So, do we still need to pack the court?

Yes, but not for reasons you're probably thinking. The Court should be increased to 15 Justices. The Court should initially here cases in three Justice panels like Circuit Courts. Then parties either accept the panel decision or seek further review with the full court. The reason is because the Supreme Court receives tens of thousands of requests for help a year. It only grants less than a hundred a year. The Court needs to expand its docket. Congress can help with that.

The recent SCOTUS decision has apparently turned our elections over to moneyed interests.

This one?

Issacharoff: "A Welcome Correction: NRSC v. FEC and the Need to Empower Parties"

The Supreme Court's decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, striking down FECA's limits on political-party coordinated expenditures and overruling Colorado II, is a welcome and overdue correction. For a quarter century, campaign finance doctrine maintained an artificial constitutional distinction between parties and the candidates they exist to elect"treating a party's spending in cooperation with its own nominees as a species of suspect, regulable activity, even while the party's independent spending on the very same candidates went unregulated. Justice Kavanaugh's opinion is right to recognize that this line never made much sense. Parties and candidates are not adversaries who happen to share an interest; they are, as Justice Thomas put it in his Colorado II dissent, engaged in the ordinary, expected work of a party system"choosing standard-bearers, building platforms, and pooling resources to get them elected.

Birthright citizenship is not the problem. Birthright tourism and similar activities are the problem. Focus on the problem. Legislate accordingly. An amendment has zero chance.

C'mon, practically, rank insignia determines who salutes who. As long as enlisted know clergy are officers, problem solved. Among the clergy, their numbers are so few, they probably know who's who and if not will figure it out real quick.

I can't stand the Buffoon administration but this has nothing to do with religion.

#91

I acknowledge the disparity. I question the reasons. To my knowledge there are studies that identify many. Race is but one.

Back to Colin County, I'm just guessing but I suspect 35 is low for straight up murder. I would expect life w/possible parole.

I'm not seeing the hard race questions. I'm seeing the wtf taught this kid he could occupy a sporting opponent's space and refuse to leave when asked hard question. Being a -------- ain't self defense.

#14 Absolute BS. Anybody stab anybody in Colin County Texas, you're going to jail. I think 35 is harsh. I could see the sudden passion max 20 but not the sudden passion finding. This wasn't sudden passion. It was f**k you I do what I want and you can't stop me.

Congrats to the Knicks. As a Texan I wanted a different result but Knicks did it, Congrats.

That said, last month my youngest son was married in SA. We stayed at a property on Lake Medina designed to be waterfront. The ATV trails busted that. Yet I learned something I didn't know, SA is in the hill country! The backroad was about 7 miles of left curve, right curve, 30mph, 20mph, 40mph. A blast.

Yeah well, patting yourself on the back about your voting history hardly addresses a statement about "harassment, hassled or discouraged" from voting. In your opinion, am I correct in that reading?

In your opinion, am I correct in that reading?

I don't know without knowing the basis for the DOJ's opinion.

#10 | Posted by jpw

Their motive is not a basis. What is the legal rationale according to the article I can't read?

#3 | Posted by catdog

I've been registered and have voted in every federal and pert near every local election since 1972. That includes a small, a medium and the largest county (3 different precincts) in Texas. I've never waited more than about 20 minutes to vote nor have I ever been harassed, hassled or otherwise felt anyone was discouraging me from voting. Nor have I ever witnessed such against another voter.

Damn Democracy Docket, and any other website, demanding my email to view their content. However, contrary to the headline a statute governs list maintenance and the time period for removals. So, wtf is the basis for DOJ's position?

The 90-Day Quiet Period Before Federal Elections

The NVRA limits when States can conduct a general list maintenance program. Under Section 8(c)(2), States must complete any program that systematically removes the names of ineligible voters from the official list of eligible voters no later than 90 days before a primary election or general election for federal office. In other words, once an election for federal office is less than 90 days away, processing and removals based on systematic list maintenance must cease. And, if a State's federal primary election occurs less than 90 days before a federal general election, the State must complete any systematic-removal program based on change of address for the federal election cycle no later than 90 days prior to the federal primary election: no further systemic activity may take place between the primary and general elections.

This 90-day deadline applies to State list maintenance verification activities such as general mailings and door-to-door canvasses. This deadline also applies to list maintenance programs based on third-party challenges derived from any large, computerized data-matching process. However, the 90-day deadline does not preclude removal of a registrant's name at the request of that registrant, removal due to the death of the registrant, or removal due to a criminal conviction or mental incapacity of the registrant as provided by State law, nor does the deadline preclude the correction of a registrant's information. 52 U.S.C. 20507(c)(2)(B).

@78

Your post took up more than a page. Thus I just close the tab.

#11 What? I guess I'm dense, clueless, etc .. .

I don't think I've ever voted for Cornyn except possibly as a TSC justice. In this runoff I'll vote for Cornyn, Paxton is a criminal sleaze. In the general I'll vote for anyone but Cornyn or Paxton.

I paid $3.85 (card) a couple days ago at 1960 and Kenswick. I passed $3.79 (cash) as well as $4+ (card).

Not as bad as $4.50+ diesel several years back.