I assume they're going to rule in favor of whoever buys Clarence Thomas the bigger RV.
The US Supreme Court and its decisions
- Thread starter Patch
- Start date
Republicans ask Supreme Court to block 40,000 Arizonans from voting in November
Republicans hope the conservative U.S. Supreme Court will intervene in an Arizona state election dispute.
www.latimes.com
Republicans do not want people to vote.
No, republicans don't want certain types of people to vote. Primarily women and minorities. And we already knew that because they've been engaged in constant gerrymandering and voter suppression since nixon.
This is literally why every left leaning pundit, analyst and commenter have been saying "Make sure you are registered to vote" and "help your family and friends make it to the polls" at every opportunity since biden got into office.
So check your voter status, plan your carpool, and ******* vote. Because an engaged and responsible individual public will always overcome the attempted mass disruptions of the traitors.
This is literally why every left leaning pundit, analyst and commenter have been saying "Make sure you are registered to vote" and "help your family and friends make it to the polls" at every opportunity since biden got into office.
So check your voter status, plan your carpool, and ******* vote. Because an engaged and responsible individual public will always overcome the attempted mass disruptions of the traitors.
That's obvious. Their leader, the Lame Orange One, has stated he wants to be a dictator and that if he wins his supporters won't have to vote again. They also have openly been wanting to allow state legislatures reject election results they don't like.
And the stage is set for the Supreme Court to wipe out mail-in ballots. All they have to do is rule in favor of this...
slate.com
Three Trump Judges Just Issued a Shock Ruling That Could Wreak Havoc on the Election
The Republican National Committee manufactured this dispute as a test case.
I don't understand how we get this stuff. According to the article, the law does NOT say they have to be received by Election Day and general wisdom would say that if the law DID say that, it would have come up when the practice was established. But for some reason a lawyer can go in front of a judge say that it DOES say that and not get in trouble for it.
I can be somewhat flexible on rules like this, regardless of the motivations of the parties bringing the suits, but to be fair the rules need to be understood and practical. I don't see how an objective judge could not fail to see a fairness issue written into the policy. I would be fine with setting a cutoff date for postmarking a few days before the election, but your cutoff date has to be the postmarking, because otherwise the voter does not know whether they are meeting the deadline or not.
I can be somewhat flexible on rules like this, regardless of the motivations of the parties bringing the suits, but to be fair the rules need to be understood and practical. I don't see how an objective judge could not fail to see a fairness issue written into the policy. I would be fine with setting a cutoff date for postmarking a few days before the election, but your cutoff date has to be the postmarking, because otherwise the voter does not know whether they are meeting the deadline or not.
I don't think this case will make mail-in ballots illegal. They don't even ask for that. The argument is presumably that we can't have the election dragging along waiting on mail trucks and it needs to be settleable on election night. And it is ironic, because I will bet you $700 right now that the same people making the argument are going to file suits between Election Day and the final count that are going to drag the official count out.
They've already gotten the lawsuits ready to fire. Just waiting to see what the results are before pulling the trigger.
If Trump wins, then it was free and fair and it's fine. If Trump loses, it was corrupt and tampered with and they immediately demand all the recounts, delays, anything else they can get away with, and whatever else they can pull out of their asses too just for good measure, and also the cult is loading up for violence.
So, same plan as last time.
The Republican party has been holding the line against new plans for decades, why would they change now?
Entropy? There's fewer trump cultists than ever, more people are aware of, and prepared for their latest round of bullshit, and the fate of the jan sixers (which is still unfurling even now.) is an albatross around the necks of those whom are screaming for violence. Everyone else has less sympathy for the claims and actions, and tolerance for all their noise and lies doesn't exist in anywhere near the same levels as in 2020.
If they want to fight, and lose, and go to jail (cause even if they never stop trump, they will ABSOLUTELY arrest and convict his poor assed losers.) for trump: that's their choice, stupid as it may be.
If they want to fight, and lose, and go to jail (cause even if they never stop trump, they will ABSOLUTELY arrest and convict his poor assed losers.) for trump: that's their choice, stupid as it may be.
Judge Alito at some point accepted a knighthood from the Germans, which is in violation of the constitution. Let's see if anything happens!
abovethelaw.com
Sam Alito Got Knighted... Just Like The Founding Fathers EXPLICITLY MADE UNCONSTITUTIONAL - Above the Law
It turns out Sam Alito hates the Constitution as much as you thought he did.
abovethelaw.com
I'm not for sure that a knighthood from the descendants of deposed monarchs with no actual connection to government of any real sort is technically meeting the criteria there. We maybe didn't hear about it because it is legally a nothing sandwich.
BUT. I also don't understand the point of it from either side and that is at least a little concerning. Why do these Bourbons bestow knighthoods and how do they choose candidates. What interest do they have in an American judge? And Alito who must have know that at the very least this would smell weird...what advantage does he get from it? If these people contacted me, I would think it was a prank. What does it mean to him? Is this honor that I'd never heard of something that I should be trying to get myself?
I love that picture of him. It looks like he just got caught and he's trying to figure out if he should bolt.
BUT. I also don't understand the point of it from either side and that is at least a little concerning. Why do these Bourbons bestow knighthoods and how do they choose candidates. What interest do they have in an American judge? And Alito who must have know that at the very least this would smell weird...what advantage does he get from it? If these people contacted me, I would think it was a prank. What does it mean to him? Is this honor that I'd never heard of something that I should be trying to get myself?
I love that picture of him. It looks like he just got caught and he's trying to figure out if he should bolt.
It's not at the Supreme Court yet, but from the 9th Circuit Appeals court:
Well, it isn't that. It is that it is a crime in Idaho to travel to another state to get an abortion because that is illegal in Idaho.
I've seen similar laws come in handy on crime dramas. But the idea is uncomfortable. There seems to be an implication that Idahoans have a code that must be followed wherever they may be.