1969, 14 have come from Republican presidents, and only four from Democrats.

[ummmmmm]

Specifically, what is a better way to run the SCOTUS?

I could suggest MANY, but to name one ... more justices. Make it less a lottery of which party gets to appoint 1 of 9. And, equally importantly (though it's not as dramatic appoint in these partisan times), less of a lottery depending on the intellectual biases and quirks of a small handful of human beings. Whether "more justices" is achieved by rotation, term limits, a bigger bench with those who serve on any given case determined by lottery, whatever, pretty much anything would be better than 9 lifetime appointments dictating (in many ways) the direction of an entire nation of several hundred million.

 

[AMart]

This is why Republicans seek to enact laws undermining the right to vote, suppress votes, and disenfranchising those whom Republicans perceive to be likely Democratic voters.

Like an ID to prove who you are? You evil satanic fuck faces would send mail in ballots to Honduras if you could.

 

[AMart]

Recently I’ve heard republicans support two things. Only property owners should be allowed to vote and you should have to pass a test. they know millions less would vote if they could do these things.

I've heard Demorats suggest legalizing a gazillion illegals to vote who can't even speak English.

 

[ummmmmm]

Baloney. They ended endless recounts by enforcing state law.

Respectfully, please look it up and adjust your position accordingly. They did not in any way enforce state law. They prevented the highest law of the land in that state from having a say, in order to block a recount that state authority demanded. It was an unequivocal abrogation of supposed state's rights. Basically, SCOTUS said it didn't trust Florida's chosen authorities to conduct a recount that would not violate EP (i.e., the very same clause conservatives had always previously sought to limit, because it mandated policing southern states in their endless attempts to block black voting), so they weren't permitted to try. This was the very exact opposite of "enforcing state law" -- it was saying Florida didn't even get to try.

 

[ummmmmm]

What recounts did they have before SCOTUS butted in?

So frustrated that I'm new and trying to figure out the back and forth on the site. Apologies for my newness, and I don't want to double up on responses. If you maintain your position after seeing replies I *think* I have already made, please lmk and I'll elaborate. But I *think* I already covered this in replies.

 

[ummmmmm]

Like an ID to prove who you are? You evil satanic fuck faces would send mail in ballots to Honduras if you could.

Thanks for that. OMG you have some anger built up.

You think your party is indifferent to which voters of both parties will not make the cut when EACH proposed extra layer is imposed? Like they are in pursuit of pure democracy, just a bunch of good faith patriots indifferent to the political consequences? Rs want to make it like a mail-in rebate for likely D voters -- clip the original coupon, mail it in by this exact date, enclose a SASE for the refund, cash it within X days, etc. -- because it is a statistical fact that every layer of extra procedure will make some would-be voters fall out. It's a very simple strategy, strange that you don't see it -- or that phantom voter fraud makes it all worthwhile to you.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Respectfully, please look it up and adjust your position accordingly. They did not in any way enforce state law. They prevented the highest law of the land in that state from having a say, in order to block a recount that state authority demanded. It was an unequivocal abrogation of supposed state's rights. Basically, SCOTUS said it didn't trust Florida's chosen authorities to conduct a recount that would not violate EP (i.e., the very same clause conservatives had always previously sought to limit, because it mandated policing southern states in their endless attempts to block black voting), so they weren't permitted to try. This was the very exact opposite of "enforcing state law" -- it was saying Florida didn't even get to try.

They did not in any way enforce state law.

What did state law say about recounts?
What did state law say about dates?

 

[sealybobo]

I've heard Demorats suggest legalizing a gazillion illegals to vote who can't even speak English.

I think Reagan and Bush also pushed for amnesty.

 

[ummmmmm]

They did not in any way enforce state law.

What did state law say about recounts?
What did state law say about dates?

You can read all about the lower court battles yourself. Ultimately the Florida Supreme Court ordered manual recounts in specific counties. This is where SCOTUS stepped in to block them. In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.

 

[meaner gene]

I've heard Demorats suggest legalizing a gazillion illegals to vote who can't even speak English.

I think Reagan and Bush also pushed for amnesty.

Ronad Reagan was he only president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Millions of them. He also signed the medicare law that required hospitals to provide free medical treatment to illegals.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can read all about the lower court battles yourself.

I have. That's why I know you're wrong.

In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.

I thought you said they failed to enforce state law?

 

[ummmmmm]

Ronad Reagan was he only president to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Millions of them. He also signed the medicare law that required hospitals to provide free medical treatment to illegals.

It goes quite a ways back, but my recollection is he generally saw immigrants as a benefit to our country. The anti-immigration crowd's takeover of the R party is fairly recent. On the other hand, I think the majority opposition to loose immigration has LONG existed in the R party (and, a couple decades back, in the D party too) -- the politicians would just never follow what their voters wanted on the issue.

 

[ummmmmm]

I have. That's why I know you're wrong.

In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.

I thought you said they failed to enforce state law?

Oh good, you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court? Please share.

 

[meaner gene]

I have. That's why I know you're wrong.

In doing so it went directly against the previous conservative conviction that states running their own elections was one of the most critical state rights.

I thought you said they failed to enforce state law?

In Bush V Gore the USSC presumed that Florida intended to take advantage of the "safe harbor", when in fact Florida law required that election boards try to determine the "intent" of the voter, when counting votes, which would have taken longer than the deadline for the "safe harbor".

The Florida supreme court said that Florida election law didn't require recounts be finished by the deadline the USSC imposed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh good, you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court? Please share.

Which law was the state supreme court interpreting? Be specific.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Florida supreme court said that Florida election law didn't require recounts be finished by the deadline the USSC imposed.

Which recounts?

 

[ummmmmm]

Which law was the state supreme court interpreting? Be specific.

It depends whether you are talking about the constitutional branch of their opinion or their foray into Florida law. Which one are you trying to elicit with your question, or do you have something else in mind that you want to set up with your question? Oh, and be specific, lol.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It depends whether you are talking about the constitutional branch of their opinion or their foray into Florida law. Which one are you trying to elicit with your question, or do you have something else in mind that you want to set up with your question? Oh, and be specific, lol.

Which one are you trying to elicit with your question

You said.......

"you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court?"

Which state law in this case? Be specific.

 

[meaner gene]

Which one are you trying to elicit with your question

You said.......

"you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court?"

Which state law in this case? Be specific.

The Florida supreme court interpreted Florida election law. The USSC against the principle that they would let the states highest court interpret state law, overstepped by the USSC interpreting the "intent" of Florida election law, and declared the legislature "intended" but didn't codify meeting the December 6th deadline.

Florida election law specified the same procedures to election protests and contests, whether they were for president, federal office, or state office. It was one procedure for all of them.

 

[ummmmmm]

Which one are you trying to elicit with your question

You said.......

"you know of a state authority for interpreting state law that is higher than the state supreme court?"

Which state law in this case? Be specific.

I would really prefer you make your point directly instead of trying to get there through questioning and "be specific" imperatives. You clearly want to say something. Quite trying to puppeteer and just make your point. (If you must, you can do the thing where you pretend to ask yourself questions like an invisible interviewer and then answer them, I'll try to look past it to the substance.)