Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Just because they may report accurately sometimes doesn't mean they are not an extreme right-wing propaganda site. They are,

Why don't you put forth any evidence to support your claim "extreme right wing propaganda site"? I'll look at it.

Several examples will do. 

I can put forth tons of evidence to back up my claims and I often do, commenting upon it.

I can put forth evidence of suppression of stories and spin by the authors along with the easy ability to show how most of the leftist news today consists of nothing more than "opinion" pieces masquerading as news. by your leftist sources. 

Here's my informed guess at what your response will be:  

JL:  "I don't need to waste my time proving my accusations. Anyone can see the facts.  They are self-evident and right in front of everyone's faces".  

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Here's my informed guess at what your response will be:  

JL:  "I don't need to waste my time proving my accusations. Anyone can see the facts.  They are self-evident and right in front of everyone's faces".  

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Interestingly, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, among other conservatives, filed an amicus advising the court to throw the nonsense out:
 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/4/23481063/supreme-court-moore-harper-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-elections
So it appears the Federalist Society has at least some rational, sane people within its ranks, at least for now...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Interestingly, one of the founders of the Federalist Society, among other conservatives, filed an amicus advising the court to throw the nonsense out:
 https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/12/4/23481063/supreme-court-moore-harper-independent-state-legislature-doctrine-elections
So it appears the Federalist Society has at least some rational, sane people within its ranks, at least for now...

Originally Posted by James Brown

I have not yet read the briefs.  Still, the Vox reporting you linked to is too breathless to be credible at all.  From the article:

As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a 2020 concurring opinion endorsing the ISLD, “the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.” Notably, this opinion was joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who currently sits at the conservative Supreme Court’s ideological center.

The Vox author acts like this quote from Gorsuch is the end of democracy.  It is not.  On the contrary, it is a statement of fact.  State legislatures do indisputably bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.  Primary responsibility, is not unfettered, unquestionable authority.  

Maybe the petitioners are arguing that state legislatures are granted sole and unappealable authority by the Constitution for setting election rules.  I have not read their brief.  In other words, maybe they are arguing for no governor veto, no court oversight, no Supreme Court oversight at all to implement the 14th Amendment and other key aspects of the Constitution. 

The rest of the Vox article admits that the petitioners are not going that far.  Even if they were, I suspect the Court will confirm:

A.  That the state legislatures do have primary responsibility for setting election rules.  Good.  
B.  That the lower Courts and state executive branches should not be permitted to make up rules as they go, as is alleged to have happened in 2000.  
C.  On the flip side, I expect the Court to confirm that the state legislature's authority is not unappealable, is not absolute, and absolutely is subject to the state Constitution, veto, and judicial review, in the normal course of judicial review.  

ACB, Roberts and others certainly are leaning that way, based upon the questioning today.  

Jim  

Originally Posted by Russ Carroll

I’m not one to help the D’S generally, but I seriously doubt it will work to try and paint DeSantis as Trump Jr. 

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"The Florida state legislator who sponsored the bill that became known as the “Don’t Say Gay” bill has resigned after he was indicted for pandemic-era loan fraud."
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/3768020-sponsor-of-floridas-dont-say-gay-law-resigns-following-indictment-for-pandemic-aid-fraud/

That bill was one of Animus DeSantis' trademark pieces of legislation. 
"During a press conference ahead of signing the law, DeSantis said teaching kindergarten-aged kids that "they can be whatever they want to be" was "inappropriate" for children."
"He said, "It's not something that's appropriate for any place, but especially not in Florida."
"Leading up to the bill's signing, critics, which include The Walt Disney Company, lambasted Florida lawmakers for the legislation."
"On Monday, a spokesperson said in a statement that the company hopes the law is repealed or struck down in court."
https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089221657/dont-say-gay-florida-desantis
In response:
"DeSantis revokes Disney's special status after ‘Don’t Say Gay’ opposition"
"Requested by the Republican governor, the two bills punishing Disney were made public on Tuesday and signed into law by DeSantis roughly 77 hours later following a special legislative session originally called to address congressional redistricting."
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/04/22/desantis-disney-special-status-dont-say-gay-00027302

"Animus DeSantis" in action...

Originally Posted by James Lacey

Trump did a great job dividing the GOP electorate and winning elections for Democrats.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

You wanna tell me why you would vote for him?...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

You wanna tell me why you would vote for him?...