Joe, you totally missed the point.
Even us in far away Australia would not be discussing the US election
result if it had received consent.

Don't be downhearted, chaps, by David's last ditch backing of the Trump Truth Troll.

I hear David’s Trump believes Santa “Fake News”.

But even in Covid Santa loves youse:

T'was 5 days before Christmas,
And all through the town,
People wore masks,
That covered their frown.

The frown had begun
Way back last Summer,
When a global pandemic
Made life a Bummer.

They called it Corona,
But unlike the beers,
It didn’t bring good times,
It only brought tears.

Contagious and deadly,
This virus spread fast,
Like a bushfire that starts
When lightning strikes parts.

Airplanes were grounded,
Travel was banned.
Borders were closed
Across air, sea and land.

As the world entered lockdown
To flatten the curve,
The economy halted,
And folks lost their nerve.

From March to July
We rode the first wave,
People stayed home,
They tried to behave.

When Spring emerged
The lockdown was lifted.
But some became careless,
Some of us drifted.

Now it’s December
Northern Hem cases are spiking,
In SYDNEY as well,
Not much to their liking.

Frontline workers,
Doctors and nurses,
Try to save people,
From riding in hearses.

This virus is awful,
This is COVID-19.
And only just now
Hopeful vaccines.

It’s true that this year
Has had sadness a plenty,
We’ll never forget
The year 2020.

And just ‘round the corner -
The holiday season,
Can we be merry?
Is there even a reason?

To decorate the house
And put up the tree,
Maybe no one will see it,
No one but me.

But outside my window
The Sun shines strong,
And I think to myself,
One day Good comes along!

So, I gather the ribbon,
The garland and bows,
As I play those old carols,
My happiness grows.

Christmas is not cancelled
And neither is hope.
If we lean on each other,
I know we can cope.

Merry Christmas to All!

Including Dave :)

.

Dear David,

.

You are quite right in pointing out that it was not the Supreme Court judges who made the remarks I quoted in my previous post.

Mea máxima culpa, it was the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and his six Deputy Attorneys General.

As I am sure you are aware, the US Supreme Court judges simply issued a brief unsigned order stating that Texas lacked standing to pursue the case and that it “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Here is the correct link :

http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/121120zr_p860.pdf

To revert once again to the interrogation of your article :

« Didn't Ohio have standing under Article III of the Constitution and a judicially cognizable interest in asking the Court to clarify the meaning of the word "Legislature" under Art. II, §1, cl.2 of the Constitution? »

It may have, David, but in denying the motion of the State of Texas for leave to file a bill of complaint, the US Supreme Court added that “All other pending motions are dismissed as moot”.

Obviously, the Court circumvented Ohio’s request which it qualified as “moot”, i.e., “debatable”. Why ? In my view, for the very reasons I mistakenly indicated in my long post to you on page 6 of this thread as having been expressed by the Supreme Court judges but, as you rightly pointed out, were expressed by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania and his Deputies :

« Disenfranchising millions of voters after Pennsylvania [had] already certified its election results would grievously undermine the public’s trust in the electoral system, contravene democratic principles, and reward [Ohio] for its inexcusable delay and procedural gamesmanship. Accordingly, equity and the public interest disfavor an injunction or any other relief in this case. In a nutshell, it [was] too late to reverse or enjoin the results of the election ».

Also, as the US Supreme Court judges indicated for Texas, Ohio might have to “demonstrate a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections” too.

Not so obvious.

.

.

Dear plantagenet,

.

Thanks for this year’s Christmas carol but I sincerely hope we don’t have to sing it again next year.

Here is a less dramatic, Celtic version :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITIaYoWCPkE&ab_channel=EmerBarryandAffiniti

.

#Banjo Paterson

Is "mea maxima culpa" the best you can say for misleading, misrepresenting and spouting an absolute load of garbage in two long comments and now this latest one?

The Ohio motion was a separate motion that supported neither Texas nor the four states Texas had hauled up before the Supreme Court. The Court could have dismissed the Texas motion but have agreed to hear the Ohio Motion which posed this question for the Court:

"The Presidential Electors Clause provides: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress. Art. II, §1, cl.2.

Ohio has previously taken the position that this language means what it says.

In a brief filed just last month, it argued that this Clause must be understood as empowering "state legislatures, not state courts, [to] set the rules for picking presidential electors." Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, Nos. 20-542, 20-574, Br. of Amicus Curiae Ohio in Support of Petitioners 3 (Nov. 9, 2020).

This means that state courts violate the Constitution when they use judge made doctrines or strained interpretations to change the legislatively fashioned rules governing the manner by which presidential electors are chosen. Id. at 5.

The Electors Clause means today what it meant a month ago.

Ohio hopes this Court agrees.

But either way, the States need this Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted.

The People need an answer, too.

Until they get one, elections will continue to be plagued by doubts regarding whether the President was chosen in the constitutionally prescribed manner."

The Court's failure to hear the Ohio motion cannot be justified in my opinion. It raised an issue of the interpretation of the Constitution which needed urgent resolution to help resolve what is turning out to be the most hotly contested election result in US history.

.

Dear David,

.

You wrote :

« … the States need this Court [the US Supreme Court] to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted ».

I, personally, am inclined to think that the State legislature should fix the rules – even if it’s only to confirm current practise so far as Pennsylvania and perhaps some of the other States are concerned as well if their electoral rules have been modified since inception.

Electoral rules should not be cast in stone. They should be organic and evolve with society and modern technology, particular circumstances, and environmental factors.

That said, for all the reasons I have already exposed on this thread, I consider that any future legislation concerning electoral practise should not affect past elections, the 2020 presidential election in particular.

.