Posts Made By: James Brown

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

Hi James,

You could be right about the polls, it really depends on how they have tried to account for trump supporters. They missed out badly in 2016 and again in 2020. Here is an interesting look at the problem. https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2024/Items/Oct30-4.html

However, as always, polls are only a guide, it comes down to turnout. Which campaign does a better job of getting people to actually vote. Either way, I think it will come down to a few 1000 votes is a few states.

Cheers,

Maurice

Hi Maurice: I agree 100%. With polls this tight, turn out is everything.   Nice recent capture of the comet you posted in another thread, too!

Originally Posted by James Lacey

No one got their ass kicked. The lower court's ruling is on hold while it's being challenged. Plus, we are talking about a few votes in a non-battleground state. Sure, this feeds into the GOP narrative about non-citizens voting, but this whole kerfuffle is truly a nothing-burger. The only perplexing thing about it is the complete silence from the majority regarding their decision-making process. It truly is amazing how effectively the right-wing media can whip you into a frenzy.

Hi James: the Court’s ruling is here. https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/103024zr_f2ah.pdf

You are right, of course. Richard is wrong, not surprisingly.  The Court basically said the lower court orders are, “stayed (paused, or as you said on hold) pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought.  Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically.  In the event certiorari is granted, the stay  shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.”

The Supreme Court did not say more, because there’s really nothing more to say in this instance. The Fourth Circuit has to decide the case on the merits, and if one side, or the other is dissatisfied with the result, they can petition the Supreme Court for certiorari.

The articles do not say anything about the status of any legit citizens who are on the purge list, but I would be shocked if legitimate citizens are not given the opportunity to correct their registration and vote, at least provisionally, as Rod suggested. To the extent there are genuine non-citizens on the list, they are not allowed to vote in any case so purging them is no big deal.

This seems to me to be a case where the Biden administration and some left wing activists filed a lawsuit primarily to advance their own narrative of the Republicans actively trying to disenfranchise voters. Similarly, the Republicans in Virginia requested an emergency order from the Supreme Court primarily to advance their narrative of the Democrats trying by hook or crook to get illegals to vote. Politics, as usual, I guess….  

If both sides had been interested in solving a simple problem rather than narrative building, this minor issue could have been resolved without litigation.  Jim

p.s.  The lefties are spinning up their own "Richards" with this nothingburger as well.  Advancing another false narrative of the Supreme Court being in the tank for the Republicans.   https://www.vox.com/scotus/380956/supreme-court-voter-purge-virginia-beals-coalition-immigrant

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

According to the LA Times this morning the lower court motions were 'set aside' by the SCOTUS.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2024-10-30/supreme-court-virginia-republicans-purge-alleged-noncitizens-from-voting

From the article:  

Over three dissents, the court granted an emergency appeal from Virginia’s attorney general and set aside rulings by a federal judge who called the last-minute purge a “clear violation” of federal law.

That is how the LA Times reported it this morning.

Yes, the lower court rulings were set aside, "pending the disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought."  

So, The Supreme Court is letting Virginia do it's thing pending the results of an appeal on the merits.  So neither side has won yet.  I would not be surprised if the litigation stalls at this point, with VA reinstating the folks on the list who can demonstrate citizenship and purging those who can not.

Originally Posted by Richard Davis

Hmm.... what do You think of this?   Why do You think it hasn't been all over the news for the last 2 months?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UOMBMOMfbJE

Do You think that IF Donald Trump had said this, they wouldn't have had him in handcuffs within 35 seconds for threatening an insurrection?  

Looks like routine far left pandering and Court bashing.  I only listened once, but I heard a call to vote in this year’s election, and then a call to amend the constitution. I did not hear a call for genuine insurrection.  I personally think this sort of “Trump is an insurrectionist” rhetoric plus the Colorado and other cases seeking to have Trump disqualified under the 14th amendment have backfired immensely.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Looks like routine far left pandering and Court bashing.  I only listened once, but I heard a call to vote in this year’s election, and then a call to amend the constitution. I did not hear a call for genuine insurrection.  I personally think this sort of “Trump is an insurrectionist” rhetoric plus the Colorado and other cases seeking to have Trump disqualified under the 14th amendment have backfired immensely.

I watched again.  I heard Raskin say vote Trump out on Election Day and then “we” will need bodyguards because presumably, In his opinion, the Republicans will start a Civil War.  I certainly did not hear for him calling on Congress to decertify the 2024 election in advance. Maybe I missed it? In any case, he is completely full of BS as far as I can see regarding the 14th amendment, the Supreme Court, and Republicans in general.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Looks like routine far left pandering and Court bashing.  I only listened once, but I heard a call to vote in this year’s election, and then a call to amend the constitution. I did not hear a call for genuine insurrection.  I personally think this sort of “Trump is an insurrectionist” rhetoric plus the Colorado and other cases seeking to have Trump disqualified under the 14th amendment have backfired immensely.

Damn, user error on an iPad.

Originally Posted by James Brown

Looks like routine far left pandering and Court bashing.  I only listened once, but I heard a call to vote in this year’s election, and then a call to amend the constitution. I did not hear a call for genuine insurrection.  I personally think this sort of “Trump is an insurrectionist” rhetoric plus the Colorado and other cases seeking to have Trump disqualified under the 14th amendment have 

How about the Denver Broncos?

Originally Posted by James Brown

Looks like routine far left pandering and Court bashing.  I only listened once, but I heard a call to vote in this year’s election, and then a call to amend the constitution. I did not hear a call for genuine insurrection.  I personally think this sort of “Trump is an insurrectionist” rhetoric plus the Colorado and other cases seeking to have Trump disqualified under the 14th amendment have backfired immensely.

Sorry 😩

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

I'd love to see one or two or three of the cons on the court on one of those purged voter lists. 
That said, it appears that the statue the DOJ cited is relatively straightforward so I'm guessing this another example of the cons on SCOTUS refusing to consider a case on its merits except for the cases that only they self-select to do so...

The Supreme Court only reviews cases when they select to do so. That’s the way the system is designed.  In this instance no court of appeals has ruled on the merits after full hearing, so it makes perfect sense for the court of appeals to have the first crack.

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

"Former President Trump expressed tentative support for former independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s plan to remove fluoride from water.

“Well, I haven’t talked to him about it yet, but it sounds OK to me,” Trump told NBC News on Sunday."


"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), fluoride strengthens teeth and reduces cavities by adding minerals back into a person’s mouth that are lost during normal activity."

"Low levels of fluoride have been added to drinking water and is considered one of the greatest public health achievements over the last 100 years."


https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/4969032-trump-rfk-jr-fluoride-water-supply/


Thus, we all know General Jack D Ripper's commitment to remove fluoridated water was/is correct:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uonYyotd3TQ

Off the cuff thought, I did not even google this, but isn't water treatment the quintessential function of our local governments?  I would not worry too much about this sort of nonsense coming from Trump or Kennedy.