What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[mudwhistle]

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

Russian Collusion was baseless.
Election Fraud wasn't.
But I guess if you liars keep repeating it.....maybe half country will stop believing it.

mes a conserv, aren't you?

No....I'm a moderate.
And posting a story that claims that election fraud claims are baseless doesn't help the situation.

 

[BULLDOG]

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

Russian Collusion was baseless.
Election Fraud wasn't.
But I guess if you liars keep repeating it.....maybe half country will stop believing it.

mes a conserv, aren't you?

No....I'm a moderate.
And posting a story that claims that election fraud claims are baseless doesn't help the situation.

moderately insane.

 

[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

 

[pknopp]

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.

 

[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.

 

[pknopp]

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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

 

[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.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

 

[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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

That was a separate law and case.....this was about the extension done by the PA Supreme Court

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

"The dissent followed the court's decision Monday to turn away a challenge to accommodations the Pennsylvania state Supreme Court made for mail-in voting during the coronavirus pandemic."

 

[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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

No....the extension was done unilaterally by the PA Supereme Court

 

[pknopp]

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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

Yes the changing of the law was.

 

[Yarddog]

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

 

[pknopp]

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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

No....the extension was done unilaterally by the PA Supereme Court

Which would be a state issue.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

Yes the changing of the law was.

Really? what was the vote tally by the State Legislature on that decision? I wasnt aware of it. You got a link?

 

[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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

Yes the changing of the law was.

once again, you fail. That was not the issue in this case. Read the link provide, and maybe even the Court's opinion to understand

 

[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.

 

[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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

No....the extension was done unilaterally by the PA Supereme Court

Which would be a state issue.

And like I said, the SCOTUS can certainly here state issues....they do all the time...in particular when the State's action could violate the Constitution.

In this case, the PA Court likely violated the Constitution, however the issue is now moot....hence why the SCOTUS didn't take it up

 

[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.

I personally have no issue with ruling at this point....it's moot. With that said, it would help in the future if you understood the topic....just a little tip

 

[pknopp]

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.

No they didn't. The law was changed in a bipartisan manner and signed off on by the Republican governor.

In which way was it Bipartisan? was it a vote by the State Legislature?

Yes the changing of the law was.

Really? what was the vote tally by the State Legislature on that decision? I wasnt aware of it. You got a link?

I need to start getting paid.

Governor Wolf Signs Election Reform Bill Including New Mail-in Voting

Harrisburg, PA – Governor Wolf made voting more convenient and secure by signing Act 77 of 2019, the most significant improvement to Pennsylvania’s elections in more than 80 years. The bipartisan compromise legislation takes effect for the April 2020 primary election and makes Pennsylvania a national leader with voter-friendly election reforms.