Let's just uhh, ignore the concentration camps

I'm confused because you're complaining about 2 different things here

1: The President can apply "persuasion" to get states to not certify
2: The President is going through courts with claims

Well let him lose lol

The President is entitled to his day in court. If you're saying these are baseless they'll get thrown out and we don't need to worry about it

Simply put, JJ

Have a little faith in the separation of powers

Let him pretend?

The court docs are there to prove otherwise lol

What you're saying now is that the persuasion the President has to apply has already been thrown out in court

So now you're asking state powers to ignore court rulings

Gonna need a "Speech 100" to get past that one esteemed tribal leader

So they complain, Biden gets his votes, and is inaugurated

Working as intended

It's not attacking democracy if you believe your allegations

How do you know?

(After harassment)

That article doesn't say what you think it is

I just read it

And it doesn't say they knowingly submitted "spam"

They pretty much gave benefit of the doubt to those they were unable to verify. Which is a pretty common practice

Again, we're not talking about rulings, just intent

JJ thinks that the President's team is trying to commit crimes

I disagree

Did you miss the second line?
> The attorneys then visited the complainants’ homes. The Trump campaign said it excluded the submissions of those who swore to lies, but they included the ones they could not prove were lying into evidence

It's not a fraud case because it's not a fraud case

There's a difference between colloquial fraud and legal fraud

To the public they're saying fraud because colloquially it's fraud.

Yes, I'm aware of the Rachel Maddow lawsuit in which literally doesn't mean literally

Language is funny sometimes eh?

Allegedly fired but I think she'd have to be hired in the first place. Was she ever hired?

I gathered she was part of an independent team that sorta wanted to work with the President

Oh a tweet. How official

OK. Unfortunate.

iirc it wasn't Philly boarding up, it was Maricopa

Boarding up windows would be silly in Philly since the watchers complained that while let in, they had to observe from forever away

How many outstanding suits does the President have running? 3? 4?

Powell was allegedly fired

I still don't think she was ever hired so idk if fired works

So?

I seem to recall we had a 3 year investigation because Clinton supporters didn't believe 2016 was fair

Nah they're just gonna hold onto virus until February

After biden can say he did some stuff it'll get better

Didn't Europe do like all of that

Countries like germany in the EU with allegedly better medical systems have a higher case mortality rate than the US and they did all of the Nazi freedom shutdowns

Well that could just be that the flu is less transmissible and the Chinese virus is just transmissible enough to overcome the measures

Huge drop in flu cases is common knowledge by now. We've seen the reports

I think the biggest thing is people need to get past never getting it and to getting it at a controllable rate

Is there a non partisan case for the new administration to push additional justices

Because if the rationale is "this court might rule a way I don't like" that's not good enough imo

I just can't buy the argument that it's needed for balance since theoretically the court is non partisan. And roberts has been very passive on the court anyway and I don't think he'll stop.

In the NY case, he opted to take a more "it's not necessary to make a ruling" over "this is or isn't constitutional"

To me it sounds like the 2 justice solution is a placation strategy over a necessity

Uh no

That's literally not how it works

The court has no impact on it's contents

Who knows

Apparently president trump is not allowed to take back DACA

So by similar argument, a president biden should also be unable to pull back president trump's policy

But something tells me that's not the way it would go down

President trump has a history of supporting the death penality. It's not a spite thing

That should be old news though, that's from a while ago

When AG Barr authorized the use for 6 inmates

Unless there are new inmates, I'll have to check

James, you really should look into these issues regarding the US before having opinions. I understand you're not American but that's not an excuse

He tried to overturn daca in 2017

That's not the situation

The short version is Obama did not have the votes

Anti illegal immigration

There's a few things in the of senate policy but the whole issue came down to a difference in the outcomes of the 2012 and 2014 elections

We could just increase the barrier for scotus confirmation to what it once was but that'd require bipartisanship

So judges aren't allowed to be religious?

Are you aware several current justices before justice barret were practicing Catholic?

Typically the reason you would not confirm a judge is due to something related to their work in law

Is that true via statute?

Judges only apply the law. If you don't like a judges ruling but they applied the law as written, change the law not the judge

True

The senate could always just reject an unqualified candidate on such grounds

AI judges do not work because laws are written by people to be read by people

I'll remind you prior to ACB the Dems tried to block a very experienced judge on 30 year old allegations

So I'm not convinced Dems had any principle to their opposition to nominations

Not so fun fact, FDR had concentration camps. I'm not surprised

Oh sorry, "internment camps"

How often do constitution and criminal defense intersect

RGB is an icon for judicial activism

And I don't think there's a deeper meaning to choosing scalia. ACB could have just as easily chosen RGB as well. She simply chose not to

That checks legislation on what grounds

That's the key issue when it comes to allegations of judicial activism. On what grounds

Originalism doesn't back whatever you want to say it backs what someone else said when they wrote the law

There are 9 justices, I imagine one can figure out how to check the other's bias. I think the odds of em all having similar biases is pretty low

We could also ask the question of whether bias is even desirable

Well as far as the courts concerned, I don't want a diversity of opinion on what the constitution is.

Well what is a right? Does right mean you're entitled to it as supplied through taxpayer funding.

Though iirc it's 10 that says the rights are extended to the people

It's 9 not 10

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So just because it's not a right as written doesn't mean it does not exist. Doesn't mean it does exist either though

Btw this is the amendment used to defend Roe v Wade iirc

The constitution can always be changed as you may know alcohol was banned for a time. Right now, I do not believe anything would be used for that

Well, when states wanted slavery to be left to the states it started a war. I wonder if abortion would be the same