This is already done.
You need to elaborate on why you think there is a strong case based on your interpretation of ‘Constitutional Law’. Every other response to this has been fairly explicit in that the final say for these election items falls to the state Supreme Courts. I’m no expert, so I’m only stating what I’ve seen across multiple sites and messages on this site.
Article II, section 1, clause 2 states:
“Clause 2. Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors” (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2-4)
Election changes were made that were not done “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-1/clause-2-4)
If the Secretary of State, the Governor or anyone made election rule changes, they did so in contravention of the constitution. I think that is the key to this dispute
They have standing under article 3 of the US Constitution as SCOTUS is the Court of original jurisdiction for disputes among states. Furthermore, under Article 4 Section 4 they are guaranteed a Republican Form of government. The election clause is applicable under Article 2. Do I think they have legal claim…Yes. However, there is another remedy to adjudicate this case and Congress is the answer.
Did the PA supreme court have the authority per the US Constitution to extend the vote deadline. IMHO it did not.
The US Constitution says nothing about voter deadlines. It does make it clear that the PA Supreme Court has the final say about what Pennsylvania’s law is. To the extent that a Federal Court at any level is called to interpret Pennsylvania law, they are bound to follow whatever precedent the PA Supreme Court has set. If they face an issue that the PA Supreme Court has not yet addressed, they are to interpret other rulings by the PA Supreme Court, and try to anticipate how the PA Supreme Court would rule.
“IMHO”?
You may be entitled to your own opinion, but your opinion carries no weight in PA court cases.
I agree! While Americans die, starve, and are losing their jobs and homes the politicians dont seem to care. Well they do care about their own paychecks. That is why the republican senators are not saying anything about Trump demoralizing our democracy. He can ruin their chances for reelection if he trashes them in the media. Kentucky screwed everyone when they brought back McConnel. He said he didnt want to give americans $300 a week because they would stay home and not work. He cant just help people without getting something in return that trump wants. Its laughable blackmail. They all will be at home enjoying the holidays while the rest of us see everything we own being taken away and loved ones dying alone. We all are carrying the weight of this ridiculous political fight. Our children are being affected by whats happening. I for one think that every politician that didnt stand up and fight for the people most affected by this virus (i.e.) job loss, food, housing, should be gone in our next elections. They are supposed to work for us. Lets put them on notice. If you want to quietly collect your paychecks you are useless to us and will not continue to hold your positions. Help the people of the united states. That should be your only concern right now.
Maybe trump has no basis for his allegations, but blasting him is asinine. The democrats spent 4 years and millions of taxpayer dollars trying to overturn 2016. Trump has spent a month.
Dear Mish
This article bigger as minimum twice than usually.
This article is so huge because Texas are right.
Today you need more words to
deceive and confuse yours followers
Clearly English is not your first language
But his Russian is great!
The disenfranchise part is why I think the SCOTUS will be loathe to act.
At this point, I’m actually coming here for the plethora of trashy ads.
The Constitution gives State Legislatures the sole right to decide electors, not Secretaries of State. The rules were bent out of shape by the SOS, the damage is that the citizens of another State, Texas, have to live with the candidate that otherwise, would not have won. That is the case at hand. How SCOTUS decides is up to them.
The question you pose isn’t a question that the Supreme Court can decide. To say that some other candidate would have won if the election had been held using different rules is entirely speculative. There is no indication that votes were counted that voters were not legally entitled to cast. There is no indication that votes were counted that voters did not cast according to the rules that were in place at the time the votes were cast. The fact is that there is no way to know exactly how many less people would have voted if the rules had been different, nor how the outcome might have changed.
In any case, it is not up to Texas, nor to the Supreme Court, to determine how elections are to be conducted in other states. That is solely a matter for the state courts. The state courts already addressed the issue, and it has been decided.
In addition, you have the issue of laches. Even if the Supreme Court decides Texas has standing, which I doubt they will, this case was not brought on a timely basis. It should have been brought before the election, not after it. You can’t leave rules in place for voting, and then, after the election, if you don’t like the outcome, go back and disallow votes that were cast according to the rules in place at the time.
The fact is that this case has no legal merit, and I don’t think even the people who brought it think it has merit. So far, the judiciary has been above reproach in how it has handled these cases, and has decided them quickly, and in legally correct manners, and has not allowed politics to play a part. I expect this case to be no different.
Wrong. Courts don’t MAKE laws! That is the whole point of this lawsuit. Geeze…
I love the latches argument… before the election you have no standing, since there are no damages. After the voting, you have damages, but are too late to file. Quite an amusing concept of justice. I hope you are wrong, for obvious reasons.
Re: “The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election. “
Russia had no meaningful interference, if indeed any worth discussing at all. It is silly to believe otherwise.
Hillary’s attempt to lay the blame on Russia is laughable
The Committee finds the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) presents a coherent and well-constructed intelligence basis for the case that Russia engaged in an attempt to interfere with the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The Committee concludes that all analytic lines are supported with all-source intelligence, that the ICA reflects proper analytic tradecraft, and that differing levels of confidence on one analytic judgment are justified and properly represented. Additionally, interviews with those who drafted and prepared the ICA affirmed that analysts were under no political pressure to reach specific conclusions.
Depends on what you call “meaningful.” Did hacking Podesta’s emails and releasing them selectively constitute “meaningful” interference?
Interesting how the media and Democratic politicians peddled that lie for nearly 4 years.
I recommend reading Peter Strzok book, Compromised on this matter. This is about Russia using social media with RT and Sputnik news. Peter Strzok is former FBI agent fired by Trump. This is an interesting read!
Trump’s claims and these suits are ridiculous, but the (media’s/Democrat’s/Neocon’s) claims of damage to our Democracy are off-base.
If anything, it’s going to show that in our system, the loser, even if an incumbent, is getting escorted out on Inauguration Day, because we’re not a banana republic.
There’s no institutional harm in letting Trump have his (losing) day in the courts.
Ironically the worst damage is to the GOP… this looks so bad. It may cost them a Senate seat (or two) in Georgia.
The worst damage could be that it gives the Democrats the House, Senate and White House and we end up with idiotic left-wing legislation that is impossible to ditch in the coming decades. Institutional harm: nope. Harm to the people because of blowback for his own Party: potentially big…
Yeah, I wish he’d knock off this crap. I think he’s raising lots of $ off it though. Sigh.
Trump bringing a baseless lawsuit doesn’t concern me. The A.G.’s of 17 states signing on does. These are the guys entrusted with enforcing our nations laws. 100 members of Congress signed on. That concerns me too.
What concerns me is the steps he has taken in the last two months to eliminate non-loyal people at the top of the Department of Defense, and particularly, those that oppose using US troops against US citizens. The lawsuits are a joke, and no one could possibly have thought they would win. That leads to the question, why did they file them, then? There are only two plausible answers I can come up with. One is to raise money. The other is so that he can explain (to his loyalists) why he needs to suspend the Constitution.
Hopefully it will all blow over, but I wish I didn’t have doubts.
about that statistics Texas used in its complaint…
Supreme Court is not the appropriate court. It’s designed for when states have disputes about borders , like river boundaries. what’s next NY sues Arizona in Federal court because it doesn’t like their drinking age law?
And Trump picked the wrong Supreme court. It’s now stacked with conservatives and this very suit is an attack on Federalism. The U.S. constitution is not what matters , but each states own State Constitution, which means the case goes to that state’s Supreme Court.
And the evidence in this case? They used Z-scores from the 2016 election and want to make the case that mail ballots should follow the same patterns as day of voting walk in ballots. It’s embarrassing that any lawyer worth his salt has signed on , and its almost as embarrassing that someone with an alleged degree in math or statistics is submitting expert testimony promoting such non-sense.
Paxton launched the suit for one reason. He wants a pardon. His own S.G. wants nothing to do with it
Trump pardon would do Paxton no good. He is charged with Texas state crimes not Federal crimes.
Securities fraud charge since 2015. A Federal crime
Well we know why Paxton signed on. Pardon.
Well we know why Paxton signed on. He’s aiming for a pardon.
This case scares me. No I don’t think Trump has a prayer at winning it, but its more than a bit concerning that 17 state a.g’s an over a hundred representatives have signed on in support. Our Democracy is really in trouble.
Our Democracy is really in trouble.
DUH!
I”m surprised the supreme court hasn’t rejected this case yet. Breyer and Kagan must have left early for Chanukah
The Legislative Branch makes the Laws and there is no Kungflu provision to circumvent that Constitutionally. Period. End of Story.
Where’s the legal argument in the answer to subvert the United States Constitution??? Still waiting liberals!
If the case is heard and Senator Cruz argues it, get ready for a second term. The Constitution isn’t a piece of toilet paper you liberals can crap on and just do what you want. There’s a reason Sen Harris hasn’t given up her Senate seat yet…
The people still claiming a second term for Trump are total masochists. It’s like they are enjoying every second of agony for over five weeks. Maybe it feeds into a martyr complex or something, but the dedication is sort of impressive.
Of course these people should be angry that bankers run our society, effectively dooming their kids and grandkids to poverty, not that an orange conman didn’t get a second term. That’s the one (arguably) good thing about Trump dragging his feet, that it’s bringing people to anger more quickly, even if it’s for the wrong reasons.
That’s NOT a good thing. lol
It can be if you see the anger and upheaval as inevitable. Otherwise yeah, it’s terrifying to think of descending into sectarian conflict.
Watching too much FNN fake news that this election wasn’t corrupted. You’ll see…
I just googled ‘when will trump declare martial law’ and it came back with ‘approximately 6,4800,000 results’
Yeah, like google isn’t in the back pocket of sleazy Democrats.
Oh, this is merely about the Enforcement Acts of 1871, designed to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment and Civil Rights Act of 1866, otherwise known as the Klu Klux Klan Acts. These were all done by the Yankees, by the way.
This is just an effort to raise more money.
Mish, my first reaction was, “what Texas lawsuit?”. I didn’t see anything in The Chicago Tribune about it.
It’s there now.
….Moreover, 3 U.S.C. § 5 expressly and properly enables a state to designate “its” state tribunals as the “conclusive” arbiter of “any controversy or contest concerning” presidential election results in that state. (Emphasis added.) In the rare instance that a state supreme court’s ruling violates a federal constitutional provision or statute, this Court has appellate jurisdiction. See, e.g., Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 100-01 (2000) (per curiam)….
Each state sets its own rules and ajucates its own cases for elections, and only if the state courts ruling violates the Consitution, it can then be brought on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Based on the Republican’s PhD expert (ho ho), there is no way that Ronald Regan could have beat Jimmy Carter in a landslide in the 1980 presidential election. I want a recount! Wondering if there is a hashtag for #moronphds
“All they have to prove is that rules other than those set by the State legislature were being followed.”
I think they also have to prove Texas was clearly harmed by the outcome, even if that were true…and I’m not even sure the premise is true.
Since over 46% of Texans voted for Biden, I think that might be a stretch.
Whole article fails to mention that they are appealing to the constitution, Art I § 4.
They have standing because they are claiming a conflict between States, which cannot be adjudicated in other courts.
All they have to prove is that rules other than those set by the State legislature were being following.
Will the justices limit themselves to points of law?
Unlikely, Scotus has not become so controversial for sticking to the literal text.
Will Kavanaugh and Thomas defer to the nice democrats who would not subvert proceedings for mere political ends?
Who knows. Don’t count on it…
they have no standing to tell other states how to run their elections. Next thing you’ll want California jumping in on some house race in Alabama.
The allegations are that they were not elections.
Of course they have standing. The Presidential race is a FEDERAL election whereby all states are harmed if any states don’t follow Legislative laws.
That’s not what section 4 of the constitution talks about at all. It’s about the fact that the states have to support each other against armed attacks…granted if you think voters are the enemy…what a stupid thing to suggest (article 4 of the US Consitution). Just read the damn thing!
Article I, section 4. Oops
Obviously this lawsuit has no merit, and presumably it will die a quick death. The judges and justices involved in these lawsuits have earned great respect by sticking to the rule of law, regardless of which party appointed them. I don’t expect that to change.
So, if this lawsuit has no hope, and never had hope, why bring it, and why bring the 50 other pointless and doomed jokes of lawsuits? There are only two possible explanations I can think of, money and power. The money argument is that the point is to extend fund raising. Trump may need a lot of money after he ceases to be President, so a huge fund raising boom at the close will serve him well. The power argument is that Trump will use his series of losses in court to argue that the whole system is corrupt, and that the only option he has left is to suspend the Constitution so that he can remain President for life.
So, is the point of bringing futile, laughable lawsuits money, or power? I’m hoping it’s money.
Keep drinking the Leftist-media propaganda
You have no idea what you are talking about. Just stop posting…
My understanding of the bogus “quadrillion” odds is it is based on the assumption that every vote, regardless of when it was received, was as likely to be a Trump vote as a Biden vote.
This disregarded the time effects where early counts of in-person voting (which was done more by Trump fans) resulted in a Trump lead early on, and then that was offset by the absentee ballots (done more by Biden fans).
So after some magic cut-off time, when Trump was ahead, the statistial “analysis” assumes that the later-counted ballots would be just as likely to be for Trump as for Biden. And the odds of Biden’s win comes into the “quadrillions”, because far more votes went for Biden in the absentee ballots.
The statistical mistake is, as Mish said, it was always the case that more Biden voters would be absentee voters and thereby counted later.
So assuming the late votes would be equally for Trump as for Biden was the fatal mistake in the statistical “analysis”. Votes affected by a time of counting element cannot be compared to the flipping of a coin repeatedly and running into a string of hundreds of thousands of heads more than tails.
Flat out lie -> “ “Nothing in the text, history, or structure of the Constitution supports Texas’s view that it can dictate the manner in which four sister States run their elections, and Texas suffered no harm because it dislikes the results in those elections.”
Sooooo manyLiberals have been cheated by the education they received.
It should be noted that the mail in ballot counting “crisis” on election night, such that it even was a crisis, could have been easily avoided had Republican-controlled state legislatures allowed their election officials to canvass their mail-in ballots prior to the election like many states like Florida and Ohio do.
Republicans keep harping on the potential fraud associated with mail-in ballots but have still yet to show actual instances of such fraud except for a tiny number of localized instances affecting some local elections.
Golly Beaver, if only mom and dad changed the rules so we could do what we want to do.
That’s your argument
Yea, sooooo crazy that states are not allowed to break the law when conducting their elections. All those mean Red States…
The Attorneys General that signed onto this suit must be sanctioned.
Why?
😆
Because ethics still matter in the practice of law. A lawsuit brought knowingly in bad faith with no evidential or legal basis is sanctionable. This is a baseless and meritless lawsuit made up out of thin air.
Dumb post
Must of been before my lifetime when ethics mattered in the practice of law. I don’t remember that.
Nothing I read above relates to the basis of the suit. Texas says the other states broke their own election laws, which they did, and changed how votes could be counted. That affected who won the election, contrary to Texas’s vote
Hey genius, where are the valid in-state suits that claim that their own state laws were broken to elect Biden?
I don’t see any suits outstanding, do you?
So where did Texas get the special goggles to see problems in other states when there are no in-state suits?
Google me that, genius.
Or should I say Parler me that?
Do you want to discuss or name call? If you want an answer, be respectful and calm
What, you don’t like to be called “genius”?
Then I certainly will desist in the absence of evidence.
Example of outstanding in-state suits of fraud or illegality?
I don’t know of any. I know the suits have been denied or rejected due to timing and jurisdiction; none have agreed to see any evidence . Lin wood and Sydney Powell have expected this, climbing the necessary ladder to SCOTUS
Toppa, are you really unaware that they have also been rejected because of their bogus evidence and unqualified “expert” witnesses, and implausible and illogical theories?
You do need to get out more.
“I know the suits have been denied or rejected due to timing and jurisdiction;…”
No – they have been denied for lack of evidence. As an example the statement from the lead judge in the PA case in front of the Federal Court of Appeals —
“Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.” – Judge Stephanos Bibas (a Trump court appointee).
There’s plenty of evidence, CNN just lies to you…
Watch Leftist-media much….
Watch Leftist media much….
By the way congrats for joining today!
BS they did. Prove it.
@Toppa – 100% accurate. The answer to the filing sounds like a teenage girl having a temper tantrum devoid of any legal merits to deny SCOTUS from hearing the case.
I can’t speak to the other states, but how exactly did Wisconsin violate its own election laws? This election was run exactly the same way as all the other elections in the 10 years I have lived in the state.
USSC says to Toppa — fuck off, eat shit and die.
What I find immensely disturbing is how partisan the breakdown is around the suit–these AG’s in support of the suit certainly don’t belong in office if they can’t see how flawed and wrong this suit is.
And the effn disgusting worm that Ted Cruz has turned into is appalling. His wife and father impugned by Trump, but hey, he’ll bust the Consitution for Trump…
It isn’t for Trump…it’s for the chance he gets to be the next Trump. He was always a worm…..but he’s a very intelligent worm. The kind I really don’t like.
I find it amusing that Ted Cruz thinks he’ll ever be president.
Trumps remarks about Cruz’s wife. Well, at least there is some factual basis unlike the Texas case…
Let’s get down to brass tacks.
The entity that decides to overturn the election results will be responsible for the mass killing that will necessarily follow.
Now I ask: who exactly is volunteering for THAT responsibility?
That will be the responsibility of the people doing the killing and the authorities that are in a position to stop it and don’t.
That leads to the inevitable question: Trump has been working diligently for weeks to consolidate his power over the military. The end game is obvious, and it’s not these frivolous lawsuits. The question is, when he suspends the Constitution, and declares himself President for life, will the military stand with him, or will they arrest him?
I commend you for how reasonably you defend insanity.
I do have some questions if you’ll indulge me.
USSC will dismiss Texas’ lawsuit. What then?
Would you and your ilk ever accept the result of the 2020 Presidential Election?
Does the fight continue in perpetuity? What will your resistance tactics be? Is armed insurrection off the table?
Is secession an option? Military coup? Replace the Constitution with new Articles of Confederation? Can you account for international reaction to American political reorganization?
I ask you because you seem of a different stripe than the average cultist. Is there any circumstance by which Toppa accepts the results of this election as valid? Do you have faith in any present American institutions?
I’ve already picked up a weapon to fight for this country and I’m sure there are plenty of veterans who don’t care about you’re scary consequences if it means we have a fair election result without rampant fraud.
Where is the actual evidence? Its sad tho to see how low the faith in US institutions has dropped. Trump is helping that trend.
No evidence needed, other than #diaperdon’ s hurt fee’fees.
There is a ton of evidence of fraud
you are a fraud
Toppa joined today to add his wisdom…
Thank you for welcoming me njbr
“Toppa joined today to add his wisdom…”
Oh man, I never checked profiles on Mish before. Now I’m super offended.
I’ve been reading/commenting on Mish since sometime mid-2008 but it says I joined in 2019. Meanwhile Carl_R here has a 2017 join date.
This is an outrage!
I demand to speak with the manager.
Brilliant! Another name caller.
No credible evidence has yet been introduced in any of the lawsuits. Apparently we are to believe tons of evidence exists, but they are keeping it secret.
@Carl_R keep watching Leftist- media.
On the contrary the system seems to be standing up pretty well. Its the republicans im losing faith in.
John Cornyn was very skeptical in an interview I read today…..but then he’s an experienced jurist. He knows it’s bullshit….he didn’t say that exactly, but he wasn’t endorsing the case by any means.
Cornyn is a RINO. Everyone in TX knows that. It does not help your case to cite him on anything. At the end of the day I will go with whatever SCOTUS say, not trump, not trumps lawyers and not suddenly liberal mish from liberal illinnoise.
We all need to understand that both sides think their viewpoints have merit. You cannot just steamroll the other side and not expect them to think they got screwed. We have a process for resolving issues like this. Its called the court system. What they say is what we should all get behind, even if it means that Alzheimers Joe will be our new senator and Kamala socialist Harris will be the new president. If they get the nod from scotus, that’s it. It should be OVER for all conservatives even if they believe in their hearts that the video evidence they have seen of ballots being counted after GOP poll watchers were sent home was obviously a planned event by lying dems.
Likewise, if scotus sides with Texas and trump (who is not much of a conservative IMO) then liberals need to just accept it. And of course then in that case, we need to prosecute anyone who is suspected of the interstate conspiracy that Texas AG is alleging.
In reality it matters very little because the national debt has gone exponential and neither trump nor harris can stop it without immediately causing the collapse of the Global Debt Ponzi. The main reason we need to let scotus make a decision is that it represents rule of law based on fact, not emotions and opinions. If you do not agree with this then you must think your emotional opinion is of more value than the scotus team. In that case I would have to ask, who’s trying to subvert rule of law now? scotus is the highest legal authority in the land. Let’s all agree to agree with whatever they say.
Either that or there will be civil war and if I were liberal I would not like that. After all, who has all the guns?
Funny, until Ted Cruz came along, Cornyn was considered a rock-ribbed Republican.
Now, anybody to the left of Mussolini is a RINO.
“You cannot just steamroll the other side and not expect them to think they got screwed.”
Nobody got steamrolled. You’re delusional, and so are a lot fo other people.
“The main reason we need to let scotus make a decision is that it represents rule of law based on fact, not emotions and opinions. If you do not agree with this then you must think your emotional opinion is of more value than the scotus team.”
Except when they rule against Trump, you won’t be saying that. Let’s talk end of next week, shall we?
“Either that or there will be civil war and if I were liberal I would not like that. After all, who has all the guns?”
MY guess is that very few citizens are better armed than I am. Or are more capable and willing to use arms if the situation were to call for it. Be careful who you threaten.
USSC spoke and they told you to fuck off, eat shit and die.
Which raises the question–if we have the state guys unwilling to mount an effective defense, or are pressured to stand down by the Republicans in their state, who will mount the opposition?
Who has standing in these suits PLUS has the gumption to mount a balls-to-the-walls legal takedown of these neo-fascists?
the scotus will not hear such drivel
Why use insulting names in a discussion? These citizens are using their rights to fight for what they believe is right. Be a little open-minded for 15-30 minutes, see what evidence they have and try to see their side. You may be blinding yourself to the truth with your own bias, otherwise.
“…see what evidence they have and try to see their side.”
Two things come to mind:
USSC not interested in what you have to say. Fuck off.
@xil oh but they will… Courts are funny like that, when people break the law.
Trump has called the Republican officials and AG’s in the affected states and told them that they should stand down and not mount an opposition to his suit.
….President Trump reportedly called Georgia’s attorney general, a Republican, to urge him not to rally other GOP attorneys general in opposition to a lawsuit from Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) seeking to invalidate the presidential election results in four states.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported that the call took place Tuesday evening after Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr (R) called the arguments laid out by Paxton in his lawsuit “constitutionally, morally, and factually wrong” in a statement the same day.
The call reportedly occurred at the urging of one of Georgia’s senators, David Perdue (R), who along with fellow Georgia Sen. Kelly Loeffler (R) announced their support for Paxton’s lawsuit this week…..
A person on the call between Trump and Carr described it as cordial. Trump told Carr that he’s “heard great things” about him but that he’s picked up word that Carr was calling other attorneys general and urging them to stand against the Texas challenge. Carr told him that wasn’t true.
Earlier Wednesday, Trump asked the U.S. Supreme Court to let him join the lawsuit challenging the election results, which repeats false and unsubstantiated allegations about mail-in ballots and the voting process in Georgia and the other states.
It’s the latest in a series of extraordinary attempts by Trump to overturn his narrow defeat to President-elect Joe Biden, which made him the first Republican White House hopeful to lose the state since 1992.
Sure, 17 AGs went against Trump to submit Amicus briefs in a case Trump wants to join. Sure. Sure.
The Leftist-media reported it… must be true, 😆
The shred of doubt that SCOTUS will respect the rule of law is sickening, and should not even dare enter anyone’s mind. Yet there it is, tormenting millions. This is part of the slash and burn campaign. Eliminate public trust in:
We don’t want to see what’s next, whatever it is.
What? You dare come with this after being told for four years that the Russians rigged the 2016 election and that they would be rigging the 2020 election as well?
The Russians did interfere in the 2016 election. The senate committee chaired by a Republican found this as well as the Muller report. It’s fact.
If so, why would the public have any faith in the integrity of the electoral process?
By the way, no court has found a single fact. The DoJ has backed away.
There is no actual evidence, only insinuations and allegations, guessing about what the Kremlin would want.
The court that matters is about to hear the evidence and you’re about to piss your pants aren’t ya?
“Interfere” 😆
Hey, Trump don’t care.
It’s an attempt to give the judicial branch a chance to be partisan….that’s ALL it is….and let’s hope that we aren’t quite to the point where the SCOTUS will rule for Trump just because he appointed three of the justices…and/or that the court is skewed conservative at the present moment.
But frankly, I’m glad Scalia is dead.
Not at all. They broke the law – plain as day. All mail-in ballots need to be tossed. The people of the state can blame their state politicians for screwing them by breaking the law.
You’re a fool who clearly doesn’t care about democracy and only cares about if the result is in your favor. As far as Scalia – you should be ashamed of yourself…