Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   Trump now says he'll accept whoever the Supreme Court declares the winner of the election as the next president...*WINK*   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, Barack Obama, George W. Bush, Joe Biden, United States presidential election, 2008, Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008  
•       •       •

1583 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Sep 2020 at 2:52 PM (4 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



149 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-09-24 2:33:41 PM  
I thought Trump wanted a winner declared on election night.  Now he is planning on a Supreme Court fight?  How many days or weeks would that take?
 
2020-09-24 2:35:48 PM  
Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?
 
2020-09-24 2:36:00 PM  
The Supreme Court should never even get a chance to look at this. It should be so overwhelming.
 
2020-09-24 2:37:15 PM  

somedude210: Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?


That's hilarious.
 
2020-09-24 2:37:18 PM  

somedude210: Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?


They were discussing that on MSNBC this morning. They were saying whoever Trump appoints needs to recuse themselves because they know they were appointed strictly to vote him into office
 
2020-09-24 2:41:04 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size


/Guaranteed to be impartial.
 
2020-09-24 2:43:06 PM  
I'm pretty sure the voters and states declare the winner. The SC isn't supposed to be involved. The fact that trump has preemptively decided they must decide is worrisome.
 
2020-09-24 2:44:27 PM  
"Supreme Court"

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 2:51:08 PM  

raerae1980: "Supreme Court"

[Fark user image 498x498] [View Full Size image _x_]


So the question becomes: does the media and Democratic Party say "ok we are good then" and try to move on from this obvious threat?
 
2020-09-24 2:52:29 PM  
I miss the old days when the election was enough without getting the court involved
 
2020-09-24 2:53:37 PM  

Nadie_AZ: raerae1980: "Supreme Court"

[Fark user image 498x498] [View Full Size image _x_]

So the question becomes: does the media and Democratic Party say "ok we are good then" and try to move on from this obvious threat?


I think Senators like Feinstein and Manchuin would try it, but the AOC's in Congress would absolutely scream against it.
 
2020-09-24 2:54:27 PM  
There will be law suits in probably every state this time around... its going to be litigated for a very very long time.
 
2020-09-24 2:55:12 PM  

somedude210: Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?


You assume a functioning democracy.
 
2020-09-24 2:56:11 PM  
media1.tenor.comView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 2:56:11 PM  

OldRod: somedude210: Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?

They were discussing that on MSNBC this morning. They were saying whoever Trump appoints needs to recuse themselves because they know they were appointed strictly to vote him into office


That would take a decent and honorable person.

Trump doesn't know any.
 
2020-09-24 2:56:16 PM  

somedude210: Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?


SCOTUS justices are specifically exempt from recusal.  They can choose to do so (and this has happened several times), but nothing - even the Chief Justice, who is more of a manager than their boss - can force one to recuse themselves from any case.  Thomas and Scalia famously bragged about how they had conflicts of interest on a couple of cases and were going to participate anyway.  In theory, a SCOTUS Justice could commit premeditated murder, be convicted, and then appeal the case all the way up the line to SCOTUS, then sit and vote on the very case they themselves were a principal in - and that would be completely and utterly legal and Constitutional.  it would be farky as hell, but nothing stops it (presumably, they would be impeached before the case wound up in their lap, but otherwise they are golden).
 
2020-09-24 2:56:25 PM  
I have seen plenty of the democratic leadership criticize Trump getting to nominate the replacement for rbg for political reasons. The ACA, Roe, etc.

I haven't seen one mention of the fact that the president appointing a puppet to do his bidding and toss out the legitimate results of the election- which he has repeatedly stated is his intent - is banana republic horseshiat that cannot be permitted.

Go for the damn throat you pussies.
 
2020-09-24 2:56:39 PM  
I don't care what he says. I suggest you don't either.
 
2020-09-24 2:56:57 PM  
 
2020-09-24 2:58:11 PM  

atomic-age: coonts are still running the world.

Jarvis Cocker nails it so hard he put the whole roof on at once


Pssssssst coonts have always run the world.
 
2020-09-24 2:58:16 PM  
If it would save democracy, would assassination, either of Trump or a member/members of the Supreme Court, be morally justified?
 
2020-09-24 2:59:00 PM  

raerae1980: "Supreme Court"

[Fark user image image 498x498]


Well, it's official, I will literally watch Aubrey Plaza do anything.
 
2020-09-24 2:59:21 PM  
Odd, usually elections are decided by the voters...
 
2020-09-24 2:59:23 PM  
Lying again huh. Yawwn.
 
2020-09-24 2:59:59 PM  

dwrash: There will be law suits in probably every state this time around... its going to be litigated for a very very long time.


Well sure it will, because why just have an election when you can whine like biatch that it is unfair you might not win.
 
2020-09-24 3:00:08 PM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I miss the old days when the election was enough without getting the court involved


The good old days when people had to show photo ID and vote in person? I miss those two
 
2020-09-24 3:00:32 PM  
This is so farking stupid the SCOTUS doesn't decide presidential elections.  Why the fark does the media even pretend that this is normal.  Trump is saying out loud he ain't leaving.  He said it four years ago when he said any election that he lost would be fake, then with a shiat eating grin said the next day that no these results aren't fake after he won.  Michael Cohen told congress that he isn't going to leave office.  For farks sake wake up media call this shiat out for what it is.
 
2020-09-24 3:00:40 PM  

Ambivalence: I'm pretty sure the voters and states declare the winner. The SC isn't supposed to be involved. The fact that trump has preemptively decided they must decide is worrisome.


It means he's already decided to litigate his loss in the hope that whoever filed suit gives up eventually. Because as long as he loses, he'll find a way to refile. As soon as you blink, he wins.
 
2020-09-24 3:00:52 PM  

austerity101: If it would save democracy, would assassination, either of Trump or a member/members of the Supreme Court, be morally justified?


What democracy?
 
2020-09-24 3:01:28 PM  
The Democrat party has really done this to themselves. You libs whine that the Supreme Court should not be involved in our elections but you neglect to mention that they would not be involved were the Democrats not trying to rig the system by making it too easy for "those" people (you know who I mean) to vote.
 
2020-09-24 3:01:54 PM  
Trump has corrupted his three primary children, all of his base, the entire GOP practically, every cabinet sec, every federal agency possibly including the FBI and CIA, certainly the DOJ, and now he presumes that he can corrupt the SCOTUS.
We'll see about that. Any SCOTUS who thinks Trump is acting ethically and inside the confines of affirmed Law, does not deserve to sit on the Supremes
 
2020-09-24 3:02:04 PM  

Someone Else's Alt: dwrash: There will be law suits in probably every state this time around... its going to be litigated for a very very long time.

Well sure it will, because why just have an election when you can whine like biatch that it is unfair you might not win.


We have never had an auditible election system in any state... its passed time that we have one.  Until we do, expect court challenges left and right.
 
2020-09-24 3:02:46 PM  

austerity101: If it would save democracy, would assassination, either of Trump or a member/members of the Supreme Court, be morally justified?


We are not at that point yet.

Assassination is an absolute last resort, when literally no other corrective measure is possible.
 
2020-09-24 3:03:34 PM  
He committed sedition. You shouldn't get a mulligan on sedition.
 
2020-09-24 3:03:38 PM  

fernt: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I miss the old days when the election was enough without getting the court involved

The good old days when people had to show photo ID and vote in person? I miss those two


Yeah, those good old days days. When military personnel couldn't vote in their home state, let alone while deployed, because you had to show photo ID and vote in person.

/ Oh, wait.
 
2020-09-24 3:03:54 PM  

gilgigamesh: I have seen plenty of the democratic leadership criticize Trump getting to nominate the replacement for rbg for political reasons. The ACA, Roe, etc.

I haven't seen one mention of the fact that the president appointing a puppet to do his bidding and toss out the legitimate results of the election- which he has repeatedly stated is his intent - is banana republic horseshiat that cannot be permitted.

Go for the damn throat you pussies.


Yep.

This was all very easy to predict. Anyone who didn't see this coming was being willfully blind. SO many people took a "it can't happen here" attitude. Many in these very threads insisted that Trump couldn't just stay in office because the law says he can't if he loses, but laws only mean something if there are people willing to follow and enforce them.

His endgame is evident. We KNOW he will not accept defeat, if he loses. We know this for certain. He has made very clear that he will not accept the election results.

Our democracy is quite literally at risk. No hyperbole.

The fight has to be ramped up big time. BIG TIME. He's being allowed to normalize these ideas going into the election.

That can't be allowed to happen.
 
2020-09-24 3:04:18 PM  

Mad Scientist: I thought Trump wanted a winner declared on election night.  Now he is planning on a Supreme Court fight?  How many days or weeks would that take?


Sure sounds scared doesn't he. Weak even. A winner doesn't need the SC. Only losers do. I like presidents that win elections, not losers.
 
2020-09-24 3:04:22 PM  

Mad Scientist: I thought Trump wanted a winner declared on election night.  Now he is planning on a Supreme Court fight?  How many days or weeks would that take?


He wants the court to declare him the winner on election night.
 
2020-09-24 3:04:27 PM  

Ring of Fire: This is so farking stupid the SCOTUS doesn't decide presidential elections.  Why the fark does the media even pretend that this is normal.  Trump is saying out loud he ain't leaving.  He said it four years ago when he said any election that he lost would be fake, then with a shiat eating grin said the next day that no these results aren't fake after he won.  Michael Cohen told congress that he isn't going to leave office.  For farks sake wake up media call this shiat out for what it is.


Oh meant to add for the record Hitler (yeah I know but it applies here) continuously told the German people exactly what he was going to do, how he was going to do it and for some reason they still let him be chancellor.  He then did exactly what he told people he was going do and made himself dictator.
People just think something like that can't happen here because it never has.  It can and at this very moment is happening here.
 
2020-09-24 3:04:39 PM  
The House is still the organization that tallies the votes of the Electoral College in January 2021.
 
2020-09-24 3:05:15 PM  
I smell sh*t.
 
2020-09-24 3:05:24 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-09-24 3:05:28 PM  

Dimensio: The Democrat party has really done this to themselves. You libs whine that the Supreme Court should not be involved in our elections but you neglect to mention that they would not be involved were the Democrats not trying to rig the system by making it too easy for "those" people (you know who I mean) to vote.


I know right, farking dems, always trying to make it fair and trying to make sure POC get equal access and representation to our political system. How un-American.
 
2020-09-24 3:05:41 PM  

somedude210: Wouldn't all this force Roberts to have new person recuse themselves since it's obvious that they would be bias in this case?


I don't know if you can force a judge to recuse themselves.
If you can, I genuinely would not be surprised if Roberts did. He seems keenly aware of the legacy of his court over partisanship, and i dubt he wants this shiatstain on his historical record.
 
2020-09-24 3:06:13 PM  

austerity101: If it would save democracy, would assassination, either of Trump or a member/members of the Supreme Court, be morally justified?


Assassinating political opponents is kind of the opposite of democracy. Also, I don't think making Pence President makes things much better, at least on the saving democracy side.
 
2020-09-24 3:06:29 PM  

austerity101: If it would save democracy, would assassination, either of Trump or a member/members of the Supreme Court, be morally justified?


How do you do, Fellow Not a Secret Service Agent?
 
2020-09-24 3:07:03 PM  
In case anyone has any doubts about what's going on, Trump is going to win, even if he loses badly.  They are telling us that is exactly what's going to happen.  If you doubt this, then it's time to wake the fark up.
 
2020-09-24 3:07:43 PM  
Constitution being repealed?

/the thing he is sworn to uphold and defend?
 
2020-09-24 3:07:46 PM  

Someone Else's Alt: Dimensio: The Democrat party has really done this to themselves. You libs whine that the Supreme Court should not be involved in our elections but you neglect to mention that they would not be involved were the Democrats not trying to rig the system by making it too easy for "those" people (you know who I mean) to vote.

I know right, farking dems, always trying to make it fair and trying to make sure POC get equal access and representation to our political system. How un-American.


Do not try throwing that racism argument at me! We all know that Democrats were the party of slavery and segregation and political positions never shift over time so they still represent those things today.

Also, I am not a racist because I also oppose allowing white women to vote.
 
2020-09-24 3:07:54 PM  

Dimensio: austerity101: If it would save democracy, would assassination, either of Trump or a member/members of the Supreme Court, be morally justified?

We are not at that point yet.

Assassination is an absolute last resort, when literally no other corrective measure is possible.


When do we know we're at that point?  Would we realize it in time?
 
Displayed 50 of 149 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.