It would be logically flawed to think that finding some cases of voter fraud proves that it must be widespread and manifold. As it is also logically flawed to argue that because only some cases have been widely publicised it can be neither widespread nor significantly influencing results.
Voter fraud has happened, and we don’t know how much of it has been undetected. And the recent changes arguably multiply the potential opportunities for voter fraud manifold
And yet, in the liberal world view, a few cases of bad cops out of millions and millions of police interactions annually is indicative of systemic police corruption and racism, right?
2 Likes
I wish this got more discussion. Large scale voter fraud should be easily detectable (in the case of fake/stolen/fabricated ballots).
The voter roles and who has voted are public. A sampling of voters asking if they voted should be able to detect voting in someone else’s name, voting a dead persons name, voting in your cats name, non-citizen voting.
With the scale of the claims I am routinely hearing (thousands, millions,…) it would be straightforward to demonstrate. The sampling size required to guarantee detection for any selected scale can be easily calculated.
This is one of those issues with an over abundance of accusation without follow up or remediation and that troubles me.
Survey the damn voter roles and document the scale of the problem!
1 Like
Another example of the junk chief justice Roberts, what a piece of work this guy is. 
JayJay
149
This has been done a few times over the last two decades.
Each and every time, the amount of fraud/potential fraud that is uncovered doesn’t rise above baseline noise when compared to how many ballots were cast.
Those who firmly believe in massive undetected voter fraud dismiss these studies as “Lib studies”.
And so it continues. The powers that be who are pushing the fraud stories don’t care if it is false…they don’t want to actually KNOW if there is fraud and to what degree it exists.
They want to use it as a wedge issue and to support voter suppression tactics.
2 Likes
IMO
He knows that if the court becomes too activist, the Congress will step in and adjust its power accordingly whether that is through an amendment, new laws or expanding the number of justices themselves. As he is a conservative, he doesn’t want that to happen so he rulings take that into account.
What “conservatives” in this forum seem to want are “activist conservative” justices that will rule the way they want instead of what is in the country’s best interest.
I could be wrong, but that is how I see it.
JayJay
151
Precisely.
The GOP is essentially arguing for much more active federal control over elections and voter rights.
The problem is in the Constitution, the a positive affirmation of the right to vote is nowhere to be found…it’s always cast in negative language (as is typical of the Constitution which outlines what the federal government may not do). Thus, the government may NOT infringe upon the right to vote based on race, sex, etc
Most of the states affirm the right to vote much more affirmatively than the federal government does. This could come under fire if the Feds assume more control, and I am puzzled that conservatives would be pressing for more state power being ceded to “CentGov”.
And finally, the argument that the courts ruling on state constitutionality unduly limits the power of legislatures to execute their election power is quite frankly ridiculous.
Bush v Gore set a terrible precedent of the feds being able to overrule the states on their own election laws. Will this accelerate with the seating of Barrett?
Who knows, but that conservatives think this is a “conservative policy point”…to give the feds more power over the states…is concerning.
The constitution DOES allow for Congress to regulate elections in the states, but it needs to be done through law. Whatever is not done through law is reserved for the states to decide.
JayJay
153
Exactly.
And I hate it when illogical arguments are made, like the courts deciding state constitutionality unduly limits the state legislature’s powers to make election laws.
That’s just ridiculous on its face, and that three conservative SCOTUS justices agreed to hear such a case was shocking to me.
Bull! He’s not even a RINO, he is a flaming lib in conservative clothing.
If he’s a RINO, what’s a conservative? Does that word have any meaning anymore? Maybe we should have term limits from the Supreme Court so judges like Roberts don’t have lifetime appointments.
DOLOOP
156
Exactly!
People say that Roosevelt lost the court packing fight. He most certainly did not. He warned the court to be careful. And they did!
This is why Biden should not say what his plans are. He needs to let the court know that he has redress if they get too out of hand.
Democrats are eleventy dimensionaling the ■■■■ out of this and it’s a joy to watch if only folks can see past the first move.
1 Like
This is a good perspective on the higher level game.
They tried to stop The ABC confirmation using it and failed, so to your point the court is already working against a pitchers count.
To keep going with the analogy this was a another foul ball strike save by Roberts?
Exactly. The mere threat of court packing.
Although some historians disagree.
And eventually Roosevelt appointed a more favorable court.
Allan
Their blatant double standards are a cry for help.
1 Like
And every time some nutjob shoots up a birthday party, it’s the fault of the gun manufacturers and the NRA.
1 Like
Well, let’s hope state legislatures under Democrat control get a caning by their citizens for their destructive and authoritarian Covid responses and flipped state legislatures fix their election laws to ensure that elections themselves cannot be fixed by big tech and the MSM and whoever they become beholden to next time
Chris
162
Justice Roberts is a flaming lib for being pro-10th Amendment in this decision by not wanting to overturn the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling???
