Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

What all of these things lack is “there is no evidence of fraud.”  As is likely the plan, it gets thrown out on more technical issues before it can even get to that stage, and it’s red meat for the trumps. There’s a few that address the “evidence” as conjecture but those are buried. 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, wildcat09 said:

 

 

Setting aside the effect of Bush v. Gore, there are two subsidiary notions to what Rehnquist said, I think.

First, the notion that the US Constitution, principally the Equal Protection Clause, poses some limitation on what state legislatures can do pursuant to Articles I and II.  I think that has to be a valid notion.  States can't just do any goddam thing and insulate it from review under the Electors and Elections clauses because "state legislature."

Second, the language of the Constitution refers to "legislatures," not state law more broadly or "legislatures and courts."  If a legislature can violate the Constitution by legislating, then surely the state courts can violate the Constitution by "interpreting" or, in the case of PA and Act 77, manipulating the statutory enactment to violate the Constitution.

So, it seems that both the legislative acts of states, as well as their judicial interpretation, should be reviewable, under a pretty narrow standard of disenfranchisement under the Equal Protection Clause or possibly some other constitutional limitation.

So, the foregoing points are what I have taken to mean what has become the "independent legislature" doctrine.  Which seems to be better referred to as the constrained legislature doctrine.  It's what my Presidential Power prof, Hal Bruff concluded, as well.

However, in Kelly's particular case, it seems the PA Supreme Court needs to weigh in on the constitutionality of Act 77 under its own law and that, in turn, could be taken up by the Supremes.  This, however, does not seem ripe for review.  Maybe that's what Prof. Epps is driving at.  Also worth noting that the PA Supreme Court did not rule on the substance of the constitutional claim, only that it was procedurally barred.

Edited by TwiceHorn
Posted
7 minutes ago, Eskimohorn said:


One and Forty-Eight?!? How’d they ever win one?

Wasn’t it to say they could be 6 feet from counters not 10 feet

Posted
6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Wasn’t it to say they could be 6 feet from counters not 10 feet

Even that one got reversed.  It was a small subset of votes that were unlawfully cured.

Posted

Another loss.   

(note---it was actually 1-47 until this one a few minutes ago.  Marc Elias had counted incorrectly in a previous tweet.  Now it's 1-48 for real)

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Eskimohorn said:


One and Forty-Eight?!? How’d they ever win one?

The unicorn quintuple post with replies separating.

 

Well done!

Edited by DDD Dad
  • Like 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Red Five said:

The rare quintuple post over 35 minutes. Impressive. 

Itchy Trigger Finger Syndrome leads to: pressing the elevator button, even though already lit, and hitting "submit reply" more than once. It's human nature.

f2d9f6aefc5f1f50ebcee87dae1502d0.jpg&f=1

 

Edited by washparkhorn
I saw a typo and was almost hoisted by my own petard while waiting for my post to publish. Human nature.
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
Itchy Trigger Finger Syndrome leads to: pressing the elevator button, even though already lit, and hitting "submit reply" more than once. It's human nature.
f2d9f6aefc5f1f50ebcee87dae1502d0.jpg&f=1&nofb=1
 

Gave me an error each time. Posted, went back to work. Posted again. New phone. See...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Sawbonz said:

 I take that to mean he’s about 99% sure they are not going to grant it

 

20 minutes ago, lemonlime said:

The stupid.

These.  He knows there's nothing to argue.  He's just preening for the ignorant MAGA masses.  Because that's how fucking pathetic he is.

  • Hook 'Em 4
  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, Horn Under a Bad Sign said:

This ancient fucker. I will throw a party when this fuckhead dies. Kind of like the one Newt threw when his first wife died. Oh, wait ... that was a wedding.

 

 

"The objective fact is I believe..."  Belief isn't objective fact, dipshit.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Posted
28 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

He’s a politician first. So he’s promising something to his base that he knows he will never have to deliver. 

Correction:  He's an asshole first, politician second, and lawyer somewhere after that. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bookman said:

Pretty clearly a Christian-hating communist.

It’s Georgia so “radical, liberal socialist” is the preferred nomenclature.

Edited by Fudge Nuggets
Posted
1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

 

These.  He knows there's nothing to argue.  He's just preening for the ignorant MAGA masses.  Because that's how fucking pathetic he is.

That’s it. I’m running against Ted Cruz in 2024.

My first step is changing my name to “Bozo Casanova”

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1


×
×
  • Create New...