Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election

[postman]

Except there have been no proven examples of cheating and election fraud. At least not large enough to change the outcome, or even put it in question.

The evidence has been all over every part of the Internet that isn't controlled and censored by the Democraps and their complicit stooges in the mainsleaze media.

Yet the evidence seems to have evaded every court in the land that heard it, in their pleadings and briefs claiming election fraud.

Oh... there is that factor that Trumps lawyers said their case wasn't about election fraud.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

The evidence has been all over every part of the Internet that isn't controlled and censored by the Democraps and their complicit stooges in the mainsleaze media.

Yet the evidence seems to have evaded every court in the land that heard it, in their pleadings and briefs claiming election fraud.

Oh... there is that factor that Trumps lawyers said their case wasn't about election fraud.

There's been a very solid pattern of courts rejecting challenges well before the point is reached where any evidence can be presented, based on procedural and technical excuses. Wasn't there even one case before the Supreme Court, where one of the justices cited a fear of violence as a reason not to hear the case—a case rejected, not based on any merits or lack of merits on the case, but on the basis of a hecklers' veto? Do you truly not see what is wrong with that?

If these cases were getting far enough for the evidence to be presented, heard, refuted, and rejected, then you'd have a valid point. But the consistent rejection of cases without even reaching that point is no evidence that these cases are invalid; only of widespread malfeasance on the part of the courts that are refusing to hear them.

 

[postman]

There's been a very solid pattern of courts rejecting challenges well before the point is reached where any evidence can be presented, based on procedural and technical excuses.

Then maybe Trump needs to hire better lawyers. As judges have told them many times, that the injunctive relief they seek has a very high bar, and that they did not meet it.

As one judge said, they didn't have enough proof to throw out a single vote, no less hundreds of thousands of votes.

 

[postman]

If these cases were getting far enough for the evidence to be presented, heard, refuted, and rejected, then you'd have a valid point. .

You know that a motion for injunctive relief is not an adversarial process.

 

[postman]

An injunction is a Court order prohibiting a person from taking a particular action (a prohibitory injunction) or requiring them to take a particular action (a mandatory injunction). ... This is a temporary injunction, which is usually granted pending a further hearing or until a full trial of the dispute.

The relief that Trumps lawyers sought, would be the same as if they won at trial. On that basis the required proof was the same as for declaratory judgement. Which is a standard that Trumps lawyers came nowhere near.

 

[postman]

INJUNCTIONS – A Practical Guide To One Of The Law’s Most Powerful Tools

Two illustrative examples of the power of injunctions which have recently been seared into the American consciousness are the injunction against further ballot counting in Florida following the 2001 presidential election and the injunction ordering Napster, the Internet music swapping service, to cease and desist from operating.
Preliminary Injunctions
A preliminary injunction represents the most common form of injunctive relief requested. A preliminary injunction differs from an ex parte injunction in that the affected party is given notice that the application has been filed and has an opportunity to appear and be heard at a formal hearing where both parties may present evidence. Unlike ex parte injunction practice, a preliminary injunction almost always involves an evidentiary presentation in open court. Although not a full-blown trial, these hearings are critically important and set the stage for any litigation to come. In many cases, these hearings – and the judge’s reaction to them – constitute the entirety of the litigation.

More often than not, preliminary injunction hearings are conducted without the benefit of a significant amount of time to prepare and without the benefit of discovery, through which documents and testimony from the other side and its witnesses can be obtained prior to the hearing. Therefore, unless the party seeking the injunction is certain it fully understands the case and is completely prepared to present its case at hearing, it is a good idea to attempt to secure a court order to allow for limited discovery in preparation for the hearing to be conducted on an expedited basis, sometimes the very day before the hearing.

At the hearing, the party seeking the injunction has the burden of convincing the judge of a number of things. (Injunction requests are presented to a judge sitting without a jury.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tell us again which party wants to steal elections. Tell us again which part would respect the will of the people and believes in free and fair election. Tell us again which party wishes to preserve the integrity of our Representative Democracy.

Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

Oh, boy, more faux "outrage" from the driveling hypocrite.

"Look, a leftist blog site said it, so that makes it completely true, and now you must accept it and defend their exact bias on it!!!"

First of all, assuming that I believe Raw Story - which I don't, just as a matter of course, because only fools like you would - it's at least as Constitutional as all those last-minute election changes you and your bullshitting fellow drones kept screaming in defense of.

I have a better idea. Why don't YOU tell me why it's Unconstitutional for a state legislature to pass an election law, but it remains completely Constitutional for governors and Secretaries of State to have done so when it benefitted Grandpa Badfinger? And while you're at it, why don't you tell me why Raw Story's sensationalistic and biased headline of "Steal the Election!!!!" is justified, but it was outrageous bordering on treasonous for anyone to say that about the changes you wanted?

Assuming it's true, do you think it's a good idea for a state legislature to be able to overturn an election certification by simple majority vote, for any reason?

Oh, I'm sorry, Torquemada. You must have confused this with your Inquisition, where you get to utterly ignore any questions asked, and just demand answers and justifications, as if anyone needs to defend themselves to you.

How about no? You respond to the questions in my post, and then you get to ask one. Otherwise, all I see is deflection, and you can piss off.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

I don't think it's a good idea, but what makes it unconstitutional? The states can choose their electors in any manner they see fit. They don't even have to hold a popular vote.

If it passes, time will tell whether or not it was a good idea. Off the top of my head, I don't see any Constitutional reason they can't pass it, though.

You'll think that it a good idea if Republicns use it to overturn an election tht they lost but a bad idea if Democrats do it. Don't lie

Nice goalpost-moving. Not really subtle, though.

I'll think whatever the fuck I think, and at no time whatsoever do I need a melodramatic hypocrite like you to try to flatter himself that he's qualified to think for me, thank you so very much.

I believe we're all still waiting for YOU to justify your OP that it's "Unconstitutional and stealing the election", and explain to us why your "outrage" over this isn't hypocritical, in light of your staunch defense that any and all changes made prior to the election were perfectly fine and normal and wonderful.

I'm perfectly happy to accept your dodging and accusation-shifting as an admission that you just think it should be illegal for anyone to ever disagree with you, if you don't have the cojones to stand your ground and back up your assertions. Feel free to stick with the, "No, YOU are!!!" third-grader line, if that's all you're capable of.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

As one judge said, they didn't have enough proof to throw out a single vote, no less hundreds of thousands of votes.

How credible can such a statement, be, from a judge who refuses to even look at the proof?

I say again, that such a statement casts no doubt on the proof that the judge refused to see, but is prima facie proof of the judge's own deliberate malfeasance.

 

[Cecilie1200]

In related new..... seems like Republicans with try every dirty trick that they can think of to steel elections

GOP Lawmakers Seek Tougher Voting Rules After Record Turnout, Election Losses | HuffPost

Yeah, we know how much you leftists hate that "dirty trick" of passing laws that don't let you just do whatever you want.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or a person who doesn't pay taxes for a certain period of time.

Like Trump??

Okay, who had 5 minutes in the betting pool for how long Prog could pretend to have something to say other than, "TRRRRRUUUUUMMMMP!!!! I'm right because TTTTRRRRRUUUUMMMMPPP!!!"?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Tell us again which party wants to steal elections. Tell us again which part would respect the will of the people and believes in free and fair election. Tell us again which party wishes to preserve the integrity of our Representative Democracy.

Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

Source: RawStory

View attachment 451442

Really....Same story from a local Az. publication. Now shut up

GOP proposal would let Arizona Legislature overturn election result (azcentral.com)

 

[EvilCat Breath]

It's a work around democrat fraud.

 

[Coyote]

Tell us again which party wants to steal elections. Tell us again which part would respect the will of the people and believes in free and fair election. Tell us again which party wishes to preserve the integrity of our Representative Democracy.

Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

Oh, boy, more faux "outrage" from the driveling hypocrite.

"Look, a leftist blog site said it, so that makes it completely true, and now you must accept it and defend their exact bias on it!!!"

First of all, assuming that I believe Raw Story - which I don't, just as a matter of course, because only fools like you would - it's at least as Constitutional as all those last-minute election changes you and your bullshitting fellow drones kept screaming in defense of.

I have a better idea. Why don't YOU tell me why it's Unconstitutional for a state legislature to pass an election law, but it remains completely Constitutional for governors and Secretaries of State to have done so when it benefitted Grandpa Badfinger? And while you're at it, why don't you tell me why Raw Story's sensationalistic and biased headline of "Steal the Election!!!!" is justified, but it was outrageous bordering on treasonous for anyone to say that about the changes you wanted?

Assuming it's true, do you think it's a good idea for a state legislature to be able to overturn an election certification by simple majority vote, for any reason?

Oh, I'm sorry, Torquemada. You must have confused this with your Inquisition, where you get to utterly ignore any questions asked, and just demand answers and justifications, as if anyone needs to defend themselves to you.

How about no? You respond to the questions in my post, and then you get to ask one. Otherwise, all I see is deflection, and you can piss off.

Wow. What a retard.

Thanks for the reply to a simple basic question. I had no idea it would cause you such an emotional upheaval.

You seem to be defending a very dicey idea...but then...you are a Trumpist.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is the part where Republicans try to find out the truth about the election and the riggable voting machines and Democrats object because they have things to hide.

The truth is that Biden was elected by a sizable margin in a free and fair election. Get over it. Stop lying

"This is what we've decided the truth is, so just accept it and stop thinking for yourselves!!!"

Yeah, we'll get right on that.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Tell us again which party wants to steal elections. Tell us again which part would respect the will of the people and believes in free and fair election. Tell us again which party wishes to preserve the integrity of our Representative Democracy.

Arizona Republicans have a plan to make it easier to steal a presidential election - Raw Story - Celebrating 16 Years of Independent Journalism

"The legislation would give state legislators the authority, by a majority vote, to 'revoke' the state certification of the presidential election in the state. Such a subversion of the democratic process was exactly what President Trump was pushing for in Arizona and other battleground states that elected Joe Biden."

Lets hear from those who think that this is a good idea. Who thinks that it is constitutional and why?

Oh, boy, more faux "outrage" from the driveling hypocrite.

"Look, a leftist blog site said it, so that makes it completely true, and now you must accept it and defend their exact bias on it!!!"

First of all, assuming that I believe Raw Story - which I don't, just as a matter of course, because only fools like you would - it's at least as Constitutional as all those last-minute election changes you and your bullshitting fellow drones kept screaming in defense of.

I have a better idea. Why don't YOU tell me why it's Unconstitutional for a state legislature to pass an election law, but it remains completely Constitutional for governors and Secretaries of State to have done so when it benefitted Grandpa Badfinger? And while you're at it, why don't you tell me why Raw Story's sensationalistic and biased headline of "Steal the Election!!!!" is justified, but it was outrageous bordering on treasonous for anyone to say that about the changes you wanted?

Assuming it's true, do you think it's a good idea for a state legislature to be able to overturn an election certification by simple majority vote, for any reason?

Oh, I'm sorry, Torquemada. You must have confused this with your Inquisition, where you get to utterly ignore any questions asked, and just demand answers and justifications, as if anyone needs to defend themselves to you.

How about no? You respond to the questions in my post, and then you get to ask one. Otherwise, all I see is deflection, and you can piss off.

Wow. What a retard.

Thanks for the reply to a simple basic question. I had no idea it would cause you such an emotional upheaval.

You seem to be defending a very dicey idea...but then...you are a Trumpist.

"You expect ME to answer questions, instead of just firing them off. That means you're stupid and a Trumpist, so that I can run away while pretending I'm not!!"

Tuck your tail and scamper, leftist. But don't think you've fooled anyone that that's what you're doing. If you ever get some guts, come back and have a conversation, instead of a monologue.

 

[Coyote]

This is the part where Republicans try to find out the truth about the election and the riggable voting machines and Democrats object because they have things to hide.

The truth is that Biden was elected by a sizable margin in a free and fair election. Get over it. Stop lying

"This is what we've decided the truth is, so just accept it and stop thinking for yourselves!!!"

Yeah, we'll get right on that.

"We've decided" what the "truth" is? The truth is the truth. You don't get to arbitrarily mangle it with your unsubstantiated conspiracy theory crap just because your guy lost the election. Friggin' Trumpists think they can create their own alternative facts and alternative "realities" and force them on the rest of us.

 

[Coyote]

"You expect ME to answer questions, instead of just firing them off. That means you're stupid and a Trumpist, so that I can run away while pretending I'm not!!"

Nah. I'm under no such delusion when it comes to you any more. You dodge the inconvenient parts of your belief system and resort to a wall of insults when questioned.

Tuck your tail and scamper, leftist. But don't think you've fooled anyone that that's what you're doing. If you ever get some guts, come back and have a conversation, instead of a monologue.

A conversation with you? Is that possible? A typical interaction involves little more than anti-leftist insulting from you. As you show us here.

I'll wait for you to grow up. And maybe you can tell us why what Arizona proposes is such a great idea. Or not.

 

[Coyote]

As one judge said, they didn't have enough proof to throw out a single vote, no less hundreds of thousands of votes.

How credible can such a statement, be, from a judge who refuses to even look at the proof?

I say again, that such a statement casts no doubt on the proof that the judge refused to see, but is prima facie proof of the judge's own deliberate malfeasance.

All those rotten judges eh?

 

[ESay]

, an able-bodied person who lives on state allowances for a certain period of time

Including people who are unemployed because of a pandemic or other factors beyond their controll?

There should be a certain period after which the voting right is lost. Three years, maybe.

What factors?