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.
It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?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 religionThe 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.
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.
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.
Maybe you should actually read the PA Supreme Court Decision on this case...and why they ruled the way they did, so to know more on what you are debating.... and we all are debating? Let me see if I can find it again.... I read it at the time of the decision a while back and have certainly forgotten some of it....
What makes you think I didn't read it?
Also, there is long standing precedent, that the US Supreme court does NOT involve themselves in election disputes....
The exception was Bush v Gore, where they specifically stated that their decision on that was a 1 time move by them and could not be used as precedent for any future case.
No question they don't like getting involved in political issues.
But to your first point, think about it. PA Supreme Court absolutely has the right to review the constitutionality of PA laws under the PA Constitution. No question. But if the relief they grant is unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, it doesn't matter what the state constitution says.
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.You gonna ante up the tens of millions to do it?
Opponents attack wife of Clarence Thomas over his dissent bashing decision to not hear critical election case | Blaze Media
'He and his wife are clearly radicalized'www.theblaze.com
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas issued a searing dissenting opinion after the Supreme Court refused to hear a pivotal case involving a controversial Pennsylvania electoral directive that allowed the counting of ballots received up to three days after Election Day.
He writes:
"[Pennsylvania's] decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future," Thomas wrote. "These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set election rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable."
Thomas later added:
The Left then used the dissent to go after the wife of Thomas saying that she was a Trump supporter and influenced him in the decision.One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respectfully dissent.
What scumbags these people are, and why in the hell with half the nation thinking the election was stolen, and 30% of democrats, why are the courts not hearing these cases openly for transparency for the whole country to see? And why not fix election problems we had last time for the next election?
It is criminal.
Just one more reason why this election fraud MUST BE INVESTIGATED!
Roberts is a swamp dwelling epstein pedophile plane flying turd. Bush put him in---because they are both swamp turds.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
which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?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 religionThe 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.
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.
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.
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 CourtsI 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.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.
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.
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
which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?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 religionThe 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.
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.
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.
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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
Church services were shut down in my state.....they were on line. They were allowed to open up as other businesses were. I don't recall any Supreme Court rulings on the issue, so not sure what you are talking about.which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?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 religionThe 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.
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.
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.
I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
Not our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was
Sure it does...it actually specifically addresses election laws...Art 1 Sect 4, as to Congress The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.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 CourtsI 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.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.
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.
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.
The US Constitution says nothing about it.
Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someoneNot our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was
Nine justices on SCOTUS.
"The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof."It does not violate the US Constitution in any way. There are no federal issues here.
The election issue has veen examined by federal law enforcement and state officials. They found nothing.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.
9 pages of pointing out the obvious.Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someoneNot our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was
Nine justices on SCOTUS.
Well goodbye thread. Nice a knowin ya.
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.9 pages of pointing out the obvious.Well since it has near 9 pages with most excluding me, this is a something boiger for sumptin for someoneNot our fault the thread is a nothing-burger.I just think the relevance of a single justice’s opinion on the Supreme Court is not particularly impactful.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.It’s not. He’s just being his usual fringe self.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
Hence my comment on 8 pages of nonsense...lol
I guess that would depend on who the judge and person was
Nine justices on SCOTUS.
Well goodbye thread. Nice a knowin ya.
