Hi Banjo, Aidan and other thinking commenters

Some compelling legal argument from you guys.

But unfortunately David, as a Trump sympathiser, has made up his mind.

David may prolong the argument, but in the end you're wasting your time.

The Trump legal team's spurious "legal" line, across several of David's articles, commands David's line.

.

Thanks, plantagenet. It looks like David has jumped ship and reneged on his promise to reply to our comments if we “focused” on what he considered to be “the major claim” in his article : the Ohio motion – which I did in my long post on page 6 of this thread.

The fact that he has not done what he said he would do seems to suggest that he is not too comfortable with what I wrote in my post on page 3 :

« I think all these shenanigans are simply deceptive manoeuvres by “Donald the dictator” to stoke up the fire and keep his gullible supporters’ blood boiling so that he can syphon off as much money from them as possible either in the form of lump sums or regular monthly or weekly instalments.

"Donald the dictator" knows his supporters have blind faith in him – just as the members of the multiple religious sects in the US have blind faith in their gurus. They obey their guru religiously.
As you seem to be an ardent supporter yourself, David, you might like to contribute to his slush fund … »

As the saying goes, I guess “silence constitutes approval”. If not, I imagine he would have had some reaction.

So let’s move on …

The cupidity and megalomania of “Donald the dictator” are now threatening to trigger the implosion of the Republican party. He obviously has no respect, gratitude, or empathy for anybody, including even his most faithful and fervent supporters. He now has the Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell in his sights for recognising “sleepy old Joe” as the winner of the 2020 presidential election.

Dan K. Eberhart, a major donor to the Republican Party and to conservative causes recently declared that Trump was :

« ... taking resources and attention away from Georgia … the thing to do right now is to make [Mitch] McConnell stronger by winning these two seats in Georgia … Trump has taken both money and oxygen away [by his] failure to concede and fundraising efforts” »

.

It does not matter what the parties believe or which is right or wrong.
There is something called the public consent, I think it is called.

As I understand it, it means that on public governance on things like
elections the result is accepted by the vast majority win or lose for
each individual.
That consent has been refused for the US election.

As an example our last Federal election the result was not what was
expected but the result had the public consent.

#Loudmouth 2

You state:
"AFAIK, the US Supreme Court does not initiate changes to the Constitution: that process begins with the houses of congress."

You are correct - but your comment is irrelevant.

What you cannot seem to grasp is that the Supreme Court's job is to interpret the meaning of the constitution - not initiate changes to the Constitution.

The job SCOTUS was asked by Ohio to do was to interpret what the Constitution meant by the use of the word "legislature".

Did it only mean the "actual Legislature of the State" or did it include "other officials or representatives of the State"

The bottom line: The Supreme Court shirked its duty to clarify the meaning of the word "legislature" when asked to do so by Ohio.

Leaving the meaning of "Legislature" up in the air was the last thing America needed to hear.

#Banjo Patterson

I haven't jumped ship.

You show what a compete ignoramus you are when you state:

"As the judges indicate in their “Preliminary Statement” to the Texas report (which I think could also apply to the Ohio case as well):

« Its [Texas’s] 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 judges never said this. It was part of the submission by Pennsylvania.

The other quoted remarks by you were also made in the Pennsylvania submission - not by the judges.

I will not be responding to your other comments which have nothing to do with my article.

Bazz,

By voting, people consent. End of.

David,

You would be aware of the separation of powers, even in the US: legislature means the law-making bodies, NOT the bureaucracies or judiciary which put that legislation into effect. The Supreme Court, as you also would know, would define 'legislature' narrowly, as a 'black-letter' court. End of.

Joe