Thursday Election Updates

[Res Ipsa]

Don’t worry, RI. It’s not like he read it, anyway. ——o O o—— gon’ ——o O o——.

- Doc

I won't. I seem to recall that he stops reading after a sentence or two.

[subgenius]

Given your well poisoning and your well-established history as a disingenuous troll,

Posters who troll accusing another poster of trolling simply based upon their dislike of that poster's inability to be forcibly conscripted in to their private hair-fire #tds army is not the same as "well-established".

my first reaction is to suggest you decouple your lips from the President's posterior and read up on both issues and try to understand how the Supreme Court Justices decide cases, especially in the context of what it means to believe in federalism.

President's posterior still tastes better than Maddow's queefs, but you already knew that....and congrats on the "trolling".

My second reaction is to tell you what I think, with the caveat that I've never held myself out as a constitutional scholar.

Irrelevant, but ok.

By the Bookckvar case, I'm assuming you mean this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/ ... ourt%27%22

Yes, but admittedly I am unaware of any other Boockvar case in PA that fits the context of this thread.

The decision is based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of both Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional law. It is quite rare that the U.S. Supreme Court would tell a State Supreme Court that it had interpreted state and constitutional law incorrectly. It would be shocking for Justices of the Federalist Society school to do so.

Understandable, but a bit off the point in question, which is (again) " [do] state courts have authority to alter state election law for federal office".
Inasmuch as Pennsylvania Supreme Court decided that PA is to count mail-in ballots received up to three days after Election Day. I am assuming you are considering this "decision" as being an interpretation rather than an actual "legislation". On this, I disagree since the legislation required ballots to be received by 8 p.m. on Election Day....and I didn't see an asterisk.

The U.S. Supreme Court has well recognized canons for when it how to determine whether a state's law or court decision violates the U.S. Constitution. First, they duck constitutional issues whenever possible.

Ok, but it seems odd that the Supreme Court would duck Constitutional issues.

So, if the disputed ballots wouldn't change the result, they will decline review because the case is moot.

Clearly, the ballots received after 8pm on election day will change the result.

Beyond that, it is quite easy to duck the constitutional question. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not change the statute or find it unconstitutional.

This seems to be the point of argument - that they did change the statute...changed from received by 8pm on election day to received 3 days later.

Rather, it relied on established case and statutory law to take action to preserve the people's right to vote in the event of a natural disaster.

This does not seem to be the case, but maybe what I have read focused on the court being Democrat controlled, and the bar for "qualified" means no proof that it missed the postmark deadline, which must be tough with postmark free drop boxes.

All that five Justices have to do is declare that what the court did under the facts of this case is based on the state constitution, which is specifically protective of the right to vote, and does not violate the delegation of the method to select electors in the U.S. Constitution.

I do not believe a State Constitution can usurp the US Constitution on this matter. In other words, I do not believe that the PA constitution allows for, or authorizes, the PA supreme court to alter PA state election law.

The court is extremely unlikely to hold that election law is immune from judicial review based on the fact that the constitutional language is silent on that issue.

review is altogether different from alter.

It can't, without undoing its own authority to review statutes for constitutionality under Marbury v. Madison. And it would be difficult to sustains, say, an equal protection argument when what the court did was impose a uniform deadline for all mail-in ballots: regular, absentee, military, and overseas. Who, in that case, isn't getting equal treatment? In fact, it would be interesting to challenge statutes that have different deadlines for different categories of mail in ballots.

I think you will find that military voting is legislated elsewhere. But note that the specific challenges are as follows:
(1) Whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court usurped the Pennsylvania General Assembly’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for president and vice president under Article II of the Constitution, as well as the assembly’s broad power to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections under Article I, when the court issued a ruling requiring the state to count absentee ballots that arrive up to three days after Election Day as long as they are not clearly postmarked after Election Day; and
(2) whether that decision is preempted by federal statutes that establish a uniform nationwide federal Election Day.

Zooming out to look at the big picture: what Trump will be asking the Supreme Court to do is change the result of a presidential election by invalidating the votes of Americans who cast their votes on election day.

Nope, Trump would be asking to invalidate votes cast after the legislated deadline.

Given philosophy of the newest Justices on the Court, that is very difficult to imagine. If the right to govern flows from the consent of the people, it is very difficult for a conservative Justice to justify taking away votes that were cast legally on the basis that the Post Office was slow. Nobody wants their name on an opinion that would likely be viewed on par with the Dred Scott decision.

Perhaps, but usurping the US Constitution and perhaps even the PA Constitution via overstepping judicial boundaries might not be enough to magically transform illegal votes into legal votes.

So, what I think is that the Supreme Court, quite appropriately, will decline jurisdiction. If it takes jurisdiction, it will be to affirm the State Supreme Court, emphasizing the very limited role the federal judiciary has with respect to election law.

That is a reasonable consideration.

In my opinion, there is no merit to the argument that state election laws are not subject to judicial review and to the state constitution.

agreed, but that does not appear to be the issue.

Pennsylvania has a state constitution that expressly protects the voting rights of its citizens. States are permitted to provide greater constitutional protections to their citizens than are provided in the U.S. Constitution.

Yes, but they are not allowed to provide lesser constitutional protections.

[subgenius]

Because the relentless and false claims about Russians in 2016 entitles guys like you to feign contempt now...legit.

Still trying to whitewash history? Could you do something for Nixon and Vlad the Impaler too?

Maybe, but currently I am overwhelmed with trying to find a large enough brush for Clinton-Epstein and Hunter Biden.

[Moksha]

Maybe, but currently I am overwhelmed with trying to find a large enough brush for Clinton-Epstein and Hunter Biden.

How thorough do you think the technical experts at the Kremlin were at manufacturing this stuff? I mean just the provenance alone seems buffoonish beyond belief and the fact that Lev, Igor, and Rudy Guiliani were involved makes it the stuff of needing a very large Subgenius wire brush.

[subgenius]

[Res Ipsa]

Sub, I have no control over the fact that your intellectual curiosity is a mile wide and a fraction of an inch deep. You learned enough to try and impress by typing the name of the PA Secretary of State but not enough to know even how many lawsuits have been filed naming her as a defendant.

Most of your response seems to be: that's not the question. Newsflash: Sean Hannity doesn't get to define the question. You clearly haven't bothered to read the relevant opinion of the PA Supreme Court, as you can't even correctly cite what it holds. If you want to understand the basis of its holding, you won't find that on Fox News or Breitbart. Go read the decision.

I don't think you really believe the nonsense you are slinging. The voter casts her ballot when she puts it in the mailbox, just as if she dropped into a ballot box during in-person voting. She is no more responsible for the post office delivering her ballot than she is for the counting of her ballot by election officials and delivery of her ballot to the processing center.

I don't know where you are getting your phrasing of the issues, but if its from the President's lawyers, he's in more of a world of hurt than I imagined. Just for an example, the Congress delegates the manner of choosing electors to the state legislatures. How, then, can Congress pre-empt state election law? Or for another, the U.S. Supreme Court already decided that state legislatures do not have "plenary authority" in Bush v. Gore. Once a state legislature decides to choose electors by holding an election, the election process is subject to constitutional requirements. Or another: claiming that allowing ballots completed and deposited on the date of the election "changes" the date of the election is the kind of absurd nonsense that gets lawyers laughed out of court. Not to mention the obvious counterexamples: early voting, the dozens of states like Georgia and my own state of Washington that accept mail-in ballots received after the date of the election. Why aren't they preempted?

That's an easy question to answer if you read the damn law and understand the preemption doctrine. But I'm passed the limits of your attention span here. Suffice it to say that none of the federal statutes require a state to complete all activities that comprise an election in a single day and contains no language that would prohibit a state from accepting mail in ballots received after election day.

I know you're used to arguing that up is really down, but there's no credible argument that the Supreme Court's decision provides any citizen with less protection than would be provided without the extension. Here are the requirements for casting a legal mail-in ballot:

(a) General rule.--At any time after receiving an official mail-in ballot, but on or before eight o’clock P.M. the day of the primary or election, the mail- in elector shall, in secret, proceed to mark the ballot only in black lead pencil, indelible pencil or blue, black or blue-black ink, in fountain pen or ball point pen, and then fold the ballot, enclose and securely seal the same in the envelope on which is printed, stamped or endorsed “Official Election Ballot.” This envelope shall then be placed in the second one, on which is printed the form of declaration of the elector, and the address of the elector’s county board of election and the local election district of the elector. The elector shall then fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope. Such envelope shall then be securely sealed and the elector shall send same by mail, postage prepaid, except where franked, or deliver it in person to said county board of election.

The disputed ballots consist of people who complied with these requirements: they cast their ballots on or before election day. The extension for receipt of the ballots prevents these voters who complied with the law from being treated unequally -- that's greater constitutional protection for the citizens of PA, not lesser.

[Res Ipsa]

Pro tip: when trying to show inconsistency, show statements that are actually inconsistent. You meme worse than liberals

[subgenius]

All that aside, given your vast, albeit admittedly steeped in systemic racism training, legal knowledge- what is your opinion on
the Boockvar case ?
Is there merit in the argument that the U.S. Constitution directly grants "election powers" to the legislature of Pennsylvania, thus state courts have no authority to alter state election law for federal office, including the presidency. Ergo, the U.S. Supreme Court could strike down the extension of the Pennsylvania deadline to accept ballots until Friday and order the state to reject any ballots that arrived after Election Day on Tuesday ?

Given your well poisoning and your well-established history as a disingenuous troll, my first reaction is to suggest you decouple your lips from the President's posterior and read up on both issues and try to understand how the Supreme Court Justices decide cases, especially in the context of what it means to believe in federalism.

My second reaction is to tell you what I think, with the caveat that I've never held myself out as a constitutional scholar. By the Bookckvar case, I'm assuming you mean this decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/ ... ourt%27%22 The decision is based on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's interpretation of both Pennsylvania statutory and constitutional law. It is quite rare that the U.S. Supreme Court would tell a State Supreme Court that it had interpreted state and constitutional law incorrectly. It would be shocking for Justices of the Federalist Society school to do so.

The U.S. Supreme Court has well recognized canons for when it how to determine whether a state's law or court decision violates the U.S. Constitution. First, they duck constitutional issues whenever possible. So, if the disputed ballots wouldn't change the result, they will decline review because the case is moot. Beyond that, it is quite easy to duck the constitutional question. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court did not change the statute or find it unconstitutional. Rather, it relied on established case and statutory law to take action to preserve the people's right to vote in the event of a natural disaster. All that five Justices have to do is declare that what the court did under the facts of this case is based on the state constitution, which is specifically protective of the right to vote, and does not violate the delegation of the method to select electors in the U.S. Constitution. The court is extremely unlikely to hold that election law is immune from judicial review based on the fact that the constitutional language is silent on that issue. It can't, without undoing its own authority to review statutes for constitutionality under Marbury v. Madison. And it would be difficult to sustains, say, an equal protection argument when what the court did was impose a uniform deadline for all mail-in ballots: regular, absentee, military, and overseas. Who, in that case, isn't getting equal treatment? In fact, it would be interesting to challenge statutes that have different deadlines for different categories of mail in ballots.

Zooming out to look at the big picture: what Trump will be asking the Supreme Court to do is change the result of a presidential election by invalidating the votes of Americans who cast their votes on election day. Given philosophy of the newest Justices on the Court, that is very difficult to imagine. If the right to govern flows from the consent of the people, it is very difficult for a conservative Justice to justify taking away votes that were cast legally on the basis that the Post Office was slow. Nobody wants their name on an opinion that would likely be viewed on par with the Dred Scott decision.

So, what I think is that the Supreme Court, quite appropriately, will decline jurisdiction. If it takes jurisdiction, it will be to affirm the State Supreme Court, emphasizing the very limited role the federal judiciary has with respect to election law.

In my opinion, there is no merit to the argument that state election laws are not subject to judicial review and to the state constitution. Pennsylvania has a state constitution that expressly protects the voting rights of its citizens. States are permitted to provide greater constitutional protections to their citizens than are provided in the U.S. Constitution.

bumped for relevance.

[Gunnar]

Chris Hayes: Why Republicans must rebuke Trump's Big Lie

Pause
Current Time 3:07
/
Duration 3:37
Mute
100
HQ
CaptionsFullscreen
Up Next:Biden's Inauguration Rehearsal Postponed - Politico
MSNBC
Chris Hayes: Why Republicans must rebuke Trump's Big Lie
Duration: 03:37
“If people like Jim Jordan really want to help, they can go on Fox News and tell people there was no election fraud, that this was a free and fair vote. And their side lost,” says Chris Hayes.

As Mitt Romney correctly stated:

The best way we can show respect for the voters who are upset, is to tell them the truth . . . the truth is that President Elect Biden won the election. Trump lost.

Also pointed out in the video by Chris Hayes is that Conservative Congressional Representative from South Carolina, Tom Rice, who despite having voted to object to certifying the election, was one of the 10 Republican Congressmen who voted to impeach Trump, even though he was sure it would probably cost him his seat in Congress at the next election.

Besides that, the Lieutenant Governor of Georgia stripped 3 of his fellow Republicans from their chairmanships because they refused to stop promoting the lie that the election was stolen.

It gives me some hope that even among Republicans, there are a few people who still have integrity.

[subgenius]

...
Up Next:Biden's Inauguration Rehearsal Postponed - Politico

because if you need 20,000 armed troops at your inauguration your win was probably not legit.

As Mitt Romney correctly stated:

disrespect me in public and Delta will ban you from their flights and place you on no-fly list.

fify

... it would probably cost him his seat in Congress at the next election.

cuz, this what makes it true![/quote]

It gives me some hope that even among Republicans, there are a few people who still have integrity.

integrity = believing only what i believe, standing up for what you believe is abhorrent.