When will we know if we have a Senator?

[shiina]

[WilliamPitt]

1. 1/6/05

[tavalon]

2. Are you sure about that?

I mean, even if they challenge, will it necessarily be decided that day?

[shiina]

4. A Senator would have to challenge on that day

[Doctor O]

6. Yes by the process laid out, the challenge must be decided that day.

The challenge is brought, the two houses separate and debate for two hours, then they vote. Both houses must accept the challenge otherwise the votes of the challenged states are accepted.

[tavalon]

7. Really?

Damn, I think I need a refresher course on government. Hell, I know I do. Anybody know a good Government for Dummies website?

I suppose I ought to go over to Demopedia, huh?

So much info, so little time.

[minorjive]

23. Concise explanation of the challenge procedure

http://miamedia.com/news/electoral.college.challenge.html

The thing at the first link is excerpted from this longer report on the Electoral College(PDF):
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/36762.pdf

And this is a slightly longer explanation with more of the legal citations:
http://caef.us/objecting.html

[burn the bush]

8. if thats the case, what are we hoping to accomplish?

if they have to agree, won't it just be dead right there?

[WilliamPitt]

9. Probably

But the media will have to cover it, and see the partisan aspect, especially after the testimony.

We're gonna get beat. But we will go down swinging, and inspire reform if we do it right.

[tavalon]

16. I agree

at least I think I do. I've been slack jawed with amazement at what the MSM doesn't cover lately but I think they won't have any choice here. I think. I hope.

I know you'll cover it. That goes without saying. But you are a journalist (as opposed to a media whore) and those are in very short supply these days.

[bemis12]

18. Or maybe just inspire retribution

As the Repugs are learning in the judicial nominee process, payback can be hell. And they deserve all they are getting.

Congress has always accepted the candidate with the majority of electoral votes, and has not let partisan interest interfere. If the Repugs see a challenge to the votes without any proof of fraud, that's going to seriously piss them off.

If we win in 2008 and they still hold the majority, will it be payback time for them? They'd have the power to choose their own president, regardless of the electoral votes. Yeah, that would be major league wrong, but we would have started it.

[demwing]

22. "We're gonna get beat. But we will go down swinging"

OK Will, this is the kind of hopeless, all-be-damned program that I can really get behind.

[SlowDownFast]

37. LOL!!!!!!!!!n/t

[Verve]

26. Agree! If Bushie is invalidated again and the majority of Americans

begin to question the election then that's a great start to his impeachment!

[shiina]

3. Because?

I figured that would be the answer. I'm very patient, but I'm frustrated with the process. Don't Senators have an obligation to inform their constituents about what they are doing? Shouldn't they give us a chance to tell them what we think about their decision before they actually do it?

And why would they not tell us? Members of the House have come forward and said they will challege. Or is this just one of those things that gets done in hushed conversations over lunch?

[WilliamPitt]

5. Because

any Senator who breaks cover and announces their intention to challenge would be savaged in the run-up. If it is going to happen, it will happen on that day, or not at all.

[burn the bush]

10. I guess I'm lost now about what good this is going to do us

if both houses have to agree to not accept the votes, then won't it just die right there? And even if they don't accept the votes, won't the idiot still win? Isn't this whole impossible process, about the same process we have to go through to impeach? If so, then can't we just try to impeach?
Sorry I seem so negative, just weary of it all, i guess. It just seems that if we can't prove the vote fraud, then all of the effort and work to get a senator and such will pretty much be wasted and the senator will have set themselves up.

[EFerrari]

11. I wonder if the one effort might not morph into the other?

I can't see us all just folding our hands on Jan 7, no matter what happens. If we lose this one battle, we're still in a better position for the next one, impeachment.

[WilliamPitt]

12. Understand

George will be sworn in on 1/20.

There are larger issues afoot, ones worth fighting for.

One cannot impeach without the House. Reform the vote, win the House, and...

[EFerrari]

15. We may not need to win the House, at the rate MendacityCentral

is piling up crimes. But, you're right. One step, another one.

[shiina]

13. What good it will do us

If a Senator challenges

1. It's never been done before. It's huge. Absolutely immense. It will push forward election reform issues.

2. It will force people to admit the susceptibility of our voting system. It will show them that there is a crisis.

3. The MSM will have to report it. Big time.

4. The MSM will have to take it seriously, or start calling Congressmen and -women "dissidents" and "conspiracy theorists".

5. They will have to admit it was more than a few "glitches".

6. There will be lots of evidence presented and, again, the MSM will actually have to cover it this time.

7. There will be very heated debate. We'll hear some great speeches about democracy, civil rights, etc. Hopefully we'll get to reframe the whole issue. I think we can if we can get an impassioned speech (byte) from someone like Maxine Waters on the news.

8. If * does still get installed as Pres., he'll be damaged by this.

9. We'll have a great time on the 20th!!

10. Another item on the long list of reasons to impeach.

[El Vengedor]

29. On the other hand...

Arneback's lawsuit in the OSC has just been dismissed a second time because the facts presented do not meet the legal standards to be heard. The selection of the Electors is covered by state law and if the state's supreme court says we don't have a case, what would be the basis for a challenge in Congress? If you were a senator, would you make a challenge knowing that the proponents of the challenge couldn't make a case in the Ohio courts? Sorry to be pessimistic, but I don't see it happening.

Assuming it did happen, the onus would be on the challengers to prove the OSC was wrong about Ohio law. That is a very tall order and the MSM would make them petty and stupid if they couldn't do it. Every member of Congress knows that and would weigh the risk before making a challenge. It's a very risky move and barring a miracle with Arneback's suit, I'd be surprised if it happens.

[mostly_lurking]

30. Suit NOT dismissed --

The suit you are referring to is Moss v. Moyer, not Moss v. Bush. It is the second suit challenging the Supreme Court Justice race. Moss v. Bush is still moving.

[El Vengedor]

31. What is the status of that suit...

and when is a ruling expected?

[mostly_lurking]

34. Nothing will happen prior to Jan 4...

Moyer gave both parties until Dec 28 to file briefs answering two specific questions he posed. He then gave the parties until Jan 3 to file "rebuttals." Hence, it's unlikely any ruling will be made on this case until at least Jan 4.

Here is the order specifying the dates and questions to be addressed:

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/newpdf/0/2004/2004-ohio-6995.pdf

[El Vengedor]

41. Thank you

I read the order and it says nothing about Rule 9 (the basis on which Moss vs Moyer was dismissed). I see a risk that Moss vs Bush is dismissed on the same grounds. Are there any attorneys that can opine on the likelyhood of that happening?

[grasswire]

14. it's a marker for history

If they are going to steal elections, don't let them off easy. Don't make it appear that no one cared. Make them take it to the end of the Constitutional process. Make them stand up and TAKE the presidency.

The Constitutional remedy exists. Follow it to the end.

[tavalon]

17. All I want for Christmas

is just one Senator with cojones. Pleeeaasse!!!!!

I know I'm late with the Christmas wish but hey, bite me.

[s-cubed]

19. READ YOUR HISTORY: R. B. HAYES WAS NOT SWORN IN TIL EARLY MARCH

1876. Electoral votes were challlenged because of voter intimidation and fraud by Democrats, and the congress appointed a committee of 5 democrats, 5 senators, and 5 supreme court justices. They attempted to balance the committee between the 2 parties. Eventually, the committee did decide for the Republican, Hayes, and he was inaugurated in early March. Interestingly enough, the Democratic candidate was perceived by many as a crooked, arrogant bastard, while Hayes, from Ohio, was considered an honest, upright man. Hayes, like Kerry, held back from taking an active role, and let others do the fighting for him, until the appropriate time. There are fascinating parallels between the two cases, and any Democratic Senator who protests can remind his/her colleagues of the time the Republican Hayes was not inaugurated on January 20th. The Senate, more than the House, runs on tradition and precedent, I believe.

The other part of this, that we must not lose sight of, is that all this discredits *. We are already seeing cracks in the repugs solidarity, and when it comes out that he is illegitamite a second time, there will be mutiny in the ranks. I insist that the neocons are a small fraction of the repugs, and most repugs would prefer to have them go back to the underground burrow from which they emerged.

[JD Lau]

21. Hmmm. Thanks for the election history and for

adding your perspective. Good points.

Bring on the cracks in the armor.

[Stuckintx]

24. A small point to add

Up until FDR all presidents were sworn in on March 4.

[Left Brain]

32. Thanks scubed! (n/t)

[Voltaire]

33. In 1876

The President was not constitutionally sworn in until March anyway. The first President sworn in in January was FDR.

[bush_is_wacko]

36. Yes, definitely.

It is telling to watch the Republicans that are distancing themselves from * right now. There are still a few good men/women in the Republican party. I may disagree with the way they want to make the country better, but that doesn't mean they are as bad as BushCo. I do think Ashcrofts resignation was actually called for by Republicans sending the * administration a message. "We are gonna bail if you insist on supporting the Neo-con agenda." It seems to me they are calling Rummy out now too. Hopefully, this little Christmas break doesn't lesson some of their anger.

[JD Lau]

20. No, I don't want to bite you, but how about your wish for

the New Year. I will second THAT!!!

[Pithy Cherub]

39. Swinging for the fence, here even though the challenge will go down

in a blaze of glory, why not have all the D Senators fight for the principle. This would be a mark of enduring honor, not shame to protest that there was not equal treatment under law in our election!

[bush_is_wacko]

35. Yes. This is what I believe too

They must stand up and have their reservation about the legitimacy of this election be heard to have it marked in the history books. It will be IMPOSSIBLE to investigate if the certification stands without objection. I don't think the objection will result in keeping Bush from being inaugurated, but it does lay the groundwork for the investigation to continue in a more public forum. In other words, the public will, at that point, KNOW they are still investigating and hopefully the MSM will start reporting on the investigation at that point. This then gives the public a chance to realize ELECTION REFORM IS A MUST and it MUST be RIGHT NOW! In my mind this is the only way we can hope to have a fair election in 2006 and 2008. If the public isn't made aware of the NEED, nothing will happen. The public will be too concerned with the war and the economy to realize ELECTION REFORM is a BIG issue. Maybe even bigger than the war and the economy. If we don't have the ability to stop the escalation of war for profit, which is the REASON for this countries current decline. Jan 6th is the wake up call to America. Let's hope our leaders are up to the challenge!

[roseBudd]

25. Robert Byrd may be the only senator who doesn't give a fuck what anyone

thinks of him. I mean really, who else is in that position, and who can afford to be that outspoken.

Email is low effort, perhaps we need Washington DC DUers or Virginia DUers to conduct a vigil for Byrd to be the savior.

[whometense]

27. I could really see Byrd

stepping up to do this. He has not been shy about expressing his opinion of the * administration.

[roseBudd]

28. Well I have sent him email, and I am sure others have also. What gets

attention is people actually showing up. I am in Ohio and can't got to DC or Virginia. DC and Virginia DUers check in.

[bush_is_wacko]

38. I sent him email too. Still waiting for any kind of response but I have

recently gotten a few computer generated responses from some of the Senators I've emailed saying they will respond by US mail. I don't think Byrd was one of them, yet.

[McCamy Taylor]

40. LIke the Wizard of OZ, we have one, Kerry, but he has to realize he is one

so he has to go on a journey of self discovery and realize that he was one all along.

"Follow the yellow brick road, follow the yellow brick road..."

:crazy: