Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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
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.
They are when the state's bring them to SCOTUS.
SCOTUS dropped the ball not hearing arguments
No. Simply bringing a case to the court obviously does not make it the courts business as we have seen here.
Bullshit, cease with your typical deflection.
The Supreme Court overrides State Courts... it's why it's Supreme you befuddled wannabe
Again, why is it "dead?" Because the election is over? Because they decision wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election? That not the relief the plaintiff was asking for.That's a good example of moot...but in the legal sense the Courts will look at an individual case. Sure the issue you have highlighted can be litigated again, if the case is ripe....but this case is deadSeems clear you guys don't know he meaning of moot. The concert was cancelled. "How do I get a ticket for the concert" is a moot question. The question of what power the States courts and the state Executives have to change the time place and manner of federal elections is anything but moot.If you had read all the replies you would have understood the reference.
He has nothing up his sleeve and just a Black man stating a correct opinion that this was time for the Supreme Court to do its job and look at a case that is vital to our democracy
Only if there is a direct conflict between state law and the federal Constitution. In this case, there is not.
She is not allowed an opinion Josef?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
Clarence Thomas should have recused himself. His wife has been very vocal in claiming election fraud. Thomas is one of the biggest disappointments. That he would turn out to be a right wing looney tune never occured to me.
Recused himself of what?He has nothing up his sleeve and just a Black man stating a correct opinion that this was time for the Supreme Court to do its job and look at a case that is vital to our democracy
He was totally wrong and corrupt. Given his wife's pushing of fraud, he should have recused himself.
Nice try, but no cigar.The article states the PA State supreme court, said PA law states all legislative election law created, is subject to judicial review in the State.
Therefore, the PA Supreme court duty of election law judicial review, was LEGISLATED by the State legislators.... which made their decision, constitutional.
Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving votingRepublican'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 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.
Because the parties aren't in controversy anymore, the case was between two parties...the question as you highlighted still exist, but nothing the Court would have done would have given the moving party relief.Again, why is it "dead?" Because the election is over? Because they decision wouldn't have changed the outcome of the election? That not the relief the plaintiff was asking for.That's a good example of moot...but in the legal sense the Courts will look at an individual case. Sure the issue you have highlighted can be litigated again, if the case is ripe....but this case is deadSeems clear you guys don't know he meaning of moot. The concert was cancelled. "How do I get a ticket for the concert" is a moot question. The question of what power the States courts and the state Executives have to change the time place and manner of federal elections is anything but moot.If you had read all the replies you would have understood the reference.
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 lawSure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving votingRepublican'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 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.
Recused himself of what?He has nothing up his sleeve and just a Black man stating a correct opinion that this was time for the Supreme Court to do its job and look at a case that is vital to our democracy
He was totally wrong and corrupt. Given his wife's pushing of fraud, he should have recused himself.
Recuse himself from what????????????????????????????????????????? Speaking!!!!!!Recused himself of what?He has nothing up his sleeve and just a Black man stating a correct opinion that this was time for the Supreme Court to do its job and look at a case that is vital to our democracy
He was totally wrong and corrupt. Given his wife's pushing of fraud, he should have recused himself.
The fact that his wife has very publicly pushed the election fraud means that he is hardly a unbiased judge. His wife was at the rally on Jan 6.
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 lawSure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving votingRepublican'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 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.
Because the parties aren't in controversy anymore, the case was between two parties...the question as you highlighted still exist, but nothing the Court would have done would have given the moving party relief.
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.
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.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 lawSure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving votingRepublican'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 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.
I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.
No, it's a US Constitutional issue. The Const explicitly gives the state legislatures the power to determine the time place and manner of the election. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." PA court, not the legislature changed the time and the manner of the election in this case, not the legislature.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.
This is all a state issue.
Sure, but that wouldn't of change the outcome of the election....even Thomas said that.Because the parties aren't in controversy anymore, the case was between two parties...the question as you highlighted still exist, but nothing the Court would have done would have given the moving party relief.
Again ???? The Republican party asked that the ballots received after election day be thrown out. If the SC found the PA state Court violated the US Constitution, they would have thrown out the ballots received after election day - exactly what the plaintiffs had asked for.
You seem hung up on the concept of overturning the election. The Republican party did not ask either the state court or any federal court to overturn the election.
Cool....nobody has suggested otherwiseNo, it's a US Constitutional issue. The Const explicitly gives the state legislatures the power to determine the time place and manner of the election. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." PA court, not the legislature changed the time and the manner of the election in this case, not the legislature.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.
This is all a state issue.
The US Supreme Court has recognized a state Supreme Court's right to interpret their state's Constitution.Co
