EnricoPallazzo said:

JWeinCom said:

Not only can he stand in the middle of fifth avenue and shoot people, he can also lie to people about a coming plague and not lose any voters.

I honestly think this should be considered criminal behavior. You can't scream fire in a crowded theater if there's no fire. By the same token, you shouldn't be able to scream "no fire" when there actually is a fire. 

This is a false statement made with knowledge of its falsity that has undoubtedly caused harm and death. It is not protected by the first amendment. He should be jailed, and there should be a deluge of civil lawsuits. 

Of course, there is a question of presidential immunity...

Actually you can say the same thing about Biden and his voters.

This division made both sides absolutely ignore the flaws of their candidates and focus only on the flaws of their enemy. It's like "I dont care about winning, I only care about the other side losing".

You could say that. You could say anything you want, but that doesn't make it true. Give me an example of Biden doing something even remotely close to telling people that a virus wasn't a major threat when concrete evidence shows that he knew that to be a lie.

NightlyPoe said:
JWeinCom said:

To give a bit of context...

The Green Party candidate needed 2000 signatures to appear on the ballot. She submitted those, but many of the signatures had the wrong address for the candidate. The candidate said that it was because she moved recently.

Accordingly, her application was rejected on August 20th. She filed a lawsuit on September 3rd. Statutes require ballots to be sent out by September 16th.

The court did not address whether or not the claim of Walker, the candidate argued the election committee fucked up by not counting the signatures, were valid. Instead they ruled that because she did not raise the objection in a timely fashion, waiting about two weeks from notification, in a time sensitive matter they would not accept the case. Because the only way to address the complaint would be to miss the deadline for sending out ballots, or send out duplicate ballots which could lead to confusion.

For the conservatives who take issue with that decision, election deadlines tend to be very strict. Bush v. Gore which essentially decided the presidency was largely decided because a recount could not be feasibly done before the results had to be certified. So, to argue that the process should be delayed to get the green party candidate on the ballot seems inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent (which doesn't necessarily govern the matter, but seems like it should hold water nonetheless).

As a practical matter, this is good for Biden, and I'd argue, generally good for democracy. There is a legitimate problem that a candidate who maybe should have been on the ballot will not be. But, the only possible answer, mainly due to that candidate's delay, would be to delay ballots getting to voters and send out at least some duplicate ballots. Neither option was perfect, but the second I think was more problematic as putting more stress on the mail in ballot system can lead to votes not being counted before the deadline (which would be a huge constitutional kerfuffle) and potential confusion in general. And, let's be real, it's a party that was to receive very little support. It's unlikely the amount of green party voters will sway the election. Although, it did in 2016, so if Biden wins by less than 30,000 or so, that would be interesting...

This is all Wisconsin law, not federal law.  Other examples of courts deciding to put a person on the ballot after the time has passed can be found, including explicit state laws to the contrary.  Most infamously in 2002 when the New Jersey Supreme Court said that Lautenberg could be put on the after the previous Democrat had simply dropped out (ethics issues in New Jersey, I know you're shocked) and party bosses decided Lautenberg should fill the role about 35 days before the election in direct violation of New Jersey law.

SCOTUS declined to hear the case.

Yes... which is why I said the Supreme Court case doesn't govern. But courts can refer to any other court they like for guidance, provided that doesn't conflict with a higher court in their jurisdiction. Most courts will look to the Supreme Court before any state courts. The court declining a case does not mean they approve of the result. The Lautenberg case is probably distinguishable anyway, but that's irrelevant.