What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[colfax_m]

Interesting

Dissent by Justice Thomas in election case draws fire for revisiting baseless Trump fraud claims

Justice Thomas acknowledged the ballots at issue in Pennsylvania would not have turned the election in former President Donald Trump's favor.

www.usatoday.com

It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.

LOLOL....8 pages of shit................lolol...I have to come back more often to my threads.............Lol......I usually post a couple then forget about it.................What happened to my, "Long Dong Silver" in my OP title???...It was a tribute.

I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.

Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was

Not our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.

Nine justices on SCOTUS.

Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someone

Well goodbye thread. Nice a knowin ya.

9 pages of pointing out the obvious.

Well I listened to him and people like Reagan. I never had a boss. Never owned an alarm clock. Did what I wanted and called all my shots.

Would you listen to live like that? No boss. no slavery. No wasting a life? Not me pal, I ain't stoooopid. LOL

Feel free to listen to him. No skin off my back.

Just don’t expect his fringe opinion to make a dimes worth of difference.

 

[Votto]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

No, what we have is a Stalinist hate of religion like yours.

Apparently Joe in his purge of hundreds of millions of Christians did not kill enough to rid the world or that religion. Maybe you can try.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

The US Constitution says nothing about it.

Maybe you should stop believing "the Constitution" means "the way I think things should be because I like it".

The US Constitution DOES actually say something about it, for those who can read English (which, I realize, leaves your ignorant ass out).

Specifically, in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, it says this:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

I know you've seen this quoted before, but because you're piss-stupid enough to be a leftist in the first place, you're also piss-stupid enough to think that if you shout, "The Constitution says nothing about it!! It doesn't, it DOESN'T!!" often enough, those words will just magically disappear.

 

[busybee01]

If they can spend $30 million to investigate the Trump/Putin conspiracy that did not turn up a damn thing, they sure as hell can find the funds to investigate the election issue that threatens the very roots of any democracy in the US.

The election issue has veen examined by federal law enforcement and state officials. They found nothing.

SO FUCKING WHAT. I wouldn't ask the fox neither if he knows anything about those missing chickens! IDIOT.

When the highest law enforcement officer in the country told you that he hadn't collaborated in any way with Russia to affect the 2015 election, it meant NOTHING to you, asshole.

That is why he gave internal polling data nand other campaign information to a likely Russian agent?

 

[busybee01]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

No, what we have is a Stalinist hate of religion like yours.

Apparently Joe in his purge of hundreds of millions of Christians did not kill enough to rid the world or that religion. Maybe you can try.

I suppose the pilgrims hated religion because they did not want to join the Church of England? No on is etopping worship, the form is being limited. Name 1 person who has been prevented from worshipping using online masses. You sound like the mullahs in Iran.

 

[pknopp]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

No, what we have is a Stalinist hate of religion like yours.

Apparently Joe in his purge of hundreds of millions of Christians did not kill enough to rid the world or that religion. Maybe you can try.

I suppose the pilgrims hated religion because they did not want to join the Church of England? No on is etopping worship, the form is being limited. Name 1 person who has been prevented from worshipping using online masses. You sound like the mullahs in Iran.

No one has been. People have been prevented from worshipping in person unlike shopping at Wal Mart.

 

[busybee01]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

The US Constitution says nothing about it.

Maybe you should stop believing "the Constitution" means "the way I think things should be because I like it".

The US Constitution DOES actually say something about it, for those who can read English (which, I realize, leaves your ignorant ass out).

Specifically, in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, it says this:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

I know you've seen this quoted before, but because you're piss-stupid enough to be a leftist in the first place, you're also piss-stupid enough to think that if you shout, "The Constitution says nothing about it!! It doesn't, it DOESN'T!!" often enough, those words will just magically disappear.

Tell me where the Constitution stops state Supreme Courts from interpreting their own Constitution. The extension of 3 days does not run afoul of the US Constitution. There is no federal issue here.

 

[busybee01]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

New Zealand busted the curve by shutting down the country for around a month.

Great. And if we had did that the court wouldn't have ruled as they did. They ruled you can't pick and choose who you shut down and who you do not.

RThat is not true. In many of these cases, they were forced to follow the same rules other businesses were forced to follow. Many businesses were partially opened.

 

[pknopp]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

New Zealand busted the curve by shutting down the country for around a month.

Great. And if we had did that the court wouldn't have ruled as they did. They ruled you can't pick and choose who you shut down and who you do not.

RThat is not true. In many of these cases, they were forced to follow the same rules other businesses were forced to follow. Many businesses were partially opened.

The court ruling was clear. You are trying to blur the point. Yes businesses at times had to restrict how many were there at a time while the church was completely shut down.

 

[busybee01]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

No, what we have is a Stalinist hate of religion like yours.

Apparently Joe in his purge of hundreds of millions of Christians did not kill enough to rid the world or that religion. Maybe you can try.

I suppose the pilgrims hated religion because they did not want to join the Church of England? No on is etopping worship, the form is being limited. Name 1 person who has been prevented from worshipping using online masses. You sound like the mullahs in Iran.

No one has been. People have been prevented from worshipping in person unlike shopping at Wal Mart.

Walamrt does not require close quarters. They are also open numerous hourches. That is not true for churches. Remember wyhat Jesus said about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

 

[busybee01]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

New Zealand busted the curve by shutting down the country for around a month.

Great. And if we had did that the court wouldn't have ruled as they did. They ruled you can't pick and choose who you shut down and who you do not.

RThat is not true. In many of these cases, they were forced to follow the same rules other businesses were forced to follow. Many businesses were partially opened.

The court ruling was clear. You are trying to blur the point. Yes businesses at times had to restrict how many were there at a time while the church was completely shut down.

It was very clear. Churches are above the state. This is a Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

 

[pknopp]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

No, what we have is a Stalinist hate of religion like yours.

Apparently Joe in his purge of hundreds of millions of Christians did not kill enough to rid the world or that religion. Maybe you can try.

I suppose the pilgrims hated religion because they did not want to join the Church of England? No on is etopping worship, the form is being limited. Name 1 person who has been prevented from worshipping using online masses. You sound like the mullahs in Iran.

No one has been. People have been prevented from worshipping in person unlike shopping at Wal Mart.

Walamrt does not require close quarters. They are also open numerous hourches. That is not true for churches. Remember wyhat Jesus said about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

I guess you've never stood in a wal mart line.

 

[struth]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

You can order your groceries online now also but Wal-MArt was not shut down.

New Zealand busted the curve by shutting down the country for around a month.

Great. And if we had did that the court wouldn't have ruled as they did. They ruled you can't pick and choose who you shut down and who you do not.

RThat is not true. In many of these cases, they were forced to follow the same rules other businesses were forced to follow. Many businesses were partially opened.

The court ruling was clear. You are trying to blur the point. Yes businesses at times had to restrict how many were there at a time while the church was completely shut down.

It was very clear. Churches are above the state. This is a Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

Can you expand on this? How so? Please provide examples....

 

[struth]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

No what the Supreme Court has done is place religion above the state. Church gatherings have b3een a major source of coronavirus spread. No one has banned anyone from practicing their faith. The only thing that has changed is the manner. There is nothing wrong with worshipping online. What we have now is the Christian version of the mullahs in Iran.

No, what we have is a Stalinist hate of religion like yours.

Apparently Joe in his purge of hundreds of millions of Christians did not kill enough to rid the world or that religion. Maybe you can try.

I suppose the pilgrims hated religion because they did not want to join the Church of England? No on is etopping worship, the form is being limited. Name 1 person who has been prevented from worshipping using online masses. You sound like the mullahs in Iran.

No one has been. People have been prevented from worshipping in person unlike shopping at Wal Mart.

Walamrt does not require close quarters. They are also open numerous hourches. That is not true for churches. Remember wyhat Jesus said about giving to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

You apparently have never been in a Wal-Mart....anyway....why can't Churches follow the same guidelines as Wal-Mart?

 

[struth]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

The US Constitution says nothing about it.

Maybe you should stop believing "the Constitution" means "the way I think things should be because I like it".

The US Constitution DOES actually say something about it, for those who can read English (which, I realize, leaves your ignorant ass out).

Specifically, in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, it says this:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

I know you've seen this quoted before, but because you're piss-stupid enough to be a leftist in the first place, you're also piss-stupid enough to think that if you shout, "The Constitution says nothing about it!! It doesn't, it DOESN'T!!" often enough, those words will just magically disappear.

Tell me where the Constitution stops state Supreme Courts from interpreting their own Constitution. The extension of 3 days does not run afoul of the US Constitution. There is no federal issue here.

They certainly can, and do....but they weren't interpreting the State Constitution here....they were looking at a State law, and in doing so they changed the law, by adding language to it, changing the law...adding three days.

The US Constitution, in Art 2 Sect 1 Clause 2 and 3 outlines how Presidential election laws are done in the States:

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress; but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States."

The Constitution requries the State Legislature, not the State Court to make changes

 

[toobfreak]

If they can spend $30 million to investigate the Trump/Putin conspiracy that did not turn up a damn thing, they sure as hell can find the funds to investigate the election issue that threatens the very roots of any democracy in the US.

The election issue has veen examined by federal law enforcement and state officials. They found nothing.

SO FUCKING WHAT. I wouldn't ask the fox neither if he knows anything about those missing chickens! IDIOT.
When the highest law enforcement officer in the country told you that he hadn't collaborated in any way with Russia to affect the 2015 election, it meant NOTHING to you, asshole.

That is why he gave internal polling data nand other campaign information to a likely Russian agent?

Who's a "likely" russian agent? Do you have any idea that the Clintons vacationed in the USSR on a Rhodes Scolarship and Hillary wrote her thesis on communism, then they sidled up with the red communist Chinese in the '90s to slip them top secret Loral missile aiming technology in exchange for campaign contributions from Johnny Huang and Charlie Trie?

DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA how stupid you are?

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

If they can spend $30 million to investigate the Trump/Putin conspiracy that did not turn up a damn thing, they sure as hell can find the funds to investigate the election issue that threatens the very roots of any democracy in the US.

The election issue has veen examined by federal law enforcement and state officials. They found nothing.

SO FUCKING WHAT. I wouldn't ask the fox neither if he knows anything about those missing chickens! IDIOT.
When the highest law enforcement officer in the country told you that he hadn't collaborated in any way with Russia to affect the 2015 election, it meant NOTHING to you, asshole.

That is why he gave internal polling data nand other campaign information to a likely Russian agent?

Who's a "likely" russian agent? Do you have any idea that the Clintons vacationed in the USSR on a Rhodes Scolarship and Hillary wrote her thesis on communism, then they sidled up with the red communist Chinese in the '90s to slip them top secret Loral missile aiming technology in exchange for campaign contributions from Johnny Huang and Charlie Trie?

DO YOU HAVE ANY FUCKING IDEA how stupid you are?

I nominate you for best poster of the week . 100% accurate.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It is the state legislature and only the state legislature which is constitutionally delegated with the authority to change election laws. There were several states where the secretary of state went around the consent of the state legislature and the laws were changed by the secretary of state versus the legislature. PA is only one of those states.

That's clearly unconstitutional and it is the meat of the relevant terms of controversy.

Any other arguments are both shallow and irrelevant to cause in scope.

In terms of pure discussion on the matter, focus on relevance. Not the sideshow. They want you focusing on the sideshow instead of the more critical terms of controversy. Don't do it. Don't give those who would purposefully avoid the more critical terms of controversy the courtesy of leading the discussion.

In terms of politcal action, rest assured that there are people in Washington on the ball with this, however. Oh yes indeed. Heh heh.

Anyway. Placing that aside, the USA Today article is about as deep as a mud puddle in reporting the more relevant terms of controversy. That is certainly by design and is reflective of activist media in the mainstream rather than true journalism. But this is expected. The shallow content is meant for a USA Today type of audience who tend not to want to think critically but rather opt to regurguitate the shallowness of the narrative all over the web.


For comparison sake, here's a snip on the matter from a source aimed at the more critically thinking demograph of the electrate...

''In his dissent, Thomas actually cited Roberts’s ruling in another case to demonstrate why the Pennsylvania petitioners “faced irreparable harm,” and argued that failure to address these challenges threatens democracy itself.

“Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self-governance so heavily depends,” he wrote.

Alito and Gorsuch said it was an absolutely legitimate question of whether the state supreme court can override “even very specific and unambiguous rules adopted by the legislature” and that citing the Covid-19 pandemic as justification means it might happen again.''

 

[Cecilie1200]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

The request had followed the Pennsylvania Supreme Court last month ruling to allow the three-day extension "in light of the current COVID-19 pandemic and alleged delays in mail delivery by the USPS."

The court ruled to not allow the extension would result in "extensive voter disenfranchisement in violation of the Pennsylvania Constitution's Free and Equal Elections Clause."


Read the court case, and PA supreme court decision, the second paragraph from the bottom of the article has a link for the ruling which sends you to the pdf.

Deadlocked Supreme Court allows Pennsylvania to extend mail-in ballot deadline - UPI.com

The U.S. Supreme Court has let stand a lower court's ruling to allow Pennsylvania election officials to extend the counting of mail-in ballots three days after the general election.

www.upi.com

Yes, like I said the Court unilaterally extended the time, the US Constitution does not permit the Court to do that.....election laws are set by the State Legislatures not the Courts

The US Constitution says nothing about it.

Maybe you should stop believing "the Constitution" means "the way I think things should be because I like it".

The US Constitution DOES actually say something about it, for those who can read English (which, I realize, leaves your ignorant ass out).

Specifically, in Article I, Section 4, Clause 1, it says this:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Place of chusing Senators.

I know you've seen this quoted before, but because you're piss-stupid enough to be a leftist in the first place, you're also piss-stupid enough to think that if you shout, "The Constitution says nothing about it!! It doesn't, it DOESN'T!!" often enough, those words will just magically disappear.

Tell me where the Constitution stops state Supreme Courts from interpreting their own Constitution. The extension of 3 days does not run afoul of the US Constitution. There is no federal issue here.

Tell me where ANY Constitution gives courts the ability to "interpret" laws to mean the exact opposite of the explicit words, simply because they think it's a better idea. Don't try to play clever words games with me, honey. You aren't literate enough, and you sure aren't at all clever.

The law says, "This is the deadline." It's very clear. So yeah, coming along and saying, "Or, you know, three days later, because we like that" definitely DOES run afoul of the Constitution, to anyone who actually cares about the Constitution as anything but a word they can try to slap onto their agenda.

Since I know you're a sociopath who's incapable of knowing or caring about things that affect people who aren't you, let me put this in terms that your self-absorbed ass might be able to understand: what laws would YOU like to have enforced against you according to "We just feel better about doing it this way" rather than the way they're actually written?