What does Clarence Thomas have up his robe sleeve?

[busybee01]

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.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

 

[struth]

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.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

 

[Rawley]

The US Supreme Court has recognized a state Supreme Court's right to interpret their state's Constitution.

THere was no issue in regard to the PA State Const. in this case (it was in others). The issue in this case was the order by the PA Supreme Court to extend the election by three days.

 

[struth]

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.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

 

[busybee01]

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.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

Have you read the state consititution?

 

[Rawley]

Sure, but that wouldn't of change the outcome of the election....even Thomas said that.
So therefore the case is moot....it's no longer a case in controversy

Fourth time- The Republican party did not ask the court to overturn the election. That is completly irrelevant to the Consitutional analysis. The issue is not moot. These parties will be at it again in a little over a years. And now the precedent, at least in PA, is that the state executive and the state court are free to determine the time and manner of the election, regardless of what laws are passed by the state legislature.

 

[struth]

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.

Republicans are doing the same thing. Putting the church above the state is wrong. That is what the pilgrims were fleeing.

Well, I am not sure if that's wrong or not....that's a moral thing....and no the Pilgrims were fleeing a Govt that was attacking them for their religious beliefs..ie not putting the State ahead of their religion

The Pilgrims fled a country where the Church of England was a part of the government. The Supreme Court has placed the church above the state. They have imposed their religious beliefs on us.

which ones? the Catholic ones? the Jewish ones?

Yes the Govt of England would not let the Pilgrims practice their faith freely, they left that oppressive Govt. Part of which inspired our First Amendment, which thankfully we have, and a Court, that prevented an oppressive Govt from forcing people to violate their faith...like we saw in recent years

 

[struth]

Sure, but that wouldn't of change the outcome of the election....even Thomas said that.
So therefore the case is moot....it's no longer a case in controversy

Fourth time- The Republican party did not ask the court to overturn the election. That is completly irrelevant to the Consitutional analysis. The issue is not moot. These parties will be at it againin a little over a years. And now the precedent, at least in PA, is that the state executive and the state court are free to determine the time and manner of the election, regardless of what laws passed by the state legislature.

They asked them to toss the votes....but as Thomas even highlighted it wouldn't of mattered...hence the war is over, not need to hear the case

 

[struth]

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.

Sure, there are lots of different ways to commit crimes involving voting

Sure they are, what makes you think the SCOTUS can't review state laws? They do all the time

I never said they couldn't. The court rejected the cases because they understand that states have the right to create their own laws here.

No that's not the ruling the Courts gave.....nor was that the issue in the case. The issue in the case was that the State Court, not the people or legislature changed the law unilaterally.

You say the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has no right to interpret the state's Constitution. That is bullshit.

No...I do however believe they can't extend deadlines in a law on their own. The issue in this case was there was a law.....the Court then to try and deal with Covid delays, extended the deadline in the law by three days. That's not interrupting anything, that's changing the law

I suppose you have read the Pennsylvania Constitution.

I haven't....but maybe you can point me to the part where it says that the Judicial branch can simply add on to a law? This isn't creating case law....they literally took the law, and simply added three more day for the deadline.

So you say. The state Supreme Court has every right to interpret their state's Constitution. It does not violate the federal Constitution. If the Pennsylvania legislature wants to pass a law clarifying that then they can do so.

I never said they didn't.....but they weren't interpreting their Constitution but a law....moreover they didn't even interpret it, they simply added three days.

If the PA State Leg added three days there would be no issue, but that's not what happened.

Have you read the state consititution?

I already answered that question.....and frankly I am not sure why you are even asking because the PA State Constitution has nothing to do with this case or thread. This is about a State law, not the State Constitution, a particular law in fact.

If you are suggesting the PA State Constitution allows the State Court to add to a law, then provide that part of the Constitution for us.....if such a provision existed, it would run foul to the US Constitution in this case

 

[Care4all]

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.

Nice try, but no cigar.

Maybe you should actually read the PA Supreme Court Decision on this case...and why they ruled the way they did, so to know more on what you are debating.... and we all are debating? Let me see if I can find it again.... I read it at the time of the decision a while back and have certainly forgotten some of it....

Also, there is long standing precedent, that the US Supreme court does NOT involve themselves in election disputes....

The exception was Bush v Gore, where they specifically stated that their decision on that was a 1 time move by them and could not be used as precedent for any future case.

 

[Rawley]

They asked them to toss the votes....but as Thomas even highlighted it wouldn't of mattered...hence the war is over, not need to hear the case

The war is certainly not over. Look at who the parties are, the Repub. Party of PA and the Dem SOS of PA. They will be at it again in 18 months and the precedent will allow the same thing to happen.

Perhaps look at it a bit differently, what if it did overturn the presidential election in PA, but not the National election? Do you still think it's moot?

 

[struth]

They asked them to toss the votes....but as Thomas even highlighted it wouldn't of mattered...hence the war is over, not need to hear the case

The war is certainly not over. Look at who the parties are, the Repub. Party of PA and the Dem SOS of PA. They will be at it again in 18 months and the precedent will allow the same thing to happen.

Perhaps look at it a bit differently, what if it did overturn the presidential election in PA, but not the National election? Do you still think it's moot?

As you to your first point, maybe....but that's another case.

To your second, yes

 

[Shelzin]

It's explained well... It's true in every regard as far as my opinion goes.

 

[Rawley]

Maybe you should actually read the PA Supreme Court Decision on this case...and why they ruled the way they did, so to know more on what you are debating.... and we all are debating? Let me see if I can find it again.... I read it at the time of the decision a while back and have certainly forgotten some of it....

What makes you think I didn't read it?

Also, there is long standing precedent, that the US Supreme court does NOT involve themselves in election disputes....

The exception was Bush v Gore, where they specifically stated that their decision on that was a 1 time move by them and could not be used as precedent for any future case.

No question they don't like getting involved in political issues.

But to your first point, think about it. PA Supreme Court absolutely has the right to review the constitutionality of PA laws under the PA Constitution. No question. But if the relief they grant is unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution, it doesn't matter what the state constitution says.

 

[Shelzin]

Downvoted... Without watching the video okfine?

That's an odd thing to do so obviously.

 

[Kondor3]

It's explained well... It's true in every regard as far as my opinion goes.

It has very little basis in fact, but it DOES say what YOU want to hear, so... it's all good...

Although not a single one of his colleagues would touch it with a ten-foot Pole... OR an eight-foot Hungarian...

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Court is compromise.

We need to remove the entire federal government and start over.

The Republic is GONE.

 

[Shelzin]

It's explained well... It's true in every regard as far as my opinion goes.

It has very little basis in fact, but it DOES say what YOU want to hear, so... it's all good...

Although not a single one of his colleagues would touch it with a ten-foot Pole... OR an eight-foot Hungarian...

Did you watch the video? It doesn't seem like you did, as... What facts do you think he explained was wrong?

 

[Kondor3]

It's explained well... It's true in every regard as far as my opinion goes.

It has very little basis in fact, but it DOES say what YOU want to hear, so... it's all good...

Although not a single one of his colleagues would touch it with a ten-foot Pole... OR an eight-foot Hungarian...

Did you watch the video? It doesn't seem like you did, as... What facts do you think he explained was wrong?

I didn't say he explained facts wrong... I said that his premise has very little basis in fact... big difference... he's chasing ghosts that aren't there...