Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Reports of protests are overblown. A few incidents around the country, but nothing major.

5 (45.5%)

A few major incidents in capitals, but nothing much in DC.

5 (45.5%)

A major incident in DC, but nothing much around the country.

0 (0%)

More than 10 capitals have major upheavals, but nothing much in DC.

0 (0%)

A major incident in DC plus more than 10 capitals with significant upheavals.

1 (9.1%)

More than half the capitals around the country have problems with protesters, but DC is quiet.

0 (0%)

DC has major problems, while more than half the capitals around the country also have considerable trouble with protesters.

0 (0%)

Huge disruption to the day.

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Voting closed: January 19, 2021, 10:49:21 PM

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/politics/judge-usps-ruling-sdny/index.html

Election mail must be prioritized.

[josh]

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/18/politics/michigan-deadline-extended-for-absentee-ballots/index.html

[josh]

Playing politics with lives, still and again!

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/21/health/cdc-reverts-airborne-transmission-guidance/index.html

"Oops, we posted that update by mistake!"

[REDSTATEWARD]

BO (OR HAIRYLIME),

do either of you have any answer to Barton's question about tie-breaking if an even numbered SCOTUS deliberates on a disputed election?

IIRC, you are both lawyerly types.

It would go back to the last court to make decision, right?

In the problem as stated, it was a case that originated at the SCOTUS level, leaving no prior decision to fall back on - something that has not happened on a presidential election issue.

Except that there would be no case at SCOTUS if there wasn’t first a decision someone decided to sue over.
And that decision would not, necessarily, have been made by a court.

[FlyingVProd]

Due to people being banned from Facebook and other sites for hate speech, some people are going to a site called "Parler" to discuss politics, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parler
 
I guess it is total freedom of speech, and you just duke it out.
 
I do not feel the desire to go read a bunch of hate speech, and I love the Jews, so I am not going to join Parler.
 
And I have never had any problems on Facebook because I do not post hate speech. Facebook is just fine for now.
 
Salute,
 
Tony V.

[barton]

Yep,  I think I'm getting that,  in a presidential election dispute, there will be a cause of action in a specific state which eventually goes to a state appellate court.   Which means that SCOTUS could be faced with multiple petitions if there were multiple electoral messes in various states and federal laws were involved.   

And,  as Josh pointed out,  in my hypothetical case where the initial action went to SCOTUS , then a deadlock would mean they'd first go to the House.  But I found this,  regarding original jurisdiction.... 

  Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers.   

So,  then,  my hypothetical just wouldn't happen,  since it doesn't fit those criteria. 

[facilitatorn]

http://www.salon.com/2020/09/21/trumps-eugenics-obsession-he-thinks-he-has-good-german-genes-because-hes-a-fascist/

[josh]

BO (OR HAIRYLIME),

do either of you have any answer to Barton's question about tie-breaking if an even numbered SCOTUS deliberates on a disputed election?

IIRC, you are both lawyerly types.

It would go back to the last court to make decision, right?

In the problem as stated, it was a case that originated at the SCOTUS level, leaving no prior decision to fall back on - something that has not happened on a presidential election issue.

Except that there would be no case at SCOTUS if there wasn’t first a decision someone decided to sue over.
And that decision would not, necessarily, have been made by a court.

If it was not at by a lower or state court, then there is nothing to fall back on, which was my point.

A tie would be held over until another term. In the case of a presidential dispute with no lower court decision, which is a tad hard to fathom, but was the case offered as a hypothetical, if they deadlocked (which seems unlikely with this 8 person court, but sure...), then it would go forward as I outlined.

Of course, if we also have House races in the wind courts, such that they cannot go forward with a House election for president in the new Congress, then President Pelosi does seem like the end result with the current cast of players.

So many improbables... but who would have bet in 2013 that the President of the United States and his catspaws would be playing Russian Roulette with the lives of Americans through their ham-handed manipulation of the CDC?!

So, hypotheticals asked and answered.

[josh]

Newest poll today would seem to give cause for mild optimism for Kid's reading of things:
https://www.investors.com/politics/joe-biden-leads-president-trump-race-tightens-ibd-tipp-election-poll/

But these numbers suggest to me, (a) that Biden would take this result in a heart beat and (b) the "addition" of factors doesn't align with the current national alignment of voters with parties:

Biden leads President Trump, 49.5% to 43.9%. Another 1.5% say they'll vote for another candidate, while 4.9% are not sure who they'll support. Biden holds a 45%-38% lead among likely independent voters and 93%-5% among Democrats. Trump leads 94%-4% among Republicans.

There are sufficiently more Dems than GOP members that with the independents added in, his lead should be greater than it is when everything is balanced out.

And, of course, this is one poll of many.

[josh]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/ohio-gop-defend-limit-ballot-drop-boxes-county-73150444

The GOP continues to try to limit voting any way it can.

[josh]

Shockingly enough, "Experts call for national COVID strategy rather than current 'whack-a-mole' approach."

How often does one hear a federal treatment of an issue (if even "treatment" is not too strong) "whack-a-mole?"

I mean, it clearly fits, but just amazing.

[REDSTATEWARD]

BO (OR HAIRYLIME),

do either of you have any answer to Barton's question about tie-breaking if an even numbered SCOTUS deliberates on a disputed election?

IIRC, you are both lawyerly types.

It would go back to the last court to make decision, right?

In the problem as stated, it was a case that originated at the SCOTUS level, leaving no prior decision to fall back on - something that has not happened on a presidential election issue.

Except that there would be no case at SCOTUS if there wasn’t first a decision someone decided to sue over.
And that decision would not, necessarily, have been made by a court.

If it was not at by a lower or state court, then there is nothing to fall back on, which was my point.

Not true. For example if the GOP in Iowa contests the outcome of the Presidential vote and assuming Iowa’s electoral votes would determine the White House it could seek SCOTUS to  decide the dispute. If the Court deadlocked it would mean the Iowa vote total would stand as certified by the Iowa Election officials.

[josh]

BO (OR HAIRYLIME),

do either of you have any answer to Barton's question about tie-breaking if an even numbered SCOTUS deliberates on a disputed election?

IIRC, you are both lawyerly types.

It would go back to the last court to make decision, right?

In the problem as stated, it was a case that originated at the SCOTUS level, leaving no prior decision to fall back on - something that has not happened on a presidential election issue.

Except that there would be no case at SCOTUS if there wasn’t first a decision someone decided to sue over.
And that decision would not, necessarily, have been made by a court.

If it was not at by a lower or state court, then there is nothing to fall back on, which was my point.

Not true. For example if the GOP in Iowa contests the outcome of the Presidential vote and assuming Iowa’s electoral votes would determine the White House it could seek SCOTUS to  decide the dispute. If the Court deadlocked it would mean the Iowa vote total would stand as certified by the Iowa Election officials.

That would not have gone to SCOTUS first. If that was tried, SCOTUS would direct it to the lower courts, rather than even deadlocking. Wrong place for it to go and even this Court would not permit it.

[josh]

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/21/robert-mueller-let-americans-down-on-trump-russia-probe-special-counsel-prosecutor-says.html

[josh]

Martha McSally said you can pry GOP's Senate majority 'out of my cold, dead hands.'

Who would want to do that?

I want her defeated, not dead. And if she loses (this election, too), I still want her to live, not to kill herself.