Stock up... Because I will keep posting it as long as people still insist erroneously that the executive and judicial branches exceeded their authority.
Isn’t that the one where their opinion was something to the effect of the legislature decided the manner of which the electors are to be chosen which is through popular vote, so as long as it’s a popular vote the Executive can do whatever they want.
If it were the other way around I’m quite sure they would have come up with some justification to legitimize the other electors. Legal rationale becomes quite flexible when it pertains to the Democrats. The Obamacare decision proved that.
That's not how I read it.... They absolutely chastised the county clerks who posted that it was a way to request a ballot if you did not have the means for uploading an image of your ID to the absentee ballot request site. That was a colossally stupid move on the clerk's part. They should have made an effort to help voters with the technology more.
Obviously I added that emphasis. But that was the impression I got from their wording (unless I’m mixing up states). It seems that they gave the executive the same latitude federal agencies have which is very broad as long as they remain within the confines of the statute.
I am not sure what wording you are referring to... The larger point is that the legislatures allowed for emergency measures to be enacted. Here in CA, the governor indicated his intention to allow universal mail-in and the legislature responded by passing a law to make sure there was no ambiguity with overwhelming bipartisan support.
They said if you are taking issue with changes to how the election is run file them beforehand you can’t wait to see the election results then throw out votes cast following the rules in place and also the state legislature isn’t allow to just throw out election results because their candidate didn’t win. Pretty reasonable
If you file it before or after an election you have to do it properly. They seem to be struggling with doing that in both cases. They lost some prior to election because they were unable to show harm prior to election
It seems like it is if you’re trying to stop a rule change. How did the Dems have standing to bring a suit beforehand? Is it because it’s inherent to their case that the rule must be changed prior to the election? And why wouldn’t that rationale apply for the other side?
Hm well Georgia the executive was implementing changes between general and runoffs and Dems went in and won the cases. I don’t know the details of how they presented it differently just that it seems possible. It seems though you can have a case and present it in a right or poor way and lose the case on poor laywering
The Q-Anon shaman, arrested on Friday after turning himself in, has refused to eat food provided in the federal facility he is being held in because he only eats "a strict shamanic diet of pure organic food".
A bunch of fake accounts were made to make right wing folks look popular. They are deleted. Now they will claim Twitter bots are part of their 1st amendment rights somehow
