Reply With Quote
it was a youtube video with one of the major networks 19-34 year olds were going to biden but 35-45 year olds were breaking to Trump
Even so, El Paso County has already surpassed 2016's vote total.
https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/ne...rs/3650175001/Oct. 30
Day 18, the final day of early voting, saw 16,661 in-person voters, according to unofficial numbers from the El Paso County Elections Department.
There were 1,002 mail-in ballots returned Friday.
The Marty Robbins Recreation Center was the most trafficked early voting site, with 1,452 in-person voters.
In total,222,149 people have voted in person and by mail as of Friday.
https://www.politico.com/2016-electi...esident/texas/
it was a youtube video with one of the major networks 19-34 year olds were going to biden but 35-45 year olds were breaking to Trump
You probably saw turnout in a rural area. No one is spared in those. Everyone’s a trumpie regardless of age.
Using the 14th Amendment to cancel the legal votes of eligible voters, absent any showing of harm to anyone, is perfect perversity. It's also striking, seven years after Shelby and the end of federal preclearance, that the federal courts have become the main venue for deciding disputes over state and local election laws.
Republicans now think Texas courts don’t decide their own election law
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlo...federal-court/like other recent election lawsuits, the plaintiffs (and some courts) completely fail to acknowledge the other side of the equation — the 100,000-plus Harris County voters who stand to have their votes invalidated — having voted under rules announced in advance, approved by local officials, and left intact during weeks of early voting, potentially too late for them to do anything about it. Just like Minnesota voters whose otherwise valid mail-in ballots may be tossed because a federal appeals court suggested that the state may have erroneously extended the receipt deadline for such ballots, the mindset appears to be that no cost is too high, and no amount of disenfranchised voters too large, in cases where, at most, local election officials erred on the side of counting more legal votes from eligible voters. What some courts forget is that these citizens who voted in good faith, before these suits were filed, also have 14th Amendment rights.
And that’s perhaps the most stunning feature of this latest suit. When courts consider whether to enjoin government action, they are supposed to consider more than just the merits of the case. Among the traditional factors in such cases are whether the plaintiffs have suffered an irreparable injury; whether that injury has no other remedy; whether the balance of hardships weighs more strongly in favor of the plaintiffs or the defendant; and whether the public interest would be served or disserved by injunctive relief. In a case like this one, the last two factors rather conclusively drown out the first two. As between the “injury” that some Texas voters outside of Harris County didn’t have the same availability of drive-through voting as voters in Harris County (never mind that none of the plaintiffs allege that it was actually harder for them to vote as a result), and the specter of denying the franchise to more than 100,000 Houstonians, it’s just not a close call.
This ing judge.
Even when he's "skeptical" and has doubt that this was done in malice, he has to give republicans one last chance to us.
Plaintiff produces iPad with Gab post from @QAnon212.
Judgment for plaintiff.
Entire Harris County vote excluded.
I wouldn’t read into it yet. Judges say that kind of stuff all the time and it doesn’t mean they’re actually considering it.
Even when he's "skeptical" and has doubt that this was done in malice, he has to give republicans one last chance to us.
I don’t even think the plaintiffs goal was to get this judge to rule in their favor, more likely they want to get it in front of the 5th circuit where they’re likely to be in front of multiple Trump appointees.
I"m sure the fascist party will produce an email from Hunter Biden's laptop about it any second.
Ruling incoming.
From what I've heard, the TI is getting denied and Hanen will issue some sort of "guidance" with respect to drive in votes done tomorrow. Sounds like he was pretty incredulous of plaintiffs' arguments.
No matter what the ruling is, we’re getting an immediate 5th circuit appeal. Hopefully that panel has at least one non-Trump appointee.
He made a point of saying it’s bull that they filed this lawsuit at the last minute despite knowing about it for months.
Hanen is pretty far right, so there's that. I just don't know how they get all this in the can and get a ruling before 8pm CST tomorrow, but who knows.
I think the worst judges we have right now are the younger ones who’ve been Fedsoc shills since their first day in law school. Hanen might be partisan but he’s old enough to have formed his own thoughts as a practicing attorney before Fedsoc started brainwashing law school students and young lawyers.
He boomed the case ... they have no standing to file suit.
Well he had 10 different ways he could have ruled against them, saying they lack standing was probably the biggest you that creates the most difficulty for any appeal. Props to the judge.
Hanen also said that even if P's had standing, he'd deny the TI because they sat on their claim
Judge rules to KEEP the 127,000 drive thru votes
eat republi- s
With the TX SCOTUS ruling yesterday, he was going to get exposed mightily if he ruled differently. Plus the latest SCOTUS decisions didn't indicate there was going to be a good ending to this challenge.
The standing issue is a doozy. Conservative federal judges are philosophically opposed to granting plaintiffs greater access to federal forums.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
