I cannot keep up with this sh*t! So, the stories of earlier that the Appeals Court in Michigan said the recount would stop were Bull Sh*t?
These threads are totally freaking useless!
The federal court said there should not be a delay.
The state court said the board of electors will not have a recount.
Different ruling from what I heard. Ambiguity means that the recount stops as the election board is ordered not to have a recount. Federal court just said there should be no delay.
” Goldsmith has all the power right now. “
He might think he does but I’m sure the 6 Circuit Court of Appeals will let him know that’s not so.
Why does a federal judge outrank the state on this? It’s MI election, each state has their own electoral votes, why let the feds interfere?
It just seems to me that this is the precursor to elections determined by Washington, the people and the states subjugated to the almighty centralized government.
Only read the excerpt, but while correct to a point, it left out the instruction by the 6th circuit instructing Goldsmith to vacate or amend his order should the state court rule against the recount as they have.
So if Goldsmith doesn’t, it is almost certain the 6th circuit will.
From other posts here, it seems the USCA upheld Goldsmith unless and until the state court determined the recount did not meet the state’s laws requirements for a recount, at which time the state would go back to the USDC to withdraw the order which, from what I’m reading, related only to timing, i.e., start now, not in two days.
The federal courts didn’t become involved in the question of whether there should or should not not be a recount. This at least is my understanding from FR posters. If that is accurate, Goldsmith would alter his order to close the case in federal court.
The 6th circuit instructed Goldsmith to vacate his order if the state courts should order than the recount be stopped. That is precisely what they have done.
What would that Obama puppet do if everyone went home? Federal judges ought to be ignored when they act as despots.
In my opinion he has abused the authority of the court. He has substituted his will for that of the Michigan Legislature and he premises this on Michigan law posing a “threat” to Stein’s “right” to a recount.
Yep. He shouldn’t, but he does.
I am so happy I don’t live in that state anymore!
Unless the feds want to pay for the recount the state of Michigan should tell them to pound sand as Stein should have been told by everyone. She has no case, she got 1% of the vote.
By the way, Huffington Post usually doesn’t clear much up. Just the opposite.
If Hill and Jill don't know this, they are about to get a tough life lesson if they fail in their efforts.
On more extensive previous thread, it was reported that the 6th Circuit also further directed the original Federal judge to follow the direction of the state court vis a vis the validity of the recount. Thus, they directed Goldschmidt to allow the state to make the determination on the validity of thee recount.
However, the Michigan appeals court issued their order in abeyance so that the recount would proceed until the Michigan Supreme Court could act on any appeal.
BTW: Continuing to recount is not all that bad if they are actually going to attempt to complete a recount. The best case would be that the Supreme Court quickly affirms the ruling of the lower court and Goldschmidt backs off. A less good result would be that the recount completes in time to certify Trump with the recounted results.
A messy case, which Goldschmidt is helping to avoid, is that the recount does not complete in time and the Michigan legislature has to step in with its own slate of electors. This result would be used to plant the idea that Trump stole the election.
State law should determine whether or not there is a recount.
The exception would be if there were substantial evidence that someone’s voting rights were violated.
It’s HuffPost: it’s idiocy.
Goldsmith’s order to start the recount early has the boilerplate:
“To determine whether to grant a preliminary injunction or temporary restraining order, a district court must consider: (i) whether the movant has a strong likelihood of success on the merits;... “
Sometime tomorrow the recount will stop.
I am not (yet) convinced the Detroit paper’s analysis is correct. It is still a state election of state electors and the issue is in the stete’s courts. I’ve not seen a cogent explanation how the matter is properly withdrawn a federal court’s jurisdiction, at least at this time. I’m remaining open minded to see if more info is forthcoming