What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[Rawley]

Of course it could be moot....what the PA Court did wasn't something that was going to continue...it was just this one time...so it's moot..

The PA Court and its Executive will never ever never make any decisions in regard to election procedures?

 

[Rawley]

Well, by refusing to hear the case, they are saying something

Not really. THey only take 1% of the appeals to the court.

agreed.....the ones they want to hear, which says something

OK, I'll bite - what do you think the Court is "saying" by not hearing the case?

 

[Rawley]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

It's not a courts place to make law. They make rulings on it. It's not a governors place either. Election rules and laws are simply the job of the State Legislature. What was done was not constitutional and boundaries were overstepped. I dont care who was a R or a D. thats not even the point, just a distraction.

The S.C. should have taken a look at this. Who else has oversight of such a constitutional matter?
other than the S.C.

Agreed. And that was Thomas' point.

 

[Yarddog]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

It's not a courts place to make law. They make rulings on it. It's not a governors place either. Election rules and laws are simply the job of the State Legislature. What was done was not constitutional and boundaries were overstepped. I dont care who was a R or a D. thats not even the point, just a distraction.

The S.C. should have taken a look at this. Who else has oversight of such a constitutional matter?
other than the S.C.

Agreed. And that was Thomas' point.

Its nice to know there is at least ONE supreme court justice who isn't afraid to speak up.

 

[pknopp]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Huh? Why are you talking about mootness?

Read the replies. I didn't initially bring it up.

 

[pknopp]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

It's not a courts place to make law. They make rulings on it. It's not a governors place either. Election rules and laws are simply the job of the State Legislature. What was done was not constitutional and boundaries were overstepped. I dont care who was a R or a D. thats not even the point, just a distraction.

The S.C. should have taken a look at this. Who else has oversight of such a constitutional matter?
other than the S.C.

This is all a state issue.

 

[Rawley]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Huh? Why are you talking about mootness?

Read the replies. I didn't initially bring it up.

?? I read your reply to me and you said "If they had the point wouldn't be moot" Mootness doesn't make any sense as to why they turned down this case.

 

[struth]

Of course it could be moot....what the PA Court did wasn't something that was going to continue...it was just this one time...so it's moot..

The PA Court and its Executive will never ever never make any decisions in regard to election procedures?

This case has nothing to do with the executive branch....just the Court extending the three day deadline in this one election.

The three day extension isn't permenant...it was just for this election

 

[struth]

Well, by refusing to hear the case, they are saying something

Not really. THey only take 1% of the appeals to the court.

agreed.....the ones they want to hear, which says something

OK, I'll bite - what do you think the Court is "saying" by not hearing the case?

That's it's moot

 

[pknopp]

Republican's were caught cheating in North Carolina and it had nothing to do with mail in votes.

That noted, state election laws are not the venue of Clarence Thomas.

When the states violate the Constitution, they are.

If they had the point wouldn't be moot, would it?

Huh? Why are you talking about mootness?

Read the replies. I didn't initially bring it up.

?? I read your reply to me and you said "If they had the point wouldn't be moot" Mootness doesn't make any sense as to why they turned down this case.

If you had read all the replies you would have understood the reference.

 

[Rawley]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The Supreme Court disagreed. The Supreme Court that is now considered a conservative court.

Why is it considered a Conservative Court? I haven't seen an overwhelmingly one sided series of rulings that have benefitted conservative causes. Not at all. If anything it is a pretty moderate court leaning slightly left. Roberts is Hardly any sort of right winger.
My feeling is they wanted to avoid conflict and decided to not take a stand. had Trump somehow been able to overturn the vote by a legal decision, there would have been riots in every city that would have made the Capitol Building riot look like a Sunday brunch.
The S.C. had to be aware of this, and they also know they themselves would come under threat...
Just like when Schummer lead a crowd to the Supreme Court Building when Justice Kavinaugh was being confirmed. i dont think the S.C. forgot that

LOL, you have three judges nominate by Trump and three nominated by the Bush's. If you have an issue and you can't get them to side with you, you might as well throw in the towel.

It shouldnt matter who a Judge is nominated by. They are supposed to be impartial really DESPITE their personal beliefs. However it is true that S.C. judges nominated by Democrat Presidents are anything but impartial, they tend to put their personal beliefs first which is probably why Democrats project onto everyone else this shortcoming.

The Democrat nominated judges sided with the judges nominated from the other side of the aisle. There are only three judges nominated by the (D)'s. They can't make this ruling on their own.

It's not a courts place to make law. They make rulings on it. It's not a governors place either. Election rules and laws are simply the job of the State Legislature. What was done was not constitutional and boundaries were overstepped. I dont care who was a R or a D. thats not even the point, just a distraction.

The S.C. should have taken a look at this. Who else has oversight of such a constitutional matter?
other than the S.C.

This is all a state issue.

No, it's a US Constitutional issue. The Const explicitly gives the state legislatures the power to determine the time place and manner of the election. "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof." PA court, not the legislature changed the time and the manner of the election in this case, not the legislature.

 

[Rawley]

That's it's moot

How is it moot?

 

[DrLove]

Clarence? Dude’s on his death bed. Good riddance

 

[struth]

That's it's moot

How is it moot?

Because the three day extension wasn't permanent, and the case in conttroversy is over. Nothing the SCOTUS would have done, even if they ruled the extension was illegal, would give the plantiff relief. It wouldn't of changed the outcome of the election

 

[Rawley]

If you had read all the replies you would have understood the reference.

Seems clear you guys don't know he meaning of moot. The concert was cancelled. "How do I get a ticket for the concert" is a moot question. The question of what power the States courts and the state Executives have to change the time place and manner of federal elections is anything but moot.

 

[struth]

Clarence? Dude’s on his death bed. Good riddance

Really? I hadn't heard.....what's wrong? He's only 72.....he's got a good 15 years left

 

[Rawley]

Because the three day extension wasn't permanent, and the case in conttroversy is over.

Far from it. Without the SC saying NFW way can you do that sort of thing, they, and other state courts will do this again, and again.

nothing the SCOTUS would have done, even if they ruled the extension was illegal, would give the plantiff relief.

Sure it would have. THey would have thrown out all of the ballots receive after election day.

It wouldn't of changed the outcome of the election

Not at all what the plaintiff was asking for.

 

[struth]

If you had read all the replies you would have understood the reference.

Seems clear you guys don't know he meaning of moot. The concert was cancelled. "How do I get a ticket for the concert" is a moot question. The question of what power the States courts and the state Executives have to change the time place and manner of federal elections is anything but moot.

That's a good example of moot...but in the legal sense the Courts will look at an individual case. Sure the issue you have highlighted can be litigated again, if the case is ripe....but this case is dead

 

[Care4all]

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;

Article I, Section 4, Clause 1: U.S. Constitution.

Yeah well in the state of Penn. the state legislature was overridden by the Governor and the state court. That is not constitutional. It is the Legislature who decides and that is one of the reasons they exist. The governor decided, mail in ballots... signatures not important... Post dates not important.

that is asking for corruption and it also makes corruption hard to prove when you don't need signatures.

this conflict between a State legislature and its Governor DOES make it a Supreme Court issue.

The article states the PA State supreme court, said PA law states all legislative election law created, is subject to judicial review in the State.

Therefore, the PA Supreme court duty of election law judicial review, was LEGISLATED by the State legislators.... which made their decision, constitutional.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I read his dissent and he's 100% right. Too bad the Democrat lunatics can't discount him and label him a priveledged Whitey.

They'll just label him as a privileged Uncle Tom.