This was Texas. How did the investigation even get beyond the deputies on the scene not to mention to a grand jury?

It's common in Texas to take these types of cases to a grand jury. That helps insulate the elected District Attorney from any political fallout.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are about governance. They say nothing directly about abortion (or any other social issue) and virtually nothing indirectly. See Powell's ramblings about the Constitution in Roe. As such, the existence of abortion at common law was committed to the states via the Tenth Amendment some of whom legislated against it.

I'm not dismissing anything. I paraphrased an author of an article that's in part about a law review Barrett co-authored where she did not accept the quoted arguments of others.

Oh, it's "falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater." Seems like a reasonable boundary to me.

She is a radical consrvative [sic] who is a threat to the freedom and citizenship of millions of Americans. Totally unqualified for the SC and truly a terrible choice for the court.

Why, because she does not accept, except for theoretical argument purposes, that "West Virginia was invalidly admitted as a state; that the 14th Amendment wasn't properly ratified; and that paper money is unconstitutional, among other surprising conclusions."

She is basically a political appointee there to rule in his favor during any challenge no matter how specious.

A president's subjective expectations about a nominee are not always fulfilled by that nominee. See H. W. Bush's expectations about Justice Souter.

dailysoundandfury.com

These "originalists" want to negate Amendments as if they weren't allowed under the original doucment. They are simply wrong and the woman will do grave damage to our nation if confirmed.
#43 | Posted by danni

You bought Summer's conclusion hook, line and sinker. Too bad he, and ostensibly you, fails to comprehend the law review, titled CONGRESSIONAL ORIGINALISM, which he cites in his article. Barret expressly rejects Summer's conclusion.

Members of Congress are differently situated. While the stylized process of adjudication narrows the questions presented to the Court, in Congress the question of a measure's constitutionality is always on the table. And because framing constraints do not narrow the relevant and permissible grounds of decision as they do in litigation, evaluating a bill's constitutionality arguably requires analysis of every possible constitutional flaw. That could put the originalist legislator in a bind. After all, if the legislator owes allegiance to the original public meaning, it is not obvious why the legislator need not ensure that a bill complies with that meaning in every respect. Because the kinds of procedural outs that permit originalism and deep-seated error to coexist in courts are not as readily apparent in the legislative context, the originalist legislator might have to face questions that an originalist justice can escape"such as the constitutionality of the administrative state or the legitimacy of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, broad-brush arguments about the obligation imposed by the legislator's oath of office, combined with the originalist emphasis on the preeminence of the text's original meaning, strongly suggest that a member of Congress must do just that.

We think that is wrong. Part III contends that it misinterprets the duty of fidelity to the text to maintain that Congress (or any individual member) must strip every constitutional question down to the studs. [Emphasis added.]

Barret makes no argument that the Fourteenth Amendment is "illegitimate" although she cites others who do then she meticulously and persuasively explains how deciding that question is both impractical and unnecessary.

FTA:

Some might argue that you should want your probable intellectual opponent on the court to be the weakest possible, to help you win. But the Supreme Court is not and should not be a battlefield of winner-take-all political or ideological division.

It would be nave to deny that there is plenty of politics in constitutional interpretation. There are winners and losers every time the justices take a stance on an important issue of law. Nevertheless, the institutional purpose of the Supreme Court is to find a resolution of political conflicts through reason, interpretation, argument and vote-casting, not pure power politics. It follows that the social purpose of the Supreme Court is best served when justices on all sides of the issues make the strongest possible arguments, and do so in a way that facilitates debate and conversation.

Temporary Contract Election Worker Worked Only 3 Days Before Apparent Mistake in Discarding That Handful of Pa Military Ballots

#119

The scenario pretends there is only one candidate on the ballot. It also assumes the vote will break in only one direction. It ignores the hundreds of other federal candidates on the ballot as well as state and local officials. You think all those folks are just gonna roll over and ignore votes in their favor?

What Joe said. Also, there are other candidates on these ballots possibly including those being asked to ignore them. Self interest suggests they won't do that.

"In order for Trump to do this successfully, he will require the cooperation of the republican party and many in the leadership" which he doesn't perceive as probable."

I haven't seen anything that would make me believe republican senators in congress are willing to do anything to cross Trump.

I believe the Republican senators and representatives that won on the ballots the Buffoon want to have thrown out won't cooperate with that gambit. If a ballot is invalid for one candidate it's invalid for all.

Yes, his plan is to get the SC to invalidate millions of mail-in ballots across the country ...

How would that work as a practical matter? A federal ballot is a federal ballot. If it's thrown out for one candidate on the ballot then it's out for all candidates. How are the senators and representatives on that ballot going to react? Do you really expect the Court to invalidate an entire election? I don't see that happening.

I agree with what you say but rules isn't evidence.

Neither argument is dependent on evidence. The arguments are purely legal. The only evidence required is copy of the PASC opinion.

"Trump's filing is so frivolous it's an embarrassment. No attorney goes before the Supreme Court without concrete evidence to make their case."

In two "voter fraud" cases in PA, the plaintiffs have had to admit they couldn't find any fraud ...

Chill out. This Pennsylvania case is not about the run of the mill fraud claims the Buffoon has ranted and raved about for months.

This is about "illegal" ballots that arise in two ways. While the arguments may not prevail they are not frivolous unlike the rants.

First, ballots without a postmark or an illegible postmark are "illegal" because the ballot cannot be determined to have been cast before the close of election day voting but must be counted if received within three days of the close. The alleged effect of the 3 days is to extend election day beyond Nov. 3 in contravention of federal law.

Second, ballots counted in the above manner are "illegal" because the extension was effected by the PA Supreme Court in contravention of the Elections Clause which grants control over the "time, place and manner" of elections to the state legislatures not the state courts.

Counter point.

The Chances of a 4-4 Supreme Court Split on Election Issues is Not a Reason to Rush a Supreme Court Confirmation; It's a Reason to Wait to Confirm a Justice

Within minutes of the announcement of Justice Ginsburg's death, we started seeing the argument advanced that a Supreme Court confirmation needs to be rushed so that a Justice is in place before the election, so as to break a potential 4-4 tie on an 8-Justice Supreme Court. President Trump made the point on "Fox & Friends" this morning. The argument is nonsense.

... a 13-member Supreme Court ...

If the Court were to be expanded, and I'm not yet convinced it should be, I would prefer 15 Justices. Then have the Court hear cases in five judge panels with a procedure to seek full court review. Similar to Circuit Court practice.

My guess, Naomi Rao get the nod.

Time, nomination to confirmation.

Of the 15 nominees listed in the figure [1975 to present], Robert Bork waited the greatest number of days (108) from nomination to a final Senate vote"followed by Clarence Thomas (99), while John Paul Stevens waited the, fewest number of days (19)"followed by Sandra Day O'Connor (33).57

Overall, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote is 69.6 days (or approximately 2.3 months), while the median is 69.0 days.58

Of the eight Justices currently serving on the Court, the average number of days from nomination to final Senate vote is 72.0 days (or approximately 2.4 months), while the median is 69.5 days. Among the current Justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg waited the fewest number of days from nomination to confirmation (42), while Clarence Thomas waited the greatest number of days (99).

This certain to set off a political firestorm.

Rest in peace Justice Ginsburg. You served honorably and well. May your successor be so fortunate.

#25

Seriously? Read the article. "Larose cited ..."

Ut oh, now there's going to be an appeal.

... if you want your vote to count it is easy, go to the polls and vote. If you depend on the post office, you will never know.

He should be charged under terrorism laws because that is exactly what false fearmongering is, domestic terrorism.

I'm having a problem coming up with any crime much less domestic terrorism.

#124 | POSTED BY DRIVELIKEJEHU

We should all be vigilant but there's not much to be concerned about.

The Trump 2016 campaign, of which I was not a part, could produce no hard evidence of systemic fraud. Trump established a Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity in 2017 to expose all the fraud he maintains permeates our elections. He named the most vociferous hunters of Democratic election fraud to run the commission. It disbanded without finding anything.

The Heritage Foundation Election Fraud Database has compiled every instance of any kind of voter fraud it could find since 1982. It contains 1,296 incidents, a minuscule percentage of the votes cast. A study of results in three states where all voters are mailed actual ballots, a practice at the apex of the president's outrage, found just 372 possible cases of illegal voting of 14.6 million cast in the 2016 and 2018 general elections " 0.0025 percent.

The president's rhetoric has put my party in the position of a firefighter who deliberately sets fires to look like a hero putting them out. Republicans need to take a hard look before advocating laws that actually do limit the franchise of otherwise qualified voters. Calling elections "fraudulent" and results "rigged" with almost nonexistent evidence is antithetical to being the "rule of law" party.

#116 | Posted by danni

Maskhole.

Couple more health experts saying in person voting is not a significant health risk.

That sounds, to me, like a violation of her right to vote.