Vote!

[TSmith34, Inc.]

So they are being logically consistent.

My guess is this won’t stop the “the Court is helping Trump win” type articles however.

You'll want to note that Barrett didn't vote because she hadn't had time to read the brief. So as I understand it, the vote was 4-4 with Roberts voting with the liberal justices. Presuming Barrett does not recuse herself on future votes, would you care to guess how she'll vote?

[Pakuni]

You'll want to note that Barrett didn't vote because she hadn't had time to read the brief. So as I understand it, the vote was 4-4 with Roberts voting with the liberal justices. Presuming Barrett does not recuse herself on future votes, would you care to guess how she'll vote?

There were no formal dissents, though mostly because the court decided it was too close to the election for them to get involved.
I think what we've consistently seen in these election rulings is that the court doesn't look terribly kindly at late changes to the election rules enacted without the full legislative process, but won't interfere with rules that already exist, regardless of how they were enacted.
The other thing we've consistently seen is that Kavanaugh is the justice sitting in a corner wearing a dunce cap. (In case I haven't made my feelings known on that).

[Pakuni]

From the NYT article:

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused a plea from Pennsylvania Republicans to put their request to halt a three-day extension of the deadline for receiving absentee ballots on an extraordinarily fast track.

The move meant that the court would not consider the case, which could have yielded a major ruling on voting procedure, until after Election Day.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court on Tuesday and who might have broken an earlier deadlock in the case, did not cast a vote. A court spokeswoman said Justice Barrett “did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.”

It's only a matter of time before she gets involved in these cases. Obviously, it was crazy to hope that Barrett would do the right thing and recuse herself from all election-related cases, especially those involving the person who nominated her just last month.

Anybody who doesn't believe that she promised Trump (who famously insists on total loyalty from all of his minions) that she would rule for him in any case deciding the presidency or Senate ... I've got a new Foxconn project for you.

I don't know what went on between her and Trump, but it's not realistic to argue that a justice should recuse him/herself from ruling on cases involving the president who appointed them.
I have reservations about ACB's legal philosophy, but I'm not ready to cast her as some kind of uber-villain.

[MU82]

I don't know what went on between her and Trump, but it's not realistic to argue that a justice should recuse him/herself from ruling on cases involving the president who appointed them.
I have reservations about ACB's legal philosophy, but I'm not ready to cast her as some kind of uber-villain.

I'm not casting her as a villain, uber or otherwise.

We will agree to disagree on whether she should recuse herself. I mean, Jeff Effen Sessions recused himself, and that issue wasn't nearly as big as this one is. IMHO. I respect you having a different opinion.

[Jockey]

I don't know what went on between her and Trump, but it's not realistic to argue that a justice should recuse him/herself from ruling on cases involving the president who appointed them.
I have reservations about ACB's legal philosophy, but I'm not ready to cast her as some kind of uber-villain.

Under normal circumstances, I would agree. Nothing about trump is normal.

He said, “I think this will end up in the supreme court." Then after saying that, he nominates a Justice immediately before the election.

[shoothoops]

If you're looking for an all-too-easy metaphor for the Trump administration:

Hundreds of President Donald Trump's supporters were left in the freezing cold for hours after a rally at an airfield in Omaha, Nebraska, on Tuesday night, with some walking around 3 miles to waiting buses and others being taken away in ambulances.
Seven people were taken to area hospitals, suffering from a variety of conditions, and there were a total of 30 "contacted" for medical reasons, the Omaha Police Department said in a statement.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/hundreds-trump-supporters-stuck-freezing-cold-omaha-airfield-after-rally-n1245065

https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1321394578952495105?s=09

[Jockey]

https://twitter.com/blaireerskine/status/1321394578952495105?s=09

An obvious parody. The sad thing is that it is the way millions of people feel.

[Billy Hoyle]

Ok. Not sure what this has to do with voter suppression.

it's in response to right wingers saying it's not voter suppression to have armed militia members at the polls but a black guy with a baton, that was a major scandal and textbook voter suppression.

[reinko]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1321612933370171393?s=21

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1321612933370171393?s=21

I mean this group is getting weirder and weirder.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

There were no formal dissents, though mostly because the court decided it was too close to the election for them to get involved.
I think what we've consistently seen in these election rulings is that the court doesn't look terribly kindly at late changes to the election rules enacted without the full legislative process, but won't interfere with rules that already exist, regardless of how they were enacted.
The other thing we've consistently seen is that Kavanaugh is the justice sitting in a corner wearing a dunce cap. (In case I haven't made my feelings known on that).

They held up North Carolina's extended deadline too - including Kavanaugh this time.  Here is how it is being interpreted by a federal law professor at UT-Austin.

Steve Vladeck
@steve_vladeck
The difference appears to be that a majority of the Justices are unwilling to disturb *state court* rulings with respect to deadlines for receipt of mail-in ballots, but willing to intervene where it’s only because of a *federal* court’s intervention that the deadline changed.


I hope not be be proven wrong, but the Court is trying to stay out of politics here.  They are letting the states determine the parameters of how votes are being counted. 

[Pakuni]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1321612933370171393?s=21

They're losing their minds.

@GreggJarrett: I find it odd, if not curious, that the moment I hit “send” on my column that’s highly critical of Joe Biden my Wi-Fi service disconnected. Inexplicably, it will be out all day. Never happened before. Probably just a coincidence. I drove to the local store and sent the column .

@GreggJarrett: BTW... I had to leave the house to send this tweet.

@GreggJarrett: I’m standing in the middle of the street, but will return home now.  Don’t want to get run over!   So, I won’t be getting communications. Sorry.  I’m sure it’s just a communications failure.  Or not.

[Jockey]

In Philadelphia, 1st class mail is on time only 42% of the time. Cleveland, Detroit, Miami are all similar.

THAT is voter suppression.

[Galway Eagle]

In Philadelphia, 1st class mail is on time only 42% of the time. Cleveland, Detroit, Miami are all similar.

THAT is voter suppression.

I can't imagine the Miracle on 34th Street defense working these days.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1321612933370171393?s=21

So.....they needed to send their damning documents from New York to LA....and rather than scanning or faxing them....they shipped them?.....And no one made copies of the damning documents before shipping them?

I can understand someone quoting anonymous sources. But quoting evidence that you swear you had but was mysteriously stolen from you? That's ballsy.

[wadesworld]

So.....they needed to send their damning documents from New York to LA....and rather than scanning or faxing them....they shipped them?.....And no one made copies of the damning documents before shipping them?

I can understand someone quoting anonymous sources. But quoting evidence that you swear you had but was mysteriously stolen from you? That's ballsy.

Lol I literally texted my friends exactly this.

But given what we've heard from the dentists and ZFB on here, I don't know why I continue to be surprised by some of the stuff coming from the Fox News crowd.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

They're losing their minds.

@GreggJarrett: I find it odd, if not curious, that the moment I hit “send” on my column that’s highly critical of Joe Biden my Wi-Fi service disconnected. Inexplicably, it will be out all day. Never happened before. Probably just a coincidence. I drove to the local store and sent the column .

@GreggJarrett: BTW... I had to leave the house to send this tweet.

@GreggJarrett: I’m standing in the middle of the street, but will return home now.  Don’t want to get run over!   So, I won’t be getting communications. Sorry.  I’m sure it’s just a communications failure.  Or not.

I saw a meme on this with Biden laughing with another person saying, "And then we turned his wifi off so he'd get run over by a car."

I'd like to know how he knows his wifi will inexplicably out all day. Such dumb people.

[MU82]

😂 😂 😂 😂 😂

https://twitter.com/kt_so_it_goes/status/1321612933370171393?s=21

Of all the tools on Fox News -- and there are so many to choose from -- Tucker is the tooliest. At least Hannity and O'Reilly and Ingraham have a little talent. Tucker is kind of a whiny, just-sit-there Geraldo.

[Jockey]

So.....they needed to send their damning documents from New York to LA....and rather than scanning or faxing them....they shipped them?.....And no one made copies of the damning documents before shipping them?

I can understand someone quoting anonymous sources. But quoting evidence that you swear you had but was mysteriously stolen from you? That's ballsy.

Why would you fax or email for free when you can spend big $$$ for overnight shipping?

[Jockey]

They're losing their minds.

@GreggJarrett: I find it odd, if not curious, that the moment I hit “send” on my column that’s highly critical of Joe Biden my Wi-Fi service disconnected. Inexplicably, it will be out all day. Never happened before. Probably just a coincidence. I drove to the local store and sent the column .

@GreggJarrett: BTW... I had to leave the house to send this tweet.

@GreggJarrett: I’m standing in the middle of the street, but will return home now.  Don’t want to get run over!   So, I won’t be getting communications. Sorry.  I’m sure it’s just a communications failure.  Or not.

I can picture Jarrett standing in the middle of the street with an old rabbit-ear antenna duct taped to his head.

But for an even better laugh, find the clip of Giuliani yelling at Kennedy telling her what a great man he is.

The best and the brightest the Rs have to offer.

[MU82]

From the Charlotte Observer:

Young voters in North Carolina are much less trusting than everyone else that this year’s election will be fair, a new poll reveals.

Results from a new Elon Poll survey, commissioned by The (Raleigh) News & Observer and The Charlotte Observer, indicate that nearly 70% of North Carolina registered voters trust that the 2020 election will be fair. But voters between 18 and 24 years old, the poll found, are about twice as likely as all other age groups to say that they are “not at all confident” that it will.

What’s making Generation Z so disillusioned with the electoral process? Jason Husser, director of the Elon Poll, said he was surprised to see such a large age gap with young voters being distrustful of the process.

It could be a byproduct of growing up in an age of social media and misinformation, he said, or perhaps the explanation is more simple.

“It could also be that older voters have more of a ‘been there, done that’ approach,” he said. “They’ve seen plenty of elections that have been contentious, particularly older voters who were around during the civil rights movement.”

Other questions in the poll offered some clues as to what exactly has young voters concerned.

Young voters, for example, were more likely to express concern that legitimate voters are going to be stopped from voting. They were also more concerned about foreign governments interfering in the election, or that the vote count might not be legitimate.

[lawdog77]

I'm not casting her as a villain, uber or otherwise.

No, you're just calling her a liar, under oath.

[MU82]

No, you're just calling her a liar, under oath.

Correct ... as was Kavanaugh, who already is proving himself to be a toady.

It's a big leap from "liar" to "uber-villain." If they were the same, then pretty much every politician in history would be an uber-villain.

Gorsuch shows promise of being an independent arbiter IMHO.

[Pakuni]

Correct ... as was Kavanaugh, who already is proving himself to be a toady.

It's a big leap from "liar" to "uber-villain." If they were the same, then pretty much every politician in history would be an uber-villain.

Gorsuch shows promise of being an independent arbiter IMHO.

Well, I think you've gone past mere lying, though. You're suggesting that she conspired with Trump on some sort of quid pro quo, in which she promised favorable rulings to ensure his re-election in exchange for her nomination.
That's pretty villainous, if you ask me. Not to mention felonious.

Your Sessions analogy doesn't work. Sessions was a part of the administration under investigation and worked for the president under investigation. A Supreme Court justice is neither a member of any administration nor subservient to any president.

As for Kavanaugh ... not sure he's proven to be a toady. After all, he just ruled against the GOP in your state. But he has proven to be not very good at his job.

[MU82]

Well, I think you've gone past mere lying, though. You're suggesting that she conspired with Trump on some sort of quid pro quo, in which she promised favorable rulings to ensure his re-election in exchange for her nomination.
That's pretty villainous, if you ask me. Not to mention felonious.

Your Sessions analogy doesn't work. Sessions was a part of the administration under investigation and worked for the president under investigation. A Supreme Court justice is neither a member of any administration nor subservient to any president.

As for Kavanaugh ... not sure he's proven to be a toady. After all, he just ruled against the GOP in your state. But he has proven to be not very good at his job.

OK. Have a nice day, Pak!