ADVERTISEMENT

How many folks on here think he should get an extension?

001bc9ec4be6e9d6ee013fb555624b230db522e53675a4ad5c564445d40c2987.jpg
 
nope. maybe next time he will pick himself up by the bootstraps and get that ticket turned in sooner.

also
I don't get peoples reluctance to trust mail.
 
Tough cookies.

"It’s totally on me," Bayley said. "It was my mistake. I thought the extension of three days would be something they could live with."

Do you want to know what else they can live with? Not giving you the money.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sob5
Am I missing when he bought the ticket? It says there was an extension if it was bought in April. If he bought it then and still missed out after the extension then he should be out of luck.

If not, and he missed it after the office was closed and there was no extension at all, then I think he should get his money for being only 3 days late imo.
 
Let me guess. This is supposed to be some sort of absentee ballot analogy?

What if the lottery tells him it’s okay to drop his ticket in the mail as long as it’s postmarked by the deadline, and he does so, but then, after the lottery receives the ticket and is about to pay the prize, a player who lost the lottery runs to a friendly court stacked with other lottery losers that he appointed to that court, and like a little bitch claims the ticket is now invalid despite the player’s reliance on the lottery’s word?
 
No. It is a very legit and necessary rule for accounting purposes and therefore you can’t make exceptions be it 5 bucks or 500 million.
 
Let me guess. This is supposed to be some sort of absentee ballot analogy?
Obviously. And a discussion of the actual case.

He’s beyond the date. Rules are rules. I don’t see the state changing the rules in this case because of a mistake.
 
What if the lottery tells him it’s okay to drop his ticket in the mail as long as it’s postmarked by the deadline, and he does so, but then, after the lottery receives the ticket and is about to pay the prize, a player who lost the lottery runs to a friendly court stacked with other lottery losers that he appointed to that court, and like a little bitch claims the ticket is now invalid despite the player’s reliance on the lottery’s word?
I’m not referring to ballots that arrive that fall within the rules originally created by the state legislature.

But what if the lottery official decides to unilaterally allow the prize to be paid out of fairness while the legislature has specific language requiring the prize to be claimed by the said date? Is that ok?

Maybe the prize winner can simply claim he was disenfranchised?

Rules are rules. Play within them. Election officials, voters, lottery commissions, lottery players. Sucks if you miss a deadline but that’s on you. The country temperature can’t afford a protracted litigated election.
 
I’m not referring to ballots that arrive that fall within the rules originally created by the state legislature.

But what if the lottery official decides to unilaterally allow the prize to be paid out of fairness while the legislature has specific language requiring the prize to be claimed by the said date? Is that ok?

Maybe the prize winner can simply claim he was disenfranchised?

Rules are rules. Play within them. Election officials, voters, lottery commissions, lottery players. Sucks if you miss a deadline but that’s on you. The country temperature can’t afford a protracted litigated election.

If the lottery tells me I can do something, and I rely on it, the losers shouldn’t be able to change that ruling days later, after I relied on what they told me.

I’m supposed to know that a subsequent appellate court weeks later is going to say the lottery was wrong based on some Constitutional analysis? That’s crap.

And to require that kind of level of foresight from American voters - what were really talking about here - is crap.

I get what you are saying, but there are legal concepts about detrimental reliance and settled expectations. Sandbagging, waiting days to bring the legal challenge while the votes were cast and accepted ain’t right.
 
Obviously. And a discussion of the actual case.

He’s beyond the date. Rules are rules. I don’t see the state changing the rules in this case because of a mistake.
Not much of an argument from me on that.

It just seems strange that the Republicans are having a high-five party every time an attempt to accommodate more votes is shot down. Is it because they are so in favor of the rule of law, or do they feel that people who have difficulty getting their votes in on time are more likely to be votes they don't want counted? If it's just because they think "rules are rules," the celebrations and bragging seem odd.
 
Educate me. I know a tad amount about law but these terms are foreign to me.

They are two somewhat related concepts

Detrimental reliance is basically - I was told I could do something, I relied upon the government telling me that, I did it, and then the government tries to invalidate what I did - even though I relied in good faith on the government’s instructions.

I ask to build a house within 10 feet of a lot line and zoning told me I could. I do it. Then later, zoning changes its decision and says I have to tear the house down. Shouldn’t be able to do that because I detrimentally relied on the government decision at the time.

Same with settled expectations - involves an issue that has been settled. How taxes are calculated for investments for example. People and industries rely on that determination - make substantial investments of money based on that interpretation. Then, at a later date, that determination is reversed mid-course.

The doctrine suggests that courts should tread lightly if a decision would disturb settled expectations or that they should make their decisions prospective only to lessen the impact.

Both concepts are in play with elections. If you are interested, go to Marc Elias Twitter feed. He’s a litigator for the DNC on elections issues, but he posts all sides briefs and all court rulings on his cases.

Really interesting wonky reading if you are interested in a deeper dive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haw-key
They are two somewhat related concepts

Detrimental reliance is basically - I was told I could do something, I relied upon the government telling me that, I did it, and then the government tries to invalidate what I did - even though I relied in good faith on the government’s instructions.

I ask to build a house within 10 feet of a lot line and zoning told me I could. I do it. Then later, zoning changes its decision and says I have to tear the house down. Shouldn’t be able to do that because I detrimentally relied on the government decision at the time.

Same with settled expectations - involves an issue that has been settled. How taxes are calculated for investments for example. People and industries rely on that determination - make substantial investments of money based on that interpretation. Then, at a later date, that determination is reversed mid-course.

The doctrine suggests that courts should tread lightly if a decision would disturb settled expectations or that they should make their decisions prospective only to lessen the impact.

Both concepts are in play with elections. If you are interested, go to Marc Elias Twitter feed. He’s a litigator for the DNC on elections issues, but he posts all sides briefs and all court rulings on his cases.

Really interesting wonky reading if you are interested in a deeper dive.
Thanks. Makes sense. I’ll check it out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: St. Louis Hawk
Not much of an argument from me on that.

It just seems strange that the Republicans are having a high-five party every time an attempt to accommodate more votes is shot down. Is it because they are so in favor of the rule of law, or do they feel that people who have difficulty getting their votes in on time are more likely to be votes they don't want counted? If it's just because they think "rules are rules," the celebrations and bragging seem odd.
It’s laughable that any Trump supporter would claim to be in favor of the rule of law.
 
ADVERTISEMENT