DOJ Rot Goes So Much Deeper Than Merrick Garland

[scruffy]

He simply presides over the Senate and the joint session, his duty simply being to abide by the constitution. There is nothing about him being the chief arbiter to reject or accept results already certified and signed off on by every Governor and state board of elections in the country and after all challenges have failed in the recounts and the courts. It just does not work that way. Give it a read for yourself.

Goddammit, don't ever try to teach constitutional law, your students will tear you apart.

You don't even understand the MOST basic thing about our constitution.

It is ADVERSARIAL, not cooperative.

What the hell do you think "checks and balances" means, a circle jerk?

You dumb fucktards are going to be the death of America.

Don't ever claim you stand for the Constitution. You don't KNOW the Constitution, how the hell can you stand for it?

 

[White 6]

Goddammit, don't ever try to teach constitutional law, your students will tear you apart.

You don't even understand the MOST basic thing about our constitution.

It is ADVERSARIAL, not cooperative.

What the hell do you think "checks and balances" means, a circle jerk?

You dumb fucktards are going to be the death of America.

Don't ever claim you stand for the Constitution. You don't KNOW the Constitution, how the hell can you stand for it?

Sounds like you don't know it. It sounds like the coursts (including the Supreme Court) support what I said, and mind you, you have had two years to bring suit, but failed to do so.

 

[dudmuck]

BULLSHIT.

Then why is the VP's certification required AT ALL?

You have a horribly poor understanding of the Constitution.

OUR CONSTITUTION DOES NOT REQUIRE RUBBER STAMPS, DUMBASS.

You idiots leftards are destroying our checks and balances with your bloviating bullshit.




Look who"s talking about character, fool.

We're not in this business for GRACE, dammit.

GRACE is a piss poor business strategy.

Electoral Count Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the certification is required because of this electoral count act.

 

[scruffy]

Sounds like you don't know it. It sounds like the coursts (including the Supreme Court) support what I said, and mind you, you have had two years to bring suit, but failed to do so.

There you go, reverting to blatant partisanism again.

You just showed the world exactly where the ROT is. It's between your ears.

Dumb ignorant leftard, WHICH branch of government is the Vice President from?

And WHY is he in charge of the Senate?

How come we need someone from the executive branch to be in charge of the Senate?

Come on, out with it. Basic constitutional question 101.

Why do we put the executive branch, in charge of certifying a vote for the executive branch?

 

[scruffy]

Electoral Count Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the certification is required because of this electoral count act.

Very good. You get a B+ right off the bat.

 

[White 6]

There you go, reverting to blatant partisanism again.

You just showed the world exactly where the ROT is. It's between your ears.

Dumb ignorant leftard, WHICH branch of government is the Vice President from?

And WHY is he in charge of the Senate?

How come we need someone from the executive branch to be in charge of the Senate?

Come on, out with it. Basic constitutional question 101.

Why do we put the executive branch, in charge of certifying a vote for the executive branch?

Look, dufus, if you got a case, take it to a lawyer and shop for republican judges. The system is up to your challenge. If there is a change to the constitution, maybe he will be arbiter, but that change has not happened yet. It probably won't ever be. You think that sort of thing would be left to the President's Vice President to decide. It is you that does not understand the checks and balances in The Constitution.

 

[scruffy]

Look, dufus, if you got a case, take it to a lawyer and shop for republican judges.

See? ^^^

Fuck your idiotic self for trying to make this a partisan issue.

The system is up to your challenge.

No, shit for brains, it is OBVIOUSLY not.

You have 50+ % of the country believing your system sucks. Therefore, IT SUCKS.

If you can't come up with anything to instill confidence in the opposition, YOU are the one who loses.

If there is a change to the constitution, maybe he will be arbiter, but that change has not happened yet.

Another DUMBASS fucking idiotic ignorant statement.

It started with the 12th amendment way back in 1804, ignorant one.

Then we have the Hayes compromise, which gave us not one but TWO new sets of laws, and the second one was so bad it resulted in FIVE disputed elections all the way till the year 2000.

THEN, the screwball Democraps destroyed the process entirely with their latest round of bullshit, which they were so embarrassed by they had to tack it on to the back end of an appropriations bill.

Democrats have SHIT for brains. No one needs a goddamn ceremony, we do t need a fucking rubber stamp, it's a WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY.

We need the rabble to CONVINCE the VP it's a good idea for him to sign off on the results.

It probably won't ever be. You think that sort of thing would be left to the President's Vice President to decide. It is you that does not understand the checks and balances in The Constitution.

Goddammit, what a retard.

=> CHECKS AND BALANCES <= IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF LETTING ONE PERSON DECIDE.

isn't it? Well isn't it?

Darn tootin.

Dude, you are incapable of going up against me on constitutional law. Don't even try.

 

[White 6]

See? ^^^

Fuck your idiotic self for trying to make this a partisan issue.




No, shit for brains, it is OBVIOUSLY not.

You have 50+ % of the country believing your system sucks. Therefore, IT SUCKS.

If you can't come up with anything to instill confidence in the opposition, YOU are the one who loses.



Another DUMBASS fucking idiotic ignorant statement.

It started with the 12th amendment way back in 1804, ignorant one.

Then we have the Hayes compromise, which gave us not one but TWO new sets of laws, and the second one was so bad it resulted in FIVE disputed elections all the way till the year 2000.

THEN, the screwball Democraps destroyed the process entirely with their latest round of bullshit, which they were so embarrassed by they had to tack it on to the back end of an appropriations bill.

Democrats have SHIT for brains. No one needs a goddamn ceremony, we do t need a fucking rubber stamp, it's a WASTE OF TAXPAYER MONEY.

We need the rabble to CONVINCE the VP it's a good idea for him to sign off on the results.




Goddammit, what a retard.

=> CHECKS AND BALANCES <= IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF LETTING ONE PERSON DECIDE.

isn't it? Well isn't it?

Darn tootin.

Dude, you are incapable of going up against me on constitutional law. Don't even try.

It is a partisan issue, as you simply do not believe in the courts, or judges (even when appointed by your party) or The Constitution. If you have a case, you will have to bring it with proof and find a lawyer willing to say so in court.

 

[scruffy]

It is a partisan issue, as you simply do not believe in the courts, or judges (even when appointed by your party) or The Constitution. If you have a case, you will have to bring it with proof and find a lawyer willing to say so in court.

Another piece of rocket science. You're on a roll today.

Let me ask you something - have you ever actually read the 12th Amendment?

Here it is, word for word:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Now, let me ask you - since this is an ELECTION they're talking about, what can you discern from their words? What are they thinking about, what do they care about?

Hm...read carefully. WHO gets to certify the elector ballots?

It's not the VP, and it's not even the governor or secretary of state. Who is it?

And, what do you think happens, when we ask governors to start certifying the votes?

Put on your election security hat, and run through our historical scenarios. Pay special attention to Tilden, who received more popular share than anyone in history. You know why he lost? Cause a Supreme Court Justice became a Senator, and had to resign his position.

Now here's the trillion dollar question: what does that tell you about election security? What does that tell you about the integrity of the vote? You're talking about one man deciding, what does that tell you?

 

[The Duke]

Look, dufus, if you got a case, take it to a lawyer and shop for republican judges. The system is up to your challenge. If there is a change to the constitution, maybe he will be arbiter, but that change has not happened yet. It probably won't ever be. You think that sort of thing would be left to the President's Vice President to decide. It is you that does not understand the checks and balances in The Constitution.

Dude, judges should not be partisan at all.

Judge shopping?

 

[White 6]

Another piece of rocket science. You're on a roll today.

Let me ask you something - have you ever actually read the 12th Amendment?

Here it is, word for word:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

Now, let me ask you - since this is an ELECTION they're talking about, what can you discern from their words? What are they thinking about, what do they care about?

Hm...read carefully. WHO gets to certify the elector ballots?

It's not the VP, and it's not even the governor or secretary of state. Who is it?

And, what do you think happens, when we ask governors to start certifying the votes?

Put on your election security hat, and run through our historical scenarios. Pay special attention to Tilden, who received more popular share than anyone in history. You know why he lost? Cause a Supreme Court Justice became a Senator, and had to resign his position.

Now here's the trillion dollar question: what does that tell you about election security? What does that tell you about the integrity of the vote? You're talking about one man deciding, what does that tell you?

Feel free not to cast your vote.

 

[scruffy]

Feel free not to cast your vote.

Sigh.

You just don't get it.

Look here - this was the law for most of the 20th century:

Electoral Count Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This came in to existence because the VP => claimed <= he didn't know who to listen to, the governors or the secretaries of state. That's because the state itself was unclear on who it's electors were.

See, so, instead of solving the problem, they tossed it right back into the states' lap. Which ultimately led the congress to say, we dont want to have anything to do with this, it"s the state's problem, let them decide - and in doing that, they stripped the vice president of an essential check and balance. He is now FORBIDDEN from decertifying an election, which was absolutely not the original intent.

And I will also point out, that there was no point in time ever, at which the VP could make that decision by himself.

 

[White 6]

Sigh.

You just don't get it.

Look here - this was the law for most of the 20th century:

Electoral Count Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This came in to existence because the VP => claimed <= he didn't know who to listen to, the governors or the secretaries of state. That's because the state itself was unclear on who it's electors were.

See, so, instead of solving the problem, they tossed it right back into the states' lap. Which ultimately led the congress to say, we dont want to have anything to do with this, it"s the state's problem, let them decide - and in doing that, they stripped the vice president of an essential check and balance. He is now FORBIDDEN from decertifying an election, which was absolutely not the original intent.

And I will also point out, that there was no point in time ever, at which the VP could make that decision by himself.

So If he is forbidding by law, why would he be asked to and would it be a legal request. If pressured, would that be legal? I have said from the beginning, Pence did not have authority to interfere. I am just glad after Trump announced his disappoint in Pence for not agreeing to do it, the Trump people didn't hang him, back on Jan 6 2021.

 

[scruffy]

So If he is forbidding by law, why would he be asked to and would it be a legal request. If pressured, would that be legal? I have said from the beginning, Pence did not have authority to interfere. I am just glad after Trump announced his disappoint in Pence for not agreeing to do it, the Trump people didn't hang him, back on Jan 6 2021.

You're still missing the point.

The original intent was to have the VP himself (the only elected official who serves in BOTH the executive and legislative branches) to PERSONALLY certify the election. He was on the hook, he had to put his John Hancock on it, he had to AGREE that yep, this is correct.

If he is stripped of that authority, what is the result? What happens today?

Today, the president is whoever the governors say it is.

Think about it. The governors are responsible for certifying the electors, and the VP no longer has a say. If all the governors get together in a partisan manner, they can install a president. The check and balance was put into place SPECIFICALLY to prevent that, and now it's gone.

And it's been replaced by an even worse constraint. Now the governor's hands are tied too. The checks and balances can not work this way, they might as well not be there at all. In which case all the damping is gone and the system becomes unstable. Which is exactly what we're seeing.

 

[scruffy]

Fake news.
There is no Deep State.

You're right. It's pretty shallow. We'll call it the shallow state from now on.

 

[scruffy]

btw - our Founders were the first politicians in history who understood dynamics.

They were contemporaries of Louis LaGrange, and William Rowan Hamilton was just a few years later.

The dynamic tension in our constitution is deliberate. No one should mess with it unless they understand exactly what they're doing and why.

Take a lesson from the founders - the only person who can certify my vote is ME. Everyone else, we make them handle it in public in front of a lot of people, and we put their personal asses on the line.

 

[MagicMike]

You're right. It's pretty shallow. We'll call it the shallow state from now on.

You can call it what you want. It's still just a fringe right whacko conspiracy theory.

 

[scruffy]

Well, this will be interesting... I have to go back to Burbank in the morning, apparently they just found a bomb in a house about two blocks from where I work. That probably means a couple extra hours getting out of the airport. They're very careful in Burbank. Very effective though. Good people, generally speaking.

 

[White 6]

You're still missing the point.

The original intent was to have the VP himself (the only elected official who serves in BOTH the executive and legislative branches) to PERSONALLY certify the election. He was on the hook, he had to put his John Hancock on it, he had to AGREE that yep, this is correct.

If he is stripped of that authority, what is the result? What happens today?

Today, the president is whoever the governors say it is.

Think about it. The governors are responsible for certifying the electors, and the VP no longer has a say. If all the governors get together in a partisan manner, they can install a president. The check and balance was put into place SPECIFICALLY to prevent that, and now it's gone.

And it's been replaced by an even worse constraint. Now the governor's hands are tied too. The checks and balances can not work this way, they might as well not be there at all. In which case all the damping is gone and the system becomes unstable. Which is exactly what we're seeing.

If the supreme court had gone the other way on the North Carolina case the other day, I suspect you would have been all for it.

Gee, so the will of the people get done in open election, decided by the votes. I have no problem with that. And it looks like the states will not be allowed carte blanche to pass a law, where they can overrule the popular vote, without judicial review, so you can count that one out. Hmmm. Sounds like elections are balanced in the direction of the voters. Sounds good to me. Heck, the system sounds good to me, even if the guy I vote for loses.

Your guy just lost in 2020 and there was no legal way to overthrow it.

 

[MinTrut]

I think you should go back to England, if you're not already there, or Canada.

I think you should stop whining & pretending you're some kind of patriot.

Shirley Temple had bigger balls than you.

But yeah, The People have zero power.

Twas ever thus, and twill ever be.