The Supreme Court Just Advanced A Lawsuit To Nullify The 2016 Election

[WhiteTara]

http://occupydemocrats.com/2017/02/23/supreme-court-just-advanced-law-suit-nullify-2016-election/

A longshot legal petition to nullify the 2016 federal elections based on the Constitution’s “Guarantee Clause” just moved forward at the Supreme Court this week, after last week the Trump administration declined to reply. Our Supreme Court set the case for Conference on Friday, March 17th to put the petition in front of all of the Justices. (see below)

According to a career prosecutor interviewed for this story, four of the eight justices must then vote that Blumstein vs. U.S. meets their high standard to go to a full hearing. Additionally, the three Massachusetts women who petitioned the court have asked for the appointment of a Special Master, which is a special officer to weigh the evidence and make findings to the Court. There has never before been a case about the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause (which obliges the federal government to protect states from foreign invaders) like this decided in front of the Supreme Court.

snip

The lower court called the case of Blumstein vs. U.S. a “novel constitutional question,” but said that question of if the United States had suffered a foreign cyber invasion was a question best decided by the “political branches” of government like Congress or the Executive Branch.

Since then, the Obama Administration released a lengthy declassified report to the public – on the same day that the lower court issued the opinion – in which seventeen executive branch agencies concluded that Russia used cyber military units from their GRU to invade American cyberspace as part of Putin’s plan to aid Donald Trump and attack Hillary Clinton.

Lawyers call these Cases of First Impression, and this one presents a real series of never before answered questions to the Supreme Court:

Can the Supreme Court consider intelligence reports and statements of the former President as conclusory that an invasion has taken place? (and if so, will they review the top-secret report?)
Does a private party have the right to enforcement of the Constitution’s Guarantee Clause?
Do the judges as a non-political matter have the right to nullify a federal election after multiple states election systems were intruded upon?
Is the cyber intrusion by Russian armed forces into the DNC’s Headquarters on federal land in Washington D.C. sufficient to conclude that an invasion has taken place?

[samnsara]

1. can WE The People file a class action lawsuit?

[shenmue]

3. I hope

[trueblue2007]

36. Pelosis daughter leads effort to block Trump through Electoral College Search

Pelosi’s daughter leads effort to block Trump through Electoral College


By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Monday, December 12, 2016

The accusations of Russian interference in the November presidential election have provided a last-minute lifeline for the long-shot effort to head off Donald Trump at the Electoral College.

Ten electors, led by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s daughter Christine Pelosi, demanded Monday an intelligence briefing on Russian interference by Monday, when the Electoral College makes the vote official.

Flipping the Electoral College seems to be the only hope left for Trump opponents. Recount efforts in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania have backfired. The Progressive Change Campaign Committee urged Trump opponents to participate in a protest scheduled for all 50 state capitols Monday aimed at persuading electors to cast their ballots for someone other than the Republican real estate mogul.

“The idea that a foreign government has interfered with our elections to undermine their credibility, much less support one of the candidates, indicates a Rubicon has been crossed for our nation, and we need to consider it carefully,” Chris Suprun, a Texas Republican elector, said at a Sunday press conference.


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/12/nancy-pelosis-daughter-leads-electors-demanding-in/

[suston96]

56. My tag line on another board.......

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.


Chief Justice John Marshall, 1821

[Nitram]

60. Not that simple. The people can only work through their elected representatives in Congress.

Amending the Constitution is very difficult - just consider the ERA.

[suston96]

66. You are correct.....

Not that simple to amend or modify - according to the process prescribed in the Constitution.

But some of the methods described therein don't need Congress to initiate amendments.

See Article V.

Article V

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.


My quote from Chief Justice John Marshall speaks to or at least suggests that the Constitution cannot be used to limit the power of the people to do aything they - we - want with the constitution......

.....including tearing it up and starting over.

Personally, I wouldn't trust the state legislatures or an open ended new constitutional convention.

[suston96]

74. I agree with everything you said in your reply to me.....

Something else CJ Marshall said. I use it often:

The people made the Constitution, and the people can unmake it.
It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their will.


CJ John Marshall, 1821

[onenote]

69. No

[kentuck]

2. That is an interesting question.

Wonder if 4 Justices might think it has merit?

[MFM008]

4. We couldn't be that lucky

........

[BumRushDaShow]

5. That is an interesting case and argument

although I expect they may refuse it if they find the plaintiffs have no standing to bring the suit.

[Volaris]

34. Right. If they decide that this particular Right is correctly reserved

To a sovereign State or States and not to a particular individual/s (no matter how aggrieved), it it isn't going anywhere.

[cannabis_flower]

49. Perhaps ..

if that's the case, area blue states (or at least one) could refile.

[dchill]

6. Don't piss off the judiciary.

It can make them judgemental.

[Volaris]

32. Haha I saw what you did there.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

7. The reality is ...

all petitions for certiorari to the Supreme Court, no matter how frivolous, go to conference. To suggest that this development indicates that the case has been "advanced" in any meaningful way would be misleading.

[elleng]

11. To CONFERENCE?

Are you sure?

[PoliticAverse]

16. The poster is correct - "Every petition that is docketed at the U.S. Supreme Court,

and remains on the docket, will eventually be distributed for a conference."

(From: http://www.snopes.com/scouts-nullify-the-2016-election/ )

Just because it goes to conference doesn't mean it will actually be discussed or otherwise seriously considered.

[elleng]

18. AHA, there's the rub:

'doesn't mean it will actually be discussed or otherwise seriously considered.'

Thanks.

[MousePlayingDaffodil]

29. Yes, I'm quite sure ...

Even the most flippant, trivial "prisoner's petition," filed by an inmate who's made himself into a "jailhouse lawyer," will eventually get considered -- theoretically, speaking -- at conference. The Justices dismiss dozens upon dozens of such petitions at each conference. On occasion, a particularly abusive petitioner will be informed by the Court that his filing any further petitions will be met with sanctions, and the Clerk will be instructed not to file/docket any more petitions from said petitioner.

So, in short, the fact that a petition is "advanced" to conference means, in and of itself, nothing at all.

[Norbert9]

12. Every step counts when it comes to winning back our country

No matter how small of a formality it may be

[jimjc]

8. I just got on my knees hoping

But I'm not going to hold my breath, I agree it just can't be that easy. My guess the House/Senate
has a bag of tricks to counter just about anything.

[GP6971]

13. You're probably right.

Welcome to DU!

[Doodley]

9. If we ever needed a miracle, it is now.

[Alameda]

10. for so many reasons

he NEVER should have been allowed to run, much less ascend to the POTUS.

[Panich52]

14. K&r

[PoliticAverse]

15. This claim actually got a page on snopes.com - "Mostly False"

http://www.snopes.com/scouts-nullify-the-2016-election/

[WhiteTara]

19. I forgot to check Snopes.

Since there was an actual filing and it stated that there was a snowball's chance in hell this would go through, I decided to post because it is a novel idea and what a kick if SCOTUS accepted it.

[RealityChik]

39. I would have preferred that...

the petition would have exclusively been limited to having the Supreme Court appoint and direct an independent group of investigators that would be free from all interference from Congress or the Trump Administration, so that all the guilty parties could be convicted and removed from office, appointed position or Congress, if collusion goes that deep.

However I, for one, am not in support of a revote, which could cause greater chaos than we have now. But if an independent investigation finds that any of the likely presumed replacement candidates for president are also found guilty of collusion on some level, either during the primary OR general election, what then?

SCOTUS would probably be doing us a favor by declining the case, even though it won't feel like it when they do. The other side has guns, lots of them, who would shoot first, ask questions later (or not). I can't imagine a revote ending well, in any case.

[m-lekktor]

28. OccupyDemocrats is clickbait sensationalized bullshit most of the time sadly. nt

[Pacifist Patriot]

44. That's been my conclusion, and when I pointed that out...

a few months ago, I was pounced on but good! If it's a link to OccupyDemocrats, I don't even bother clicking through to the article and pretty much shrug at the post. I'm to the point that if I don't see it in WaPo/NYT I don't give it much weight. Too many raised hopes that never materialized into action.

[madinmaryland]

17. Oh, FFS. Until there is some actual verifiable evidence, then this will never get heard

by the SCOTUS.

[FSogol]

20. Seriously. Hey everyone did you hear they are taking the word "gullible" out of the dictionary?

[RealityChik]

40. Just because we support this case...

doesn't mean we're pinning our hopes on it producing the results that we want. Gullibility is blind faith. Plausible consideration of a desirable but almost total unlikely outcome like this one is like spending a few dollars to play the lottery. I wouldn't consider that to be a gullible act unless they were the only remaining few dollars I had to my name.

[Useless in FL]

21. Omigod, it's too much to hope that it is so!

I really hope that this is so and that it will happen. In my 72 years, I have never expected that we would be in this situation in my life. I won't be around for long, but I want those bastards to pay for our erosion of liberty and life.
I have not lived my life in vain.

[Cha]

22. Wouldn't that be something?!

[WhiteTara]

23. But don't forget

We lived through Fitzmas and we only got lumps of coal. This has almost no chance; but it's a wonderful idea.

[Cha]

24. Oh I know.. just imagining. Mahalo, Tara

[malchickiwick]

25. Viva Massachusetts -- Land of my Youth

But sorry, this is going nowhere nationally. Just no legal precedent, sorry folks

[RealityChik]

41. You just rained on my YUGE parade...

and now I'm crying BIGLY!

[VMA131Marine]

26. Getting to conference is fairly meaningless

Last edited Sat Feb 25, 2017, 01:09 AM - Edit history (1)

Orly Taitz got a number of her insane birther cases to conference and they didn't go anywhere. The way this works at SCOTUS is one justice will review the petition and determine if it should go to conference. If the petition is denied, the petitioner can ask another of the justices to look at it. They can keep doing that until they have put it before all the justices. This takes time and effort, so a lot of times the justice will send the petition to the full conference, where it will die.

[PoliticAverse]

30. In fact Taitz had a case to overturn Obama's election "go to conference"...

something she made a big deal about (and which of course went nowhere)...

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/breaking-newschief-justice-of-the-supreme-court-john-roberts-schedules-a-case-by-attorney-taitz-regarding-obamas-forged-ids-to-be-heard-in-conference-before-the-full-supreme-court/

[Fantastic Anarchist]

54. Orly's justification was not sound.

Not saying this will go anywhere, but at least the justification is sound.

[Princess Turandot]

63. No. That's the process for a request for an emergency action such as an injunction or TRO...

Each federal court district has a justice assigned to it to handle such emergency matters. If the assigned justice refuses to intervene, they can ask another justice to do so, as you said. In more contentious requests, the assigned judge will simply refer the emergency request to the full bench. (In DP situations, I *think* they automatically go to the full bench.)

But in the normal filings, when someone files a petition in appeal of a lower court decision in accordance with procedure, the full bench (minus any recusals) always decides if the petition should go forward. No single justice has the power to dismiss such a petition on their own. Then four of them must agree to take the case for it to go forward.

[Takket]

27. of all the ways Trump's presidency could end...

up to an including meteor strike, this nullification thing is the least likely.

If we want Trump done, we're going to have to do it with the power of the people, not playing lawyer games with SCOTUS

[C Moon]

31. The GOP would be boiled in their own Putin pudding if we had another election.

[brooklynite]

33. Would it be annoying to note that the press release says the conference was LAST Friday?

This is still sloppy and unconstitutional law.

[RealityChik]

35. I started a thread on this matter too...

RealityChik, the blundering newbie, here. Last Saturday, but as a first-time topic poster here at DU, my post on this same subject mostly received only snark! I only posted a link to the court petition, being reviewed by Justice Ginsberg at the time, suggesting that people take a look and consider signing-on to the petition if they supported the effort.

That post was followed by a huge SNARK storm that still continues!!!! I am thankful to you for posting far more eloquently and persuasive than I did I'm so happy someone else succeeded in promoting this case where I failed! I referenced you by name in my newest post today in that thread.

I'm still learning the ropes as to proper DU formatting, so I'm sure my inexperience is showing big time! Thank you so much for getting this case in front of more eyeballs. It's a long shot, but we have to keep trying everything to save ourselves. It's clear that Congress is totally ineffective, either because they don't have the votes or they have something to hide. So we have to do it by ourselves, right? As long as the courts are willing, I'm game for anything that might work!

[kag]

46. Welcome to DU!

You sound pretty smart, and pretty tolerant, which is a good thing on DU. So is thick skin, so I think you'll be okay.

Just so you know... The best of us, and the oldest of old timers here have to deal with snark on a daily (or however often you participate here) basis. I personally don't post unless I'm in a good, strong place emotionally .

So, welcome, have fun, and don't let the snark get you down.

[RealityChik]

73. Thanx a bunch!

I'm sorry to say I only joined DU, motivated by the last election, but I've been a daily lurker since 2004. I became a daily DU lurker in fall of 2004 when I joined the dev team building Congressman (now Governor, WA state) Jay Inslee's re-election website. That man motivates activism in anyone who spends even a bit of time with him. My dev career was ramping up to consume most of my time by then so I couldn't devote the time needed to be an active, productive member at DU...until now.

Back in its early days, DU was totally populated by thoughtful and respectful members. I'm disappointed that when I finally retired and now have the time to join and be active on DU, it seems to be dominated by negativity and snark. Maybe social media is responsible for that culture shift.

I'll give DU another month before deciding to move on to another more respectful discussion group elsewhere. I can only say I am profoundly disappointed.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

57. Sorry you had to deal with some of the snobbery here at DU.

You post what you want however you want (provided it's within the rules, of course).

[ProudProgressiveNow]

37. K&R nt

[Sunlei]

38. I'd like to see the SC debate those questions.

[world wide wally]

42. Yes, yes, and yes

[Hokie]

43. I hate to see people get their hopes up or contribute becasue this has zero chance

There are many reasons why this case is futile. There is a good discussion on why this case was doomed from the beginning at the Fogbow Forum.

#Revote2017 SCOTUS In Re Diane Blumstein, et al. Petition for a Writ of Mandamus - New Election

[Dr Hobbitstein]

45. Cough cough bullshit cough cough.

OccupyDemocrats is sensationalist and misleading. This case is going nowhere, as it has no constitutional basis.

[Hokie]

59. Exactly

The Supreme Court cannot undo an election after the EC has voted and Congress has ratified the results. End of story. These people are, to be very blunt, fucking with your emotions.

[bucolic_frolic]

47. Amazed they got this far

How about all the Russian business ties of Trump's cabinet?

Would a blue state blue state AG sign on to reinforce the private party issue, or
is this the canary and let's give ourselves one more attempt if it fails?

Proving the intrusion and its effects are a stumbling block

No doubts it was an invasion. Cyber invasions happen all the time.

Interesting.

You go, girls!

[onenote]

70. It hasn't gotten anywhere.

The initial suit was tossed out by a lower court. Pending the filing of the petition of a writ of mandamus, the plaintiffs asked Justice Breyer for an emergency stay of the decision of the lower court and that was denied. Then they went to Justice Ginsburg with the same request for relief and that were denied again.

In short, the plaintiffs have lost at every stage of the proceeding and will lose again (this time with no further recourse) in a couple of weeks.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

48. Please. Please please please please please.

Please. _/_

[StarzGuy]

50. You Betcha!

It is about time that we as a people take a stand and do everything legal including nullifying the past presidential election to stop Drumpf from further damage to the United States.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

51. They've nullified an election before.

They can do it again. Even things out a bit.

[WhiteTara]

52. Really? When did that happen?

Tell me more!

[Fantastic Anarchist]

55. I was being somewhat tongue-in cheek referring to

Bush v. Gore ...

[Dopers_Greed]

53. I doubt this actually affect anything

There have been several chances to take down Agent Orange:

1. Repugs could have stopped his nomination
2. Electoral college could have not voted for him
3. States declined to investigate voting irregularities

None of these we used.

[BSdetect]

58. K&R

[SylviaD]

61. This is a pipe dream.

Sorry, real resistance to Trump will not depend on legal gimmickry. It will take hard work day in and day out on the streets and in the state houses.

This reminds me of those RW clowns who refuse to pay taxes. They always have some complicated legal shenanigans proving they aren't subject to the US government. Always the same result - it's bunk.

This is bunk.

[red dog 1]

62. K&R

It will take a miracle for this case to even reach the SCOTUS!
(but miracles do happen)

[cstanleytech]

64. Does this matter though? I mean the only way he can be removed once he took the oath is

by an act of Congress either impeachment (which isnt fucking likely) or via the 25th amendment which while he is mentally unfit to be President according to his actions isnt likely to be implemented either by them and either way we still will have Pence as the next President if they would do either of those two.

[Blue_true]

65. Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

By definition non of us are private citizens and all of us are a piece of the government.

[czarjak]

67. Imagine....

Obama declaring a Constitutional crisis? Probably had just cause.

[onenote]

71. what would that even mean

Presidents don't have the power to declare a "constitutional crisis".

[onenote]

68. Pro forma action

It is a standard procedure for all pending petitions to be distributed for conference. But that doesn't mean much. Being distributed to conference doesn't mean it will actually be discussed at conference and certainly doesn't mean it will be granted. In all likelihood, this petition, like the vast majority of petitions, will be denied without even being discussed.

[frankieallen]

72. Geez, that's a misleading headline