Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, August 24, 2026

The justices voted, 6 to 3 along the usual ideological lines, to overturn an injunction a judge placed on Trump's order in June.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

BREAKING: The Supreme Court has PAUSED a lower court ruling that had blocked Trump from using the Postal Service to restrict mail voting, saying the lower court lacked jurisdiction. Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissent 1/ www.npr.org/2026/08/24/n...[image or embed]

" Allison Gill (@muellershewrote.com) 5:06 PM Aug 24, 2026

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

It's NICE being a Dictator when you owns your own Supreme Court!

(Someone pry BJ offa his ceiling.)

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2026-08-24 07:47 PM | Reply

Is the disgusting orange chomo still allowed to vote by mail?

#2 | Posted by reinheitsgebot at 2026-08-24 08:31 PM | Reply

Amen. Get your fat, lazy ass off the couch and go vote in person.. And show your ID for ----- sake.

#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-08-24 08:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

That headline is not exactly true. Please check, RC

#4 | Posted by e1g1 at 2026-08-24 09:03 PM | Reply

That headline is not exactly true. Please check, RC

#4 | Posted by e1g1 at 2026-08-24 09:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Do you honestly think anyone here gives a flying fckk about the "truth"????

#5 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-08-24 09:17 PM | Reply

This place has more sources blocked than Carter's brother had liver pills.

#6 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-08-24 09:18 PM | Reply

Amen. Get your fat, lazy ass off the couch and go vote in person.. And show your ID for ----- sake.
#3 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-08-24 08:56 PM

What prevents making a federal voting holiday?

We are sick of you deplorables and I presume the only reason you are still here is self-deporting to hell lands you back in the US.

Republicans are going to get your asses handed to you repeatedly.

#7 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2026-08-24 09:24 PM | Reply

~ We are sick of you deplorables

You need to man up and buy some powder.

#8 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2026-08-24 09:26 PM | Reply

What a crock of sheet this is.

#9 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-24 09:32 PM | Reply

What a crock of sheet this is.

#10 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-24 09:32 PM | Reply

The Supreme Court on Monday afternoon cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin implementing an executive order, signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, that imposes restrictions on mail-in voting. The court paused an injunction by a federal judge in Boston that had barred the federal government from applying provisions of that executive order in the November elections to 23 states (along with the District of Columbia) challenging their legality.

A separate ruling by the same judge, in a case filed by a different set of plaintiffs, temporarily prohibits the U.S. Postal Service from implementing one provision of the executive order anywhere in the United States. That ruling remains in effect, at least for now.

In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out " which means that the states have not suffered the kind of injury that allows their lawsuit to move forward.

www.scotusblog.com
The court's three Democratic appointees dissented. In a 23-page opinion, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson accused the majority of "[t]aking its eye off the ball" and thus "miss[ing] the Government's actual objective: to secure our imprimatur for its effort to foment chaos ahead of the November elections."

#11 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-24 10:21 PM | Reply

" In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out"

Which is exactly the opposite of their decision regarding the Ballroom: Once it's begun, it's too late to do anything!

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-24 10:27 PM | Reply

CORRUPTION...

#13 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2026-08-24 10:39 PM | Reply

"it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out"

This is exactly how you handle a Death Penalty appeal.
--Republicans

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-24 10:48 PM | Reply

This is right out of any would-be dictator's playbook. Only hold elections when you've done everything to prevent your opponents from voting.

#15 | Posted by Augustine at 2026-08-24 11:07 PM | Reply

One AI snapshot:

"In the 2024 general election, approximately 905,343 ballots were cast by US military members and citizens living abroad, according to the States United Democracy Center. This group, known as UOCAVA (Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act) voters, relied heavily on mail voting, with the majority of service members stationed away from home sending their ballots through the postal system."

~snip~

Well, look on the bright side. The 2024 Democrats got those 140 gosh-darned Israeli hostages freed, so at least we got that going for us.


"FUNNY"

#16 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-08-24 11:20 PM | Reply

Do you honestly think anyone here gives a flying fckk about the "truth"????
- noleftoverbraincells

We know you Orange pdf file supporters don't care about the truth.

#17 | Posted by a_monson at 2026-08-24 11:27 PM | Reply

Abolish the Supreme Court!

#18 | Posted by a_monson at 2026-08-24 11:28 PM | Reply

This unelected detestable politburo with lifetime appointments, grand salaries, superb retirements, and easy workloads, is making Amerikkka unlivable.

The justices are bad ju-ju and feel threatened by the masses, rightfully so.

This why the SCOTUS police force is doubling or tripling in size.

Line them all up and blast away, FFS!

#19 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2026-08-25 01:29 AM | Reply

The risk of fraud is only one concern being addressed. This system could prevent several possible problems at once.

The biggest improvement is tracking and accountability. Both the outgoing ballot envelope and the return envelope would have unique barcodes, giving election officials much better information about where each ballot is in the system and whether it was delivered or returned.

It would make the process operate more like traditional absentee voting in terms of identifying and tracking the ballots being mailed. States would decide who is eligible to vote and to receive a mailed ballot, and they would have to identify those voters and associate the ballot envelopes with them.

That also addresses the scenario I've talked about the most, which is a large number of ballots being lost or mishandled at one time. With individual tracking, officials would be much better able to determine which voters were affected and allow replacement ballots to be sent to the right people, possibly without the voter even being aware there had been a problem.

The intent is for this to become a nationwide USPS requirement for federal elections using mailed ballots, so that all states using the Postal Service would be operating under the same basic tracking requirements.

Like I've said repeatedly, about a month before the 2020 election I read how the expanded mail-in ballot system was going to work due to COVID and saw the makings of a calamity. There were too many potential bottlenecks and way too much human handling without adequate tracking and accountability to ensure valid ballots got where they were supposed to go to be counted.

One of the two injunctions has already been lifted by the US Supreme Court. The USPS rule is still blocked by the remaining injunction, and we're waiting to see whether that one is lifted as well.

Hopefully this solution will get a chance to be used.

(did I get the details correct? Someone correct me if I didn't)

#20 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 04:50 AM | Reply

It's not complicated, Bill.

US Constitution, States and Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 - constitution.congress.gov

#21 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-08-25 05:17 AM | Reply

No it's not complicated. The Constitution is clear. States have the power of the time place and manner in which their state's vote.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 05:26 AM | Reply

You know that if one party had a positive messaging there would not be any talk about banning mail-in voting. That would solve all sorts of problems. Just sayin.

#23 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 06:09 AM | Reply

Amen. Get your fat, lazy ass off the couch and go vote in person.. And show your ID for ----- sake.

#3 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Look at this stupid piece of unAmerican s*^% cheer blatantly unconstitutional action(s) by a President.

Holy s*^#, can you imagine if Obama had tried to exert federal control over elections in violation of the constitution? Idiots like lfthndpedo would have s*^% themselves and covered their monitors with spittle as they flew off the handle in a thinly veiled racist rant.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-25 07:08 AM | Reply

it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out"

Weasel word bulls*^% from partisan hacks.

Yet these tools (the few who care, most are fully committed to being disgustingly bottom feeders) will act all "well I never ... " when the public expresses rightful disgust with them.

#25 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-25 07:12 AM | Reply

Get your fat, lazy ass off the couch and go vote in person ... .
#3 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

Trump might, if you use a bag of Big Macs as bait.

#26 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-08-25 07:12 AM | Reply

Doc,

"U.S. Constitution, States and Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 " Constitution.congress.gov"

I'm only asking if I got the process details correct.

Just setting the constitutional question aside for a moment, what do you have against the policy itself?

I think it's a great idea.

This is an upgrade to voting by mail.

This voting method would use modern tracking technology instead of the Pony Express.

#27 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:21 AM | Reply

"Just setting the constitutional question aside for a moment ... "

SCOTUS does it regularly.

#28 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2026-08-25 07:31 AM | Reply

Doc,

I see you can't have an intelligent conversation.

Just political rantings.

#29 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:33 AM | Reply

lol bill "the idiot" Johnson thinks his posts are intelligent.

Hate to break it to you, but they're not.

#30 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-25 07:37 AM | Reply

Doc,
I see you can't have an intelligent conversation.
Just political rantings.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:33 AM | Reply

Who knew that following the Constitution was political ranting.

#31 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 07:38 AM | Reply

Doc,

The states would still conduct their own elections and determine who is eligible to vote.

The USPS rule would establish uniform tracking and accountability standards only for federal ballots going through the Postal Service.

Not every state applies the same safeguards to voting by mail. This rule would provide greater assurance of fairness by ensuring that ballots going through USPS are subject to the same tracking and accountability standards in every state.

#32 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:42 AM | Reply

The federal government doesn't have that power, bill.

Period. The end.

Just STFU and stop acting as if wiping your ass with the constitution is "intelligent."

#33 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-25 07:44 AM | Reply

Laura,

"Who knew that following the Constitution was political ranting?"

Apparently, the English comprehension skills in this thread are lacking.

Plainly, I am asking about the merits of the new processes for handling mailed ballots.

That sentence seems to be going over some heads here.

#34 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:46 AM | Reply

There are no merits, bill, beyond they tickle your fantasies and confirmation biases.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-25 07:49 AM | Reply

Jpw,

"Just STFU and stop acting as if wiping your ass with the constitution is "intelligent.""

I am wondering what others "think" (the operative word here) about how the ballots would be handled under these new policies.

It seems pretty fair to me. It would provide better tracking and accountability while helping identify ballots that were lost, delayed or otherwise unaccounted for.

Would solve a lot of problems (except the constitution problem people want to exploit so states will be able to cheat)

#36 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:54 AM | Reply

Apparently, the English comprehension skills in this thread are lacking.
Plainly, I am asking about the merits of the new processes for handling mailed ballots.
That sentence seems to be going over some heads here.

Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 07:46 AM | Reply

We are governed by the Constitution not someone's feelings. Want to go against the Constitution as it's currently worded. Vote to change the Constitution. It's not easy by design but it can be done. There's a process for that.

#37 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 08:18 AM | Reply

" This is an upgrade to voting by mail."

And easier to control.

You know ... the real goal.

Outside of 8 Felons voting in 19 years, Bill's home state of Virginia has TWO voter fraud convictions during that time: one from an "unabashed conservative" who got back in line and got caught, the other a garden-variety "my late wife's absentee ballot is right here" kind.

Both cases involved exactly one extra vote each.

Where is this fraud in Virginia Bill is so worried about?

#38 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 08:23 AM | Reply

"It seems pretty fair to me. It would provide better tracking and accountability while helping identify ballots that were lost, delayed or otherwise unaccounted for.

That's the system we currently have, dumfuq.

Mailed ballots are tracked, serialized, watermarked, and more. Your ignorance on the subject is no reason to suppress 1000x the number of possible fraudulent votes.

#39 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 08:27 AM | Reply

"That also addresses the scenario I've talked about the most, which is a large number of ballots being lost or mishandled at one time. With individual tracking, officials would be much better able to determine which voters were affected and allow replacement ballots to be sent to the right people"

WE ALREADY DO THAT.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 08:33 AM | Reply

Dan,

"Mailed ballots are tracked, serialized, watermarked, and more. Your ignorance on the subject is no reason to suppress 1000x the number of possible fraudulent votes."

Not uniformly across all states.

And even the ones that do, it would not provide the same level of tracking as the new proposed systems.

#41 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 09:13 AM | Reply

"Not uniformly across all states."

States have that right.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-25 09:15 AM | Reply

"even the ones that do, it would not provide the same level of tracking as the new proposed systems."

Nonsense. We currently do ALL the steps you've outlined. This is merely a ploy to get Federal control over State elections.

We also can't count on the USPS to keep a completely updated list every moment. And what about multiple people with the same name and birthdate? The two most common are Josephina Hernandez (birthday 3/19), and Patrick Kelly (birthday 3/17).

Again, you'll be suppressing more votes than have EVER been illegally cast in VA.

#43 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 09:22 AM | Reply

"Not uniformly across all states."

And what problems has that caused to date?

It wouldn't have stopped ANY of the illegal votes in VA over the last 19+ years.

#44 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 09:23 AM | Reply

Dan,

"And what problems has that caused to date?"

I suspect similar questions have been asked as voting rights have evolved.

#45 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 09:41 AM | Reply

Let's get down to brass tacks shall we. It's just Republicans trying to gum up the system in their favor is all this is. Nothing more than that.

#46 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 10:05 AM | Reply

Trump votes by mail.

If mail voting restrictions were to begin before the midterms, both would be bad for Trump.

A. Rural and Republican voters vote by mail too
B. Trump would have to walk 150 ft or more to get inside the polling station AND keep his hair in place if there was a breeze.

#47 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2026-08-25 10:16 AM | Reply

Even if you want to concede this helps the entire process - the idea of doing it eight weeks before the midterms is completely stupid.

And it won't happen - as probably noted above this decision was strictly procedural - once the lawsuits come in this wil be shot down as many have said - the States run their elections - not the Feds.

It will be interesting to see how a few of the justices twist themselves into a pretzel, however, to comply with Trump.

Finally, this hurts the GOP more actually if you really analyze it - but again this is Trump - he's not looking out for the good of the country or even his own party. This is about justifying that he was cheated out of the 2020 election.

It always comes back to him.

#48 | Posted by brass30 at 2026-08-25 10:17 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Laura,

"Let's get down to brass tacks shall we. It's just Republicans trying to gum up the system in their favor is all this is. Nothing more than that."

I'm sorry you think keeping more accurate records is gumming up the system.

Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards of transparent tracking voter eligibility and ballot integrity.

And Democrats want something else.

#49 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:23 AM | Reply

"I suspect similar questions have been asked as voting rights have evolved."

Your state has had TWO garden-variety instances of voter fraud in nearly 20 years.

You might as well guard against Alien Unicorn Invasions.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:23 AM | Reply

"I'm sorry you think keeping more accurate records is gumming up the system."

Where have the records been INACCURATE?

Meanwhile, giving someone else in the chain a responsibility INCREASES the chances for inaccuracy.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:26 AM | Reply

Bill: Why is implementation eight weeks before an election....you have to agree that's a recipe for disaster.

Wouldn't the smart thing to do is actually plan it out and if implemented - do it years before the intended election?'

I wonder the rush? :)

#52 | Posted by brass30 at 2026-08-25 10:27 AM | Reply

"Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards of transparent tracking voter eligibility and ballot integrity."

What a riot.

"If conservatives become convinced that they cannot win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."
~David Frum

#53 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:31 AM | Reply

"Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards of transparent tracking voter eligibility and ballot integrity."

"All I want to do is this: I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have, because we won the state"
~DJT

#54 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:33 AM | Reply

Dan,

You really are obsessed with fraud.

Try looking beyond your nose and see there is a lot more to be concerned with than just fraud.

#55 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:33 AM | Reply

"Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards of transparent tracking voter eligibility and ballot integrity."

Hang Mike Pence!
~Those same Republicans.

#56 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:34 AM | Reply

Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards of transparent tracking voter eligibility and ballot integrity.
And Democrats want something else.
Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:23 AM | Reply

Liar liar pants on fire. Even you have stated repeatedly that you want to do away with mail in ballots across the board. Don't deny that now.

#57 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 10:35 AM | Reply

"Democrats want something else."

They want every legal voter to be able to cast their legal vote.

You know...representation to go with the taxation.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:36 AM | Reply

Dan,

"Meanwhile, giving someone else in the chain a responsibility INCREASES the chances for inaccuracy."

This "responsibility" will not be given to people.

It will be software and computers and of course, AI.

#59 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:36 AM | Reply

Dan,

"representation to go with the taxation."

I think that's a whole different thread.

#60 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:37 AM | Reply

It will be software and computers and of course, AI.
Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:36 AM | Reply

Great way to be hacked. Just sayin

#61 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2026-08-25 10:38 AM | Reply

Republicans want to see all states be held to the same high standards
#49 | Posted by BillJohnson

That's not for the Executive to decree.
That's for the States to decide.

Why have States, if they're all going to be the same?

And why don't Republicans want these same universal statewide standards for doctors, schools, teachers, police, etc.

#62 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-25 10:38 AM | Reply

Try looking beyond your nose and see there is a lot more to be concerned with than just fraud.
#55 | Posted by BillJohnson

The concern here is that the Executive branch is trampling States Rights.

Which could certainly be used for election fraud, you must admit.

#63 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-25 10:39 AM | Reply

Brass,

"Why is implementation eight weeks before an election....you have to agree that's a recipe for disaster"

Yes..it could be.

We're just talking about mailing them out and people mailing them back. Eight weeks is still enough time. Probably.

As I understand it, the USPS has their part in place.

Now it's just waiting on the Supreme Court and I'm not counting on them actually deciding soon.

Hopefully states are working on their lists.

#64 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:42 AM | Reply

" It will be software and computers and of course, AI."

Oh, ffs. MORE errors. And more opportunities for hacks.

Pro tip: more links in the chain is almost never a good idea.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:44 AM | Reply

So then why do it when you admit it not only could be inaccurate - but a disaster? LOL

It's a rush job certainly to fail (not that's going to happen anyway).

But this is GOP logic at work.

#66 | Posted by brass30 at 2026-08-25 10:45 AM | Reply

Utah scoured its rolls, and found ONE illegal voter.

Who had never voted.
www.democracydocket.com

#67 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:46 AM | Reply

Here's hoping BillJohnson gets a notice there's already been a guy named William Johnson who voted.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 10:49 AM | Reply

Dan,

"more links in the chain is almost never a good idea."

In automated accounting systems, when you consider all the hardware, software, networking and formatted data, you'd be shocked how many "links" data moves along. It's been a long gradual process the last 50+ years. Systems building on systems...again and again. Passing knowledge along to the next person to add more "links".

I put more trust in computer systems to track information that I do people.

#69 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 10:53 AM | Reply

The USPS rule would establish uniform tracking and accountability standards only for federal ballots going through the Postal Service.

Thanks for the offer. But no thanks.

California already has a "uniform tracking system".

We don't need election interference from vote Riggers and vote Snatchers like Trumpy.

#70 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-25 10:53 AM | Reply

"You really are obsessed with fraud. Try looking beyond your nose and see there is a lot more to be concerned with than just fraud."

You can't find ANY kind outside a half-dozen felons who easily got caught. Otherwise, your home state is averaging ONE VOTER FRAUD INCIDENT PER DECADE.

Where are these problems you speak of???

#71 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 11:01 AM | Reply

"It will be software and computers and of course, AI."

Now, let's take VA's history of convictions, and pretend the software and computers have a 99.99% accuracy rate.

4.4 million people voted in the presidential election in Virginia in 2024. A 99.99% accuracy rate would mean 440 suppressed votes.

At their current rate, the number of votes suppressed in ONE presidential election would take Virginia over 4,000 years of voter fraud to equal.

#72 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 11:03 AM | Reply

Our voting system is efficient and uniform across the state of California

You are welcome to copy our system but we are not going to conform to or copy West Virginia. That's for sure!

Thanks for the offer tho.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-25 11:05 AM | Reply

"I put more trust in computer systems to track information that I do people."

We already do that.

And anybody who's ever copied a video onto a second format and noticed the new video isn't quite as good as the original, realizes the problems inherent with adding yet another link in the game of telephone.

#74 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 11:06 AM | Reply

Dan,

"And anybody who's ever copied a video onto a second format and noticed the new video isn't quite as good as the original"

Analog video can degrade when it's copied.

Digital data doesn't work that way.

If you copy the data from one diskette to another successfully, the copied data is identical to the original.

It doesn't become slightly less accurate because it was copied.

#75 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 11:12 AM | Reply

"It doesn't become slightly less accurate because it was copied."

You're right; my error.

But let's say it goes through 7 hands, vs one hand. Do all 7 have the exact same safety protocols?

Doesn't 7 allow more points to possibly hack?

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 11:15 AM | Reply

"there is a lot more to be concerned with"

Name any of your concerns that are supported by evidence.

#77 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-25 11:22 AM | Reply

Bill Johnson is an unqualified Imbecile. Fuck off Bill, your idiotic opinion means nothing

#78 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2026-08-25 11:22 AM | Reply

Dan,

If you make 1000 copies of a cd, they'll all be identical.

Just ask the Chinese. They've known that for years.

#79 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2026-08-25 11:29 AM | Reply

"If you make 1000 copies of a cd, they'll all be identical."

And if you pass it around though 7 groups, does that INCREASE or DECREASE chances of a hack, versus only ONE link in the chain?

You took probability and statistics, right?

#80 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-25 11:31 AM | Reply

Thank the Gawds that I live in a state powerful enough and a Democratic Governor wise enough to stand against the voter suppression and disenfranchisement tactics of Trumpy and his corruption crew.

Expect more lawsuits from California.

We will not comply with your corruption.

#81 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-25 11:31 AM | Reply

If you copy the data from one diskette to another successfully, the copied data is identical to the original.

Not exactly true. Depending on how you handle the data.

If you repeatedly edit, compress, and re-export files like JPEGs (images) or MP3s (audio), each save discards data and degrades quality.

Changing a lossless format (like a WAV or RAW file) into a compressed format introduces permanent data loss.

While the digital file itself doesn't wear out from being copied, the physical storage drive, SSD, or CD holding the data can degrade or fail over time, leading to corruption or complete data loss.

Or Gamma rays from the andromeda galaxy. (My fav)

#82 | Posted by donnerboy at 2026-08-25 11:37 AM | Reply

Trump is already establishing (or established) a party that doesn't concede elections - unless they like the outcome.

And the idea is to put more power to the Feds?

No thanks.

#83 | Posted by brass30 at 2026-08-25 11:37 AM | Reply

"In its 10-page, unsigned opinion, the majority said that it was too soon for courts to consider the states' challenge because the order has not yet been carried out"

#12 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-24 10:27 PM

The irony is that the US Postal Service had already issued the order, contingent on the courts decision. So now, the states can proceed with their lawsuits, which could very well win in the various courts, thus assuring that nothing is changed for the midterm elections. Besides, the Court left in place an injunction against the USPS making any changes. So if nothing happens between now and next week, when early voting starts in some states, the Court's opinion will be meaningless since they can not claw back ballots already mailed or votes already cast.

OCU

#84 | Posted by OCUser at 2026-08-25 11:45 AM | Reply

Would solve a lot of problems (except the constitution problem people want to exploit so states will be able to cheat)

#36 | POSTED BY BILLJOHNSON

Evidence of which you've never produced.

F*^% off you stupid, unAmerican piece of s*^#.

#85 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-25 12:01 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort