As far as I am concerned, though, the Lizard People have been the most abusive of the system. They aren’t just challenging ballots, they have threatened to enslave all of mankind as a means to influence the re-count.
Y’know, Shodan, you’re usually more careful than that. This is one of the most blatantly dishonest examples of snipping a sentence and presenting it as a point to attack the integrity of a person or institution that I have ever seen. Frankly, I’m surprised that you thought you could get away with it.
Let’s go back to the original editorial, and begin by viewing the entire sentence:
So, the two things that the paper says Franken’s proposal boil down to are:
1.) ask for a decision to overlook or overturn a portion of the State’s absentee ballot statute, or;
2.) [ask for] a finding that some county elections officials incorrectly applied the law.
Reading your post, one seems to be invited to interpret the two options as:
1.) ask for a decision to overlook [the statute], or;
2.) [ask for a decision] overturn [the statute].
I understand the Lizard People have purchased a 30 minute television time slot to air a special campaign message entitled “To serve Minnesotans.”
The only thing I don’t understand is why it’s going to air on the Food Channel.
I don’t know why the distinction even matters. If a court were to decide that a statute is unconstitutional, the statute still remains on the books, doesn’t it? Unless it’s explicitly repealed. And if not, it has to be there until it’s republished even if that’s only for a few days. In either case, I don’t think you could whip out the book in an attempt to contravene a court ruling, could you? I’m just asking. Law is way above my pay grade.
eta: The point of all that being that such a statute, even if still on the books, would have to be overlooked, what with having been overturned. No difference. Same same.
Well, one of the situations they are asking the Court to resolve is this:
State law requires that the envelope containing an absentee ballot be signed by the city clerk before being delivered out to the appropriate precinct to be counted with the other ballots.
Now there are cases where the voter sent in their absentee ballot properly, but the clerk forgot to sign the outside of the envelope. When it got to the precinct, the election judges noticed the missing signature, and, following the rules, did not count it. Those absentee ballots are still sitting there, sealed in the envelopes (so only the voter knows who those votes are for). So in these cases, the voter did everything right, but because of a mistake in the clerks office, their vote was not counted.
Now there is another section of the Minnesota Voting laws that says the “intent of the voter” is primary. But that conflicts with the rule that requires a clerk’s signature on absentee ballot envelopes.
So the Franken campaign has asked a Court to resolve this conflict between laws, and decide which is most important. That is a proper function for the Courts, to make decisions on conflicts like this.
Quit bringing reality, with its well-known liberal bias, into this, OK? 
Congratulations. This is, hands down, the most incredibly silly attempt at a refutation posted in the last, I don’t know, week. You seem to be claiming that asking for a decision to overlook or overturn a statute is completely different from asking for a decision to overlook or overturn a statute.
This is one of those arguments that doesn’t even rise to the level of “wrong”. It simply can’t be addressed - it is just gibberish.
You know, Shodan, this exchange can serve as an example of why people sometimes feel free to attack you personally instead of sticking to the subject under discussion: you are willfully refusing to debate the subject and have descended, as is your wont, to calling the opposing argument “gibberish” and beneath your contempt. The argument is plain to me: the Minnesota laws, as written, contain a contradiction, and Franken’s people are asking the court to clarify the law. You’ve made this out to be “They’re whining for a do-over,” as if it weren’t one of the basic functions of courts of law to straighten out ambiguities. If the request is a silly one, the courts have no problem saying so, and if this is even a little bit as silly a case as you would have it be, it will no doubt get rejected by the court. You seem to have a gigantic fig up your ass that a Democratic candidate is requesting that a court consider their argument, and you’re choosing to call names rather than address the argument being made. You should be ashamed of yourself, though the concept of “shame” and “yourself” doesn’t really compute, I understand.
Before replying to this, I’d like our audience to go herefirst.
Thanks!
damnit, **ruber **beat me to it.
So, before replying, you started a Pit thread telling people not to reply.
Okay, good luck with that.
Somethings missing here. Since we can safely assume that the Frankensteins are up to No Good with this nefarious legal maneuvering, it should be equally obvious how they intend to profit by it. What outcome are they instructing their liberal judge toadies to deliver, and for what tangible benefit?
Sonny bono? in the Latin phrase
Oh, for the love of fuck, Shodan. Here’s the thing: some absentee ballots were not postmarked as required by regulation (not postmarked, exactly, but something trivial like that). The officials are accepting those ballots anyway. Either that regulation is wrong, or the officials are. Franken’s team is asking a judge to decide which one of those is the case. This isn’t rocket surgery.
Wow, not even close.
You really consider trying to vote twice to be “trivial”?
Also wrong. The canvassing board is meeting to consider if they should include them in the recount (cite).. Trouble is, the Minnesota Supreme Court has already ruled that they do not have the authority to decide this.
Might want to check your facts a little better.
No, the reason people insult me in GD is twofold -[ul][li]They are trolls, and []they’ve lived a sheltered life. [/li]
For most of their adult life, they have (in many cases) lived in a sort of liberal bubble, where the usual response to their opinions is nods of agreement. Then, they encounter someone who is [list][li]willing to defend a conservative point of view, []not easily intimidated by being in the minority[]does not suffer fools gladly, and indeed, takes a certain pleasure in making fun of some people’s opinions, and []worst of all, has heard most of it before and can actually refute that great argument someone pulled off his favorite left wing blog.[/ul][/list]So I don’t roll over like I am supposed to. I also am not easily distracted by the usual time-wasting tactics of tu quoques, ad hominems, genetic fallacies, special pleadings, or simple incoherence. [/li]
What do they have left? I am not behaving the way conservatives are supposed to do in their fantasies.
Some liberals hereabouts are waaaay too used to being the the only smart one in the room. Then they come into this room, and not only are they not the only smart one (here I am thinking more of folks like Bricker and Sam Stone and Mr. Moto) but not all the smart ones are reflexively left of center.
So, if these liberals are really the smart ones, they debate, and that’s interesting. If they aren’t, they start flinging insults. That’s interesting too, but for a different reason.
Actually your mental tap dancing is amusing. The repubs have really screwed up . You twist your logic into pretzels trying to find a defense where none exists. You hang an entire defense on the most obscure point and pat yourself on the back for being the winner.
When votes are that close,there should be a revote. The smallest transgression of a follower can actually impact the final count. Whoever wins, the other side will feel cheated.
About now a coin flip would be a good solution. That at least would be fair.
So you believe the findings of the Minnesota Supreme Court are obscure?
And perhaps you could describe how you believe the Republicans have screwed up by winning the election (so far). Or was that a meaningful statement at all?
Actually, under Minnesota state law, there is a recount, which is what we were discussing.
How about a little fire, Scarecrow?
Your heartfelt paean to your superheroic resistance to the jackboots of Communist liberalism is sooooo swoony! What a crock…
I’d be curious if you can name any names of posters who’ve led this sort of sheltered life, and how you know this is the case.
Nitpick: nobody’s won the election, ‘so far’ or not. There’s a reason neither candidate has declared victory: the process isn’t over yet, and it could go either way.
**TWEEEEEET!! **
Take all the personal observations to the Pit.
[ /Moderating ]