(12-26-2020 10:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 10:11 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 09:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 09:31 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-26-2020 08:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  My edit touches on that - apparently Hart is arguing that the 22 ballots thrown out shouldn’t have been. But I didn’t see any discussion of why they were thrown out and why exactly they should be included.

A petition to the House seems far too political. My guess is the House will side with the election board.

It’s not the argument that is salient, it is the venue.

The point is she has skipped the steps of arguing that point to the Iowa election boards, instead arguing that to the House. Equivalent to skipping all the appeals courts and going straight to the Supreme Court.

My guess is that Pelosi will seize the opportunity to save a little more of her dwindling margin. They will “find” a win for the Democrat. I guess we shall see.

It’s a bit of both, based on my reading. A recount was done, which narrowed the margin to just 6 votes (so the entire process wasn’t skipped).

But Hart doesn’t think a court challenge is the right path because of how quickly the court would need to rule. I don’t know why the Iowa court would require such a fast turnaround (less than 1 week) while the House would have more time, but that seems like a reasonable concern. It’s a small body and there are results for an entire state to review with intense scrutiny given the vote margin being in the single digits.

But jumping the line and skipping to courts by going straight to the House, an inherently partisan body, seems off.

6 votes - a real nailbiter.

Interesting to me for two reasons:

1. She went directly to the body she thinks she can get the best result from.
2. Same exact reasoning and procedure that Trump is trying.

Yes, 6 is very close. But did you read the story of the McCloskey “election” in my first link? I knew Jim Wright - a more partisan politician could not be imagined.

But lad's time rationale is very on point for the singular seat of the Presidency, whereas it really is not the same import for single seat in Congress. Especially when an Iowa court can legally keep the seat open while it determines a winner.

There is no mechanism for keeping the seat of the President open. There are very clear rules 'who' sits in the seat if there is a question, and how to deal with the question in the terms of the Presidency.

Again, my rationale? I’m explicitly talking about Hart’s rationale.

Stop projecting.