I wonder if this election will push some states to amend their constitution to make it easier for their state legislature or governor to choose electors regardless of the outcome of the election (at the state or national levels).

[QUOTE=rogue;565378]I wonder if this election will push some states to amend their constitution to make it easier for their state legislature or governor to choose electors regardless of the outcome of the election (at the state or national levels).[/QUOTE]

[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact"]Some states have done that already.[/URL] (at least, in the sense of violating the will of their constituencies)

The 35-page [url=https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/20-OC-00163-Order-Granting-Motion-to-Dismiss-Statement-of-Contest.pdf]December 4 ruling[/url]

[B]IN THE FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA IN AND FOR CARSON CITY[/B]

Case No.: 20 OC 00163 1B

[b]ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS STATEMENT OF CONTEST[/b]

is thorough and detailed. I also found it informative, because it describes the processes of casting ballots. Unfortunately, the PDF is a scanned image.

The Contestants in the "Contest of Election" were candidates for presidential electors on behalf of Donald J. Trump, and the Defendants were the candidate presidential electors on behalf of Joseph R. Biden. JR.

The Contestants' "evidence" is weighed and (at the risk of arrest for criminal understatement) found wanting.

In [b]FINDINGS OF FACT[/b],

Paragraphs 81-84, 86-89, 91, 93-97, 99, 101, 103, 105, 107, 108, 110-112, 114, and 116-118 begin, "The record does not support a finding that"

Under [b]CONCLUSIONS OF LAW[/b],

Paragraphs 140, 145, 157, and 170 begin, "Contestants' evidence does not establish by clear and convincing proof, or under any standard of evidence"

Paragraphs 142, 143, 144, 147-156, 161-164, 167-169, and 172-176 begin, "Contestants did not prove under any standard of proof"

And to wrap it up,

[b]IT IS HEREBY ORDERED[/b] that Contestants' contest is [b]DENIED[/b] and this case is [b]DISMISSED[/b] with prejudice.

[b]IT IS HEREBY FURTHER ORDERED[/b] that Contestants are [sic] shall pay Defendants' costs pursuant to NRS 293.420.

I've heard that SNL's take on the situation is rather on-point.

Linda and I are going to watch it tonight.

To share... Yes, I pirated the mkv file. Call it time-shifting. I paid for the content.

Also, Linda calls Kate McKinnon my girlfriend. Man, she's soo hot!!! :chalsall:

[QUOTE=rogue;565193][URL="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2020/12/03/nation/trump-campaigns-star-witness-michigan-was-deemed-not-credible-then-her-loud-testimony-went-viral/"]This woman[/URL] is just crazy,[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=article]Asked later why more people did not come forward with allegations of fraud, she claimed that Trump’s critics had ruined the lives and reputations of witnesses like her. She added that she lost family and friends, received threats, had to move, change her phone number, and take down her social media accounts. <snip>
’'My life has been completely destroyed because of this,’' she said.
[/QUOTE]
Actually, it just occurred to us that she must sue Trump for all of these things... (IANAL)
:lol:

We understand from a sure source (one of our customers who knows these things, he told us during a teleconference, with a quite serious voice and face) that, because Trump doesn't want to leave the White house, Biden decided to make a truce with him: after Jan 22, Melania will be permitted to continue to stay at White House.

:razz:

Rudy's trips to court on Trump's behalf may have exposed folks to C19
[url=https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Trump-lawyer-Rudy-Giuliani-tests-positive-for-15780060.php]https://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/Trump-lawyer-Rudy-Giuliani-tests-positive-for-15780060.php [/url]

Gee, be a real shame if something happened to you and your kid...
 

[url=https://www.mlive.com/public-interest/2020/12/armed-protesters-rally-outside-michigan-secretary-of-state-jocelyn-bensons-home.html]Armed protesters rally outside Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's home[/url][quote]DETROIT, MI - About 20-30 protesters, some open-carrying guns, gathered outside Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson's home Saturday night to challenge President-elect Joe Biden's win in Michigan, police said.

Officers responded to a public disturbance around 9:50 p.m., Dec. 5 outside of Benson’s Detroit residence, said the Michigan State Police. Some of the protesters carried weapons, police said, and the crowd dispersed once officers arrived. No protesters were arrested, police said. Detroit police were called to the scene, as well.

Protesters posted two livestream videos of the rally, which showed people chanting for election audits and to "Stop the steal." At least one individual shouted "you're murderers" in the videos, according to a joint statement by Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel and Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
<snip>
"This mob-like behavior is an affront to basic morality and decency," they said in a statement. "In a civil society, there are many ways to peaceably assemble and demonstrate. Anyone can air legitimate grievances to Secretary of State Benson's office through civil and democratic means, but terrorizing children and families at their own homes is not activism. This disturbing behavior masquerading as protest should be called out for what it is and roundly condemned by citizens and public officials alike."
<snip>[/quote]"Protesters?" "Mob[i]-like?[/i]" She and her 4-year-old kid were outside putting up Christmas decorations when the mob showed up.

I wonder which SCOTUS members will choose to take on [URL="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html"]this case.[/URL]

[quote]
Texas' Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, on Tuesday announced a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate presidential election results in four key swing states that helped secure Democrat Joe Biden's victory over President Donald Trump.
[/quote]

[QUOTE=rogue;565686]I wonder which SCOTUS members will choose to take on [URL="https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/08/texas-sues-four-battleground-states-in-supreme-court-over-unlawful-election-results.html"]this case.[/URL][quote]
Texas' Republican attorney general, Ken Paxton, on Tuesday announced a lawsuit in the U.S. Supreme Court to invalidate presidential election results in four key swing states that helped secure Democrat Joe Biden's victory over President Donald Trump.
[/quote][/QUOTE]Not likely.

See [url=https://electionlawblog.org/?p=119395]this post[/url] on Rick Hasen's Election Law Blog. Includes his own summary of why it likely won't fly. He notes that Kyle Hawkins, Solicitor General of the State of Texas, didn't sign on. There is a link to the actual court filing, and links to other analyses.

[URL="https://www.npr.org/2020/12/08/944230517/supreme-court-rejects-gop-bid-to-reverse-pennsylvania-election-results"]The first case for SCOTUS was rejected, unanimously.[/URL]

[quote]The Supreme Court on Tuesday rejected an effort to overturn the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania, signaling the high court would not go along with President Trump's unprecedented efforts to win another term despite a decisive defeat in the popular vote and Electoral College.[/quote]

I have to believe that the one filed today will also be rejected.