pineknollshoresking said:Pacfan, you would do yourself a service by "NOT" being so damn dogmatic. All I am doing is providing information about what the dissenting justices said. If you don't think that is telling, then, so be it.Pacfanweb said:You're ignoring the fact that none of them say they actually thought there was any legitimate evidence.pineknollshoresking said:The court ruled, not on merit; rather on Laches...Pacfanweb said:What's not true? The most recent court case in Wisconsin was dismissed. That's a fact, and a matter of record.pineknollshoresking said:just not true. he is telling you that...Pacfanweb said:
Not sure what he's talking about. There was no decision in a Wisconsin court that went Trump's way.
Yesterday:
Wisconsin Supreme Court tosses Trump election lawsuit
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/wisconsin-supreme-court-tosses-trump-election-lawsuit-74717684
Definition of laches
negligence in the observance of duty or opportunityspecifically
undue delay in asserting a legal right or privilege
The dissent from the three justices was extremely telling... I'll find and provide that to you.
Here is the dissent:
In the case now before us, a significant portion of the public does not believe that the November 3, 2020, presidential election was fairly conducted. Once again, four justices on this court cannot be bothered with addressing what the statutes require to assure that absentee ballots are lawfully cast. I respectfully dissent from that decision. I write separately to address the merits of the claims presented. The Milwaukee County Board of Canvassers and the Dane County Board of Canvassers based their decisions on erroneous advice when they concluded that changes clerks made to defective witness addresses were permissible. And, the Dane County Board of Canvasserserred again when it approved the 200 locations for ballot collection that comprised Democracy in the Park. The majority does not bother addressing what the boards of canvassers did or should have done, and instead, four members of this court throw the cloak of laches over numerous problems that will be repeated again and again, until this court has the courage to correct them. The electorate expects more of us, and we are capable of providing it. Because we do not, I respectfully dissent.
I'll also find the other ruling in the court from another complaint. That one ruled in the President's favor.
https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2020/2020ap000557-oa.html
So you're hanging your hat on ONE court being divided? lol
They upheld the law, end of story. They made the correct decision. A loss is a loss, whether by 1 point or 20.
You're ignoring the fact that none of them say they actually thought there was any legitimate evidence
How do you know they saw actual evidence? But, they did say: I write separately to address the merits of the claims presented.
So you're hanging your hat on ONE court being divided? lol Again, quit being so damn dogmatic. I'm not hanging my hat on anything. I bringing points out that are not being discussed!!!!
I'll bet I am far more realistic about this whole damn thing than anybody. Go back and read my post about my doubts on this whole process. Nonetheless, I still think this is fascinating and I enjoy seeing all this move around...
Pacjwebfan. He is just going to tell you how he sees it then tell you why your view don't count.
But hey he is monarchists so he is not capable of understanding justice.