What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[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.

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

Unconstitutional actions never become moot.

 

[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

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.

 

[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.

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.

That wasn't the issue in the case we are discussing....the issue in this case was the PA Supreme Court extending the deadline in that law, by three days

 

[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

Unconstitutional actions never become moot.

sure they can.....what the PA Court did might have been unConstitutional, but what the Supreme Court said, was basically it doesn't matter anymore and we aren't going to hear the case ....that's mootness. Nothing they would have ruled on would have give the Planitiff relief

 

[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.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

 

[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.

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

Unconstitutional actions never become moot.

sure they can.....what the PA Court did might have been unConstitutional, but what the Supreme Court said, was basically it doesn't matter anymore and we aren't going to hear the case ....that's mootness. Nothing they would have ruled on would have give the Planitiff relief

Then Thomas was just stomping his feet?

 

[Rawley]

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.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

 

[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

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.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

State Legislatures are elected by the people to represent them. The more power given to a court or a single governor in these type of decision, like deciding election rules.... the closer we come to becoming a banana republic where the people have less say. We become a people just ruled by rulers who think they know what is best for us.
Hopefully the legislatures in all these states can revisit this before the next election.

 

[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.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

 

[Rawley]

sure they can.....what the PA Court did might have been unConstitutional, but what the Supreme Court said, was basically it doesn't matter anymore and we aren't going to hear the case ....that's mootness. Nothing they would have ruled on would have give the Planitiff relief

The Court didn't "say" anything. They refused to hear the case without opinion.

 

[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

Unconstitutional actions never become moot.

sure they can.....what the PA Court did might have been unConstitutional, but what the Supreme Court said, was basically it doesn't matter anymore and we aren't going to hear the case ....that's mootness. Nothing they would have ruled on would have give the Planitiff relief

Then Thomas was just stomping his feet?

Maybe....often Judges and Justices use the dissent to be able to do just that, and bring up point of importance, like he did here.......or maybe he simply disagreed with me and the other Justices.

 

[BS Filter]

I read his dissent and he's 100% right. Too bad the Democrat lunatics can't discount him and label him a priveledged Whitey.

The left says he's an Oreo. Black on the outside and white on the inside.

 

[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.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Of course it could be moot....what the PA Court did wasn't something that was going to continue...it was just this one time...so it's moot..

 

[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.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Of course it could be moot....what the PA Court did wasn't something that was going to continue...it was just this one time...so it's moot..

Now nothing makes it one time.

 

[struth]

sure they can.....what the PA Court did might have been unConstitutional, but what the Supreme Court said, was basically it doesn't matter anymore and we aren't going to hear the case ....that's mootness. Nothing they would have ruled on would have give the Planitiff relief

The Court didn't "say" anything. They refused to hear the case without opinion.

Well, by refusing to hear the case, they are saying something

 

[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.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Of course it could be moot....what the PA Court did wasn't something that was going to continue...it was just this one time...so it's moot..

Now nothing makes it one time.

I'd be happy to respond to your post, but I am not sure what you are saying

 

[Rawley]

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.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Huh? Why are you talking about mootness?

 

[Rawley]

Well, by refusing to hear the case, they are saying something

Not really. THey only take 1% of the appeals to the court.

 

[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

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.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

It's not a courts place to make law. They make rulings on it. It's not a governors place either. Election rules and laws are simply the job of the State Legislature. What was done was not constitutional and boundaries were overstepped. I dont care who was a R or a D. thats not even the point, just a distraction.

The S.C. should have taken a look at this. Who else has oversight of such a constitutional matter?
other than the S.C.

 

[struth]

Well, by refusing to hear the case, they are saying something

Not really. THey only take 1% of the appeals to the court.

agreed.....the ones they want to hear, which says something