Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 24, 2021, 05:02:13 PM

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderator: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17
Author Topic: Public Discussion on the Supreme Court Cases (Avoid Cluttering Case Threads)  (Read 53432 times)
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,639


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #350 on: April 21, 2020, 01:19:32 PM »

So, bumping this in light of FairBol's case, which I have to say is probably one of the most frivolous cases to come to the court. ASV, Wulfric, Peebs, and Encke, a total of four independent sources, all of vastly different partisan affiliations, all came to the same conclusion, I think FairBol's count is wrong and he made a mistake somewhere.

That doesn't matter. It's an elections case, and it must be heard. If Fairbol has an argument, he should be free to raise it before the court.

And the court likewise has every right to dismiss the case, especially if Fairbol fails to provide any evidence.

Disimiss the case? Yes. But it must be heard, first.

Section 8, Clause 5 of the Electoral Act says: "Lawsuits challenging the validity of certified election results shall only be valid if filed within one hundred and sixty-eight hours (seven days) of certification", which implies that a case questioning the validity of a certified election by a candidate within 168 hours is valid and must at least be heard.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,639


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #351 on: April 21, 2020, 01:24:44 PM »

Yeah in every other election case the plantiff had to demonstrate how the ballots were incorrectly counted or disgarded- you can't just stand up and say 'the count is wrong' and then expect the Justices to work on it.

Quote
I also believe that certain established procedures regarding elections were, in this case, not followed.  As such, I hereby request the granting of a Writ of Certiorari, specifically concerning if the above election was properly certified, and if further review of the tally or a runoff election is warranted.

This is jibberish. What procedures? Why is a run-off relevant?

What should happen is the writ should be granted, Faribol be given the right to raise his argument, and if he doesn't have much of one, the case should be dismissed. But I think the court needs to hear the case as a matter of first instance. There is no other mechanism for disputing election results.
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,632
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #352 on: April 21, 2020, 03:15:40 PM »

Not sure where to post this really, but there is a precedent case that is interesting with regards to both the tmth case and the Fairbol case. It is also a hilarious case and came close to being the single worst court decision in Atlasian history but still.

The case in question would be Young Tweed v. DoFE (2012)

With regards to the Fairbol case

This is fairly easy to explain. In this case, Tweed wanted to overturn the results of the June 2012 presidential election, not because of any election errors, but because Napoleon winning put in danger the "Promote the General Welfare and Equality of the forum members" part of the constitution; which was blatantly false.

Still, considering the court did take this case, I guess you could make an argument for the Fairbol one; though his case is even weaker than the one Tweed presented lol. In any case, in my opinion it is clear the court did things wrong in the Tweed case so if the court is going to take it as precedent, it should be only to overturn it.

With regards to the tmth case

Here the correlation would actually be a positive one for tmth.

When making his case, Tweed used the preamble of the Atlasian Constitution at the time to make his case that Napoleon should not be legally allowed to become president.

For better or worse, the court did not really look into this in its opinion, but given how it did give certiorari; we can assume the court did see something that was at least justicable in the preamble.

There might be other, better cases dealing with preambles, but I am not aware of them.
Logged
Senator Scott, PPT
Scott
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,125
Norway


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -7.48

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #353 on: April 21, 2020, 04:25:23 PM »

Not sure where to post this really, but there is a precedent case that is interesting with regards to both the tmth case and the Fairbol case. It is also a hilarious case and came close to being the single worst court decision in Atlasian history but still.

The case in question would be Young Tweed v. DoFE (2012)

With regards to the Fairbol case

This is fairly easy to explain. In this case, Tweed wanted to overturn the results of the June 2012 presidential election, not because of any election errors, but because Napoleon winning put in danger the "Promote the General Welfare and Equality of the forum members" part of the constitution; which was blatantly false.

Still, considering the court did take this case, I guess you could make an argument for the Fairbol one; though his case is even weaker than the one Tweed presented lol. In any case, in my opinion it is clear the court did things wrong in the Tweed case so if the court is going to take it as precedent, it should be only to overturn it.

With regards to the tmth case

Here the correlation would actually be a positive one for tmth.

When making his case, Tweed used the preamble of the Atlasian Constitution at the time to make his case that Napoleon should not be legally allowed to become president.

For better or worse, the court did not really look into this in its opinion, but given how it did give certiorari; we can assume the court did see something that was at least justicable in the preamble.

There might be other, better cases dealing with preambles, but I am not aware of them.

Oh yes, I remember that election and the ensuing case!  (AFAIK Tweed was also the only presidential candidate to upload "campaign speeches" of him on his webcam up on YouTube, which for the most part said speeches were profanity-laden rants but it was still pretty interesting.)

Do pre-reset court cases carry precedent, though?
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,632
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #354 on: April 21, 2020, 04:34:12 PM »

Oh yes, I remember that election and the ensuing case!  (AFAIK Tweed was also the only presidential candidate to upload "campaign speeches" of him on his webcam up on YouTube, which for the most part said speeches were profanity-laden rants but it was still pretty interesting.)

Do pre-reset court cases carry precedent, though?

Well, my abortion case did answer the question with regards to pre-2004 precedent:

Quote from: Politics Fan v. The South
Again, the intention of our Constitution’s authors is clear: inclusion of identical language means our own judiciary can look to its real-world United States counterpart for guidance. This does not mean real-world precedent applies to our nation in any meaningful way, of course, but it is a natural element of common law judicial systems that we can look to other common law systems for guidance whenever no controlling precedent exists. Using this guidance, combined with the intention of our founders, indicates that a general right to abortion access does exist.

It would be logical from this to argue that the same applies to pre-reset cases (in fact, the argument would be even stronger for those as they are more relatable to the current iteration of Atlasia). They are a "very persuasive argument", at least as long as the constitutional articles in question are the same or functionally the same; but they are not really binding precedent.

Also with regards to the Tweed case, it is worth noting the respondent disagreed with the notion that preambles were justiceable or binding legislation at all. Still, with the decision being literally 3 lines it is very hard to draw much from the Tweed case but it is still a sort of precedent.
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,632
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #355 on: May 18, 2020, 05:29:30 AM »

I know I am way too late but given the issue has seen a small resurgence, I will note there is some precedent for the Kansas irredentism, as back in pre-reset days the Midwestern region claimed parts of other regions, most notably the state of New Mexico from the Pacific region.

A quick look at the 2 regional constitutions verifies this:

4th Pacific Constitution: https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fourth_Constitution_of_the_Pacific_Region

4th MidWestern constitution: https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Fourth_Midwest_Constitution

These irredentialist claims seem to date back all the way to 2006 in fact, with what seems to be a decade of inaction: https://talkelections.org/AFEWIKI/index.php/Midwest_Pacific_Irridentialist_Proposition

Of course given one of the justices was directly involved in the irredentialist claims I suppose everyone already knew this and much more Tongue

Still I think the Fremont Kansas expansion is no different than the Midwest claiming New Mexico
Logged
tmthforu94
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,336
United States


Political Matrix
E: 2.97, S: -1.57

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #356 on: May 21, 2020, 10:16:28 PM »

I am very pleased by the ruling of The Court in Tmthforu94 vs. Fremont. Having the wording struck down was always a longshot due to past precedent (though I disagree with it) regarding Preambles. Despite statements by the First Minister to the contrary, comments have been made by Fremont politicians that suggest they believe the western Region has a legal claim to take Kansas. With this ruling, The Court ruled against that notion and that only a federal constitutional amendment can change the status of a state - this was the most important part to me in setting a precedent and boundary to keep regions from taking further action on this.

Hopefully this issue can be put to rest and focus can be had on more pressing issues in the game.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 50,518
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #357 on: February 16, 2021, 10:49:23 PM »

Bumping this in case the Lincoln case generates discussion.
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,632
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #358 on: February 17, 2021, 06:28:31 AM »

Here go my thoughts for now on the Lincoln case.

1. I guess I now know why Wulfric was judged to be mentally unfit to serve in a jury Tongue

I actually agree more with his side of the argument than with Truman's (I do not plan on publishing any amicus briefs at least until after the election has been certified). But he is doing a very poor job at explaining his arguments.

2. While it benefits my party; I believe justice Bacon King has made a mistake in not issuing an injunction.

Bacon King claims in his refusal for an injunction that:

Quote from: Bacon King
For such an injunction to be justified, a plaintiff must demonstrate that it is necessary in order to prevent substantial and irreparable violations of the constitution that could otherwise occur.  It must occur only when the potential harm from a failure to act is more serious than the harm inherent to any judicial action that might alter the outcome of an election.

It is very obvious to me that if the election were to continue under the revised rules, if the courts were to end up ruling in Wulfric's favour; the election results themselves would be unconstitutional. Therefore the election should have been allowed to run under the previous rules, with an injunction being issued.

In my view, pretty much any argument made against election laws so close to a regional election should be more than enough to issue an injunction, so as to not cast any doubt over the legality of the results; unless the argument being made is such that certiorari should be denied.

Unless his argument is to be interpreted as him denying certiorari (which does not seem to be the case) or that he plans on issuing a definitive ruling (including time for any appeals towards the full SC!) in under 48 hours; an injunction should have been issued.
Logged
Southern Governor LouisvilleThunder
LouisvilleThunder
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,277
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 1.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #359 on: February 17, 2021, 11:03:23 AM »

I really don't see how Bacon King's ruling had any more substance than a hackish personal opinion to benefit his party. #IllegitimateJudge #ImpeachBKNow!
Logged
#FreeSanchez
fhtagn
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,671
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #360 on: February 17, 2021, 11:46:52 AM »

It seems Bacon King is here to prove he was never fit to serve on the court.

This is what happens when one side forces people to come back to Atlasia by promising them a seat.
Logged
Senator OBD
OBD
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #361 on: February 17, 2021, 11:48:45 AM »

Logged
Sirius04
Ninja0428
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 5,929
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #362 on: February 17, 2021, 11:57:14 AM »

You're the ones who changed voting laws to favor your party right before an election.
Logged
Senator OBD
OBD
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,611
United States



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #363 on: February 17, 2021, 11:58:33 AM »

You're the ones who changed voting laws to favor your party right before an election.
Hey, a very good friend of mine who I've known for seven years got invalidated as well! How dare you intrude upon my grief!
Logged
tack50
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,632
Spain


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #364 on: February 17, 2021, 01:42:21 PM »

I really don't see how Bacon King's ruling had any more substance than a hackish personal opinion to benefit his party. #IllegitimateJudge #ImpeachBKNow!

It seems Bacon King is here to prove he was never fit to serve on the court.

This is what happens when one side forces people to come back to Atlasia by promising them a seat.

I would ask you to not question Bacon King's impartiality. If Atlasia's supreme court has been characterized by anything it is by being 100% impartial with the judges judging based purely on the merits of the law.

You can disagree with the ruling of course; but I would 100% refrain from questioning BK's impartiality.
Logged
Micheál Bennet
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,335



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #365 on: February 17, 2021, 04:00:04 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.
Logged
Lincoln Deputy Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,114
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #366 on: February 17, 2021, 04:06:49 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.


Logged
Micheál Bennet
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,335



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #367 on: February 17, 2021, 04:12:32 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Logged
Southern Governor LouisvilleThunder
LouisvilleThunder
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,277
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 1.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #368 on: February 17, 2021, 05:27:28 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?
Logged
Clinton/Kaine/ Northam/ Biden/Warner voter for Youngkin
S019
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,678
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.13, S: -1.39

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #369 on: February 17, 2021, 05:33:03 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

Maybe....just maybe this change was made because requiring people to stay up until 1:00 AM on Sunday night to wait for election results is an awful idea. Before you say I'm a partisan hack, I supported this move even when I was a Fed, because frankly requiring people to stay up until 1:00 AM is bad. Also, that is completely unrelated to this case, and risks derailing this thread, if discussed further.
Logged
Southern Governor LouisvilleThunder
LouisvilleThunder
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,277
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 1.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #370 on: February 17, 2021, 05:34:26 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

Maybe....just maybe this change was made because requiring people to stay up until 1:00 AM on Sunday night to wait for election results is an awful idea. Before you say I'm a partisan hack, I supported this move even when I was a Fed, because frankly requiring people to stay up until 1:00 AM is bad. Also, that is completely unrelated to this case, and risks derailing this thread, if discussed further.
It is related to the point he made. I didn't ask for your input though.
Logged
Micheál Bennet
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,335



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #371 on: February 17, 2021, 05:39:50 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

First of all, I think it's reasonably well documented that while I was running the vote dumps from the West Coast, I found the change to be inconvenient as I would have more time to do things smoothly when the polls closed at 10PM as opposed to 9.

But also, I think this actually makes my point? In the vote dumps after that change we had people who still missed the poll closing time because they were so used to the old rules. People are not constantly reading the law as it changes, and a voter who had read the government thread and found the text of the law most likely would have found the court case as well?
Logged
Southern Governor LouisvilleThunder
LouisvilleThunder
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,277
United States


Political Matrix
E: 1.55, S: 1.74

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #372 on: February 17, 2021, 05:45:44 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

First of all, I think it's reasonably well documented that while I was running the vote dumps from the West Coast, I found the change to be inconvenient as I would have more time to do things smoothly when the polls closed at 10PM as opposed to 9.

But also, I think this actually makes my point? In the vote dumps after that change we had people who still missed the poll closing time because they were so used to the old rules. People are not constantly reading the law as it changes, and a voter who had read the government thread and found the text of the law most likely would have found the court case as well?
The Lincoln law that got passed was specifically aimed at disenfranchising new voters. Changing the time of the poll closing didn't actually stop anyone who was previously eligible to vote from being able to cast a ballot that was guaranteed to be counted. This situation is different.
Logged
Micheál Bennet
jk2020
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,335



Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #373 on: February 17, 2021, 05:56:30 PM »

I must confess that I don't exactly understand why both the plaintiffs on these two cases are putting so much emphasis on asking for injunctions? There isn't really anything to injunct against - the law in question does not change anything about the voting booth or voting conditions. If it were a law to say, reduce the hours of the voting booth, then the injunction would be warranted in order to force the election admin to have a booth open during the whole initial timeframe.

In this case, the only thing affected by the law in question is the certification - which the courts can  vacate and order for recertification in accordance with the new ruling (this is what's happened every time the Supreme Court has overruled an election official!) There is nothing about certification that requires an injunction ahead of time. All the plaintiffs are doing is forcing the court to rush and, in the process, increasing the burden that's been placed on them.

The injunctions are because the law does impose further requirements on the validity to vote. Without an injunction, voters who are newly invalidated by the law (not all of which are Federalists or YT supporters) would be unlikely to vote because they would see little point due to the risk of invalidation. Therefore, even if the Court eventually struck the law down, there would still be voter disenfranchisement because there would be people who would not have voted or attempted to vote solely because they believed they would be invalidated, and therefore the result of the election would still be changed by the law's temporary existence.  If an injunction is issued, those voters will have more reason to believe their vote will be counted, and thus the risk of this unconstitutional law indirectly impacting the election is mitigated to the greatest extent possible.




That's...flimsy? "There is a case on it pending at the supreme court" vs. "There is an injunction against the law while the supreme court decides on it" are really going to have two very different effects on whether or not those voters vote?

It's not like this law is being signposted everywhere telling people "YOU CANNOT VOTE".

If anything, you might have an argument to be made that there should be an injunction against the new requirements being listed on the ballot for the reasons you mentioned. It's not, however, a reason to seek injunction against the law as a whole.
Did the voters you arranged to vote in your vote dumps really read through the requirements listed on the ballot even after you had the law changed so they are held at a more convenient time?

First of all, I think it's reasonably well documented that while I was running the vote dumps from the West Coast, I found the change to be inconvenient as I would have more time to do things smoothly when the polls closed at 10PM as opposed to 9.

But also, I think this actually makes my point? In the vote dumps after that change we had people who still missed the poll closing time because they were so used to the old rules. People are not constantly reading the law as it changes, and a voter who had read the government thread and found the text of the law most likely would have found the court case as well?
The Lincoln law that got passed was specifically aimed at disenfranchising new voters. Changing the time of the poll closing didn't actually stop anyone who was previously eligible to vote from being able to cast a ballot that was guaranteed to be counted. This situation is different.

Your argument is that citizens are going to choose whether or not to vote by clicking into the regional legislature board and reading the debate thread on it? Then I don't see why the situation I discussed - where citizens did not always read the boards - does not apply here. The legislation in question is also, I believe, not placed on the wiki yet.

Essentially, your argument relies on the following contradictory logic:

If the law in question is listed as passed on the regional legislature thread, but not placed on the wiki or on the ballot rules, then there is a chance that citizens will not realize that the law in question is under dispute and thus decide they are for sure ineligible to not vote, and thus not vote.

HOWEVER, If the law in question is still listed as passed on the regional legislature thread, not placed on the wiki, and not placed on the ballot rules, BUT the justices post an injunction within the thread for the court case, then those same voters - who otherwise wouldn't have even realized a court case was ongoing - will somehow decide based on this that they will vote?

Logged
Senator and Chair WB
weatherboy1102
Atlas Politician
Concerned Citizen
*****
Posts: 8,013
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -7.83

P

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #374 on: February 17, 2021, 06:31:56 PM »

You can't have a constitution saying one thing and a bill that says another. The bill should have been an amendment to the Lincoln constitution if it wants any sort of merit.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.079 seconds with 11 queries.