Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Can you tell me how to get to Ted Cruz Street?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="BMWMC" data-source="post: 5068160" data-attributes="member: 37461"><p>OMG.."I find it more than a little funny you think a court not hearing a case proves the case had no merit."</p><p>Talk about entering the Twilight Zone. Exactly where else would you have held a test of validity then? </p><p></p><p>[ATTACH=full]359702[/ATTACH]</p><p></p><p></p><p><em>"SCOTUS’s conservative justices were so furious about the Pennsylvania decision that they <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-pennsylvania-election-late-ballots.html" target="_blank">attempted</a> to shatter states’ authority to run their own elections. In October, Thomas—joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/brett-kavanaugh-mail-ballots-trump-fraud.html" target="_blank">Brett Kavanaugh</a>—<a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/north-carolina-pennsylvania-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-ballots.html" target="_blank">accused</a> the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of infringing on the Legislature’s authority to set election law. They asserted that, under the U.S. Constitution, federal courts can override state courts’ interpretation of election codes based on their own sense of what the state legislature prefers. Yet these four justices never found a fifth vote: <strong><span style="color: rgb(65, 168, 95)">Amy Coney Barrett joined the court too late to weigh in, and Chief Justice John Roberts <a href="https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-pennsylvania-election-law-order.html" target="_blank">refused</a> to go along with this hijacking of state election law. In the end, late-arriving ballots were counted, though they did not change the outcome of any federal race in Pennsylvania, including the presidential contest.</span></strong></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>It makes sense, then, that SCOTUS refused to hear these cases on Monday. They are plainly moot, because the election is over, and there is no longer any live controversy to settle. Still, three justices—Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—dissented from the court’s decision to turn away the Pennsylvania cases.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>In his dissent, Thomas cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election by questioning the security of mail voting. “Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent,” he wrote. The current trend toward more “permissive” mail voting, the justice warned, “vastly” increases “the risk of fraud.” Thomas drew heavily from a 2012 New York Times <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html" target="_blank">article</a> focusing on Florida’s mail voting regime, which focused on a handful of fraudulent schemes involving mail ballots. The justice also pointed to a Republican operative’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html" target="_blank">criminal attempt</a> to steal an election in North Carolina using mail ballots."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>What's Thomas going to say about Internet Voting when that comes? What century does he think America should be living in? Allowing more people to vote increase Democracy and the meniscal violations aren't going to change and election result. I would trust a High Performance Computer more running a sophisticated and approved algorithm to collect votes and count them. People are the weakest link when it comes to credibility. </em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="BMWMC, post: 5068160, member: 37461"] OMG.."I find it more than a little funny you think a court not hearing a case proves the case had no merit." Talk about entering the Twilight Zone. Exactly where else would you have held a test of validity then? [ATTACH type="full"]359702[/ATTACH] [I]"SCOTUS’s conservative justices were so furious about the Pennsylvania decision that they [URL='https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-pennsylvania-election-late-ballots.html']attempted[/URL] to shatter states’ authority to run their own elections. In October, Thomas—joined by Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and [URL='https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/brett-kavanaugh-mail-ballots-trump-fraud.html']Brett Kavanaugh[/URL]—[URL='https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/north-carolina-pennsylvania-neil-gorsuch-supreme-court-ballots.html']accused[/URL] the Pennsylvania Supreme Court of infringing on the Legislature’s authority to set election law. They asserted that, under the U.S. Constitution, federal courts can override state courts’ interpretation of election codes based on their own sense of what the state legislature prefers. Yet these four justices never found a fifth vote: [B][COLOR=rgb(65, 168, 95)]Amy Coney Barrett joined the court too late to weigh in, and Chief Justice John Roberts [URL='https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/10/supreme-court-pennsylvania-election-law-order.html']refused[/URL] to go along with this hijacking of state election law. In the end, late-arriving ballots were counted, though they did not change the outcome of any federal race in Pennsylvania, including the presidential contest.[/COLOR][/B] It makes sense, then, that SCOTUS refused to hear these cases on Monday. They are plainly moot, because the election is over, and there is no longer any live controversy to settle. Still, three justices—Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch—dissented from the court’s decision to turn away the Pennsylvania cases. In his dissent, Thomas cast doubt on the legitimacy of the 2020 election by questioning the security of mail voting. “Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent,” he wrote. The current trend toward more “permissive” mail voting, the justice warned, “vastly” increases “the risk of fraud.” Thomas drew heavily from a 2012 New York Times [URL='https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/07/us/politics/as-more-vote-by-mail-faulty-ballots-could-impact-elections.html']article[/URL] focusing on Florida’s mail voting regime, which focused on a handful of fraudulent schemes involving mail ballots. The justice also pointed to a Republican operative’s [URL='https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/us/mccrae-dowless-indictment.html']criminal attempt[/URL] to steal an election in North Carolina using mail ballots." What's Thomas going to say about Internet Voting when that comes? What century does he think America should be living in? Allowing more people to vote increase Democracy and the meniscal violations aren't going to change and election result. I would trust a High Performance Computer more running a sophisticated and approved algorithm to collect votes and count them. People are the weakest link when it comes to credibility. [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Can you tell me how to get to Ted Cruz Street?
Top