Thu Dec 8, 2016, 12:34 AM

Michigan recount is NOT dead: Jill Stein asks Michigan Supreme Court to resume it (Palmer Report)

The real story tonight: a federal judge ruled that he didn’t have the authority to override the 3-1 decision by the decision by the Michigan Board of Canvassers to shut down the recount. However, this federal court move is not a ruling against Jill Stein, but rather a punt. As such, she’s announced that she’ll now shift her court battle to the Michigan Supreme Court. This information is readily available in a statement from Stein, yet it’s garnered anywhere from faint brief mention in the fine print to no mention at all in the reports coming out from major news outlets.

https://www.palmerreport.com/news/michigan-recount-is-not-dead-jill-stein-is-now-asking-michigan-supreme-court-to-resume-it/430/

8 replies, 2272 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

8 replies	Author	Time	Post
Michigan recount is NOT dead: Jill Stein asks Michigan Supreme Court to resume it (Palmer Report) (Original post)	California_Republic	Dec 2016	OP
Palmer gets it wrong yet again	FBaggins	Dec 2016	#1
Just counting isn't going to reveal a russian hack.	lonestarnot	Dec 2016	#2
Sure it would	FBaggins	Dec 2016	#3
No it wouldn't. Just show that the vote count off, not why.	lonestarnot	Dec 2016	#6
Untrue	FBaggins	Dec 2016	#7
good analysis, thanks nt/t	California_Republic	Dec 2016	#4
So there's a sliver of a chance then right? I'll take it, fuck that... fight on dammit	uponit7771	Dec 2016	#5
Thanks for the update!	Madam45for2923	Dec 2016	#8

Response to California_Republic (Original post)

Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:05 AM

FBaggins (19,273 posts)

1. Palmer gets it wrong yet again

a federal judge ruled that he didn’t have the authority to override the 3-1 decision by the decision by the Michigan Board of Canvassers to shut down the recount.

No he didn't. He didn't even talk about it except to cite their original statutory 2-day wait. Instead, he references state courts' ability to interpret state law.

However, this federal court move is not a ruling against Jill Stein, but rather a punt.

Nope. He ruled directly against a number of her claims.

"Nor have Plaintiffs shown an entitlement to a recount that derives from a source other than the recount procedures established by the Michigan Legislature. "

"There is no case law recognizing an independent federal right to a recount that either this Court or the parties have come across, in the absence of actual deprivation of voting rights"

"... invoking a court’s aid to remedy that problem in the manner Plaintiffs have chosen... has never been endorsed by any court"

"In tandem with their new claims, Plaintiffs’ response to the motions to dissolve argues that the TRO should be preserved on either of two alternative bases: (i) that the Michigan Court of Appeals’ ruling on the “aggrieved party” issue represents a “distorted interpretation of the text” of Mich. Comp. Laws § 168.879, see Pls. Resp. at 3-4; and (ii) that Plaintiffs have a federal constitutional right to a recount independent of the state statutory scheme providing for a recount, see id. at 10. The Court finds neither argument persuasive."

Palmer also mistakenly claims that the recount isn't dead because Stein will still appeal to the state and federal Supreme Courts. The problem there is that there's almost no chance that either will help her. It can't get to the USSC without first going back through the federal appellate court that just ruled yesterday that the state courts get to interpret state law... and the state Supreme Court is 5-2 Republican. I'm not sure that they'll even take the case.

It would be more accurate reporting to say that the recount is dead and Stein is praying for a miracle to resuscitate it.

Reply to this post

Response to FBaggins (Reply #1)

Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:10 AM

lonestarnot (77,097 posts)

2. Just counting isn't going to reveal a russian hack.

Reply to this post

Response to lonestarnot (Reply #2)

Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:18 AM

FBaggins (19,273 posts)

3. Sure it would

To the extent they're hand-counting paper ballots for example.

But my point here was just to point out the fake news shilling to draw out sucker donations.

Reply to this post

Response to FBaggins (Reply #3)

Thu Dec 8, 2016, 05:50 AM

lonestarnot (77,097 posts)