Below is my column in USA Today on the Supreme Court’s rejection of the challenge to the Arizona’s new election rules. The 6-3 decision undermines the claims raised in the new challenge to Georgia’s election law. Indeed, the Biden Administration is pursuing a new challenge that could result in a sweeping loss under the Voting Rights Act.
Here is the column:
With its decision Thursday in the voting rights case of Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the court closed its term with a decision that will resonate not just legally but politically for years to come.
The 6-3 decision upheld Arizona’s new voting rules in Arizona over claims of racial discrimination. While the court said it would be imprudent to create a sweeping rule for all future such cases, it was equally imprudent for the Biden administration to ignore the forthcoming decision in filing a new challenge to Georgia’s new voting rights. The lawsuit against Georgia’s new voting rules was clearly timed to beat the court to the punch, but Brnovich delivers a haymaker for those seeking to block such state laws. Indeed, the decision magnifies the concern that the Georgia challenge is more of a political than a legal statement from the Biden administration.
In his majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito upheld two new voting rules in Arizona that barred “harvesting” of votes by political groups and discarded ballots cast in the wrong precinct. The lower courts divided on the question. Some rejected the discrimination claims. However, the Ninth Circuit reheard the case and struck down the provisions. Alito rejected claims that such laws are presumptively racist and more narrowly construed the reach of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which forbids restrictions that abridge the right to vote on account of race.
The Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that upheld the laws, that “the spark for the debate over mail-in voting may well have been provided by one Senator’s enflamed partisanship, but partisan motives are not the same as racial motives.”
Many of us anticipated the reversal of the Ninth Circuit. That appears to include many in the Biden administration. Usually when the court is about to issue a major interpretation of a federal statute, the Justice Department will wait to read the opinion before filing a major action. Instead, the administration filed the challenge to Georgia’s new voting law just days before the end of the term.
The problem with the filing was captured by President Joe Biden himself who repeatedly misrepresented the Georgia law, calling it “Jim Crow on steroids.” Even The Washington Post awarded him four “Pinocchios” for his characterization of the law. For example, Biden declared, “it’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at 5 o’clock when working people are just getting off work.” Biden repeated this claim despite it being untrue. The election law actually does the opposite. It guaranteed that, at a minimum, polls would remain open for a full workday while allowing extended hours commonly used on Election Day.
Biden also claimed that the law prevents water from being given to voters waiting in line at polling places: “Imagine passing a law saying you cannot provide water or food for someone standing in line to vote, can’t do that? C’mon!” That is also untrue.
The law does not prevent providing water to people standing in line. The law allows “self-service water from an unattended receptacle” for voters waiting in line. Instead, it blocks campaigns from directly supplying such drinks and allows anyone to give water to voters outside of a limited area around the polling place. In reality, the Georgia law has considerable overlap with provisions in other states.
Nevertheless, the complaint in United States v. Georgia hits these same provisions.
While the court just stated a narrow interpretation of Section 2, the Biden administration advanced a sweeping interpretation and a strikingly unfocused claim of racial discriminatory impact. While the claims are not identical, this case will now go forward in conflict not only with the general thrust of Brnovich, but in reliance on the same type of presumptions of racism rejected by the court. This follows the court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder that effectively ended preclearance requirements for states like Georgia under the Voting Rights Act.
Ironically, the Justice Department filed on the eighth anniversary of the Shelby decision, but chose to file before it could read the last post-Shelby opinion on laws burdening the right to vote. In the new decision, the court declared that all voting rules create some sort of burden but “mere inconvenience cannot be enough to demonstrate a violation of Sec. 2.”
None of that bodes well for the Georgia lawsuit. Indeed, it strongly suggests that the Biden administration is setting itself up for failure. The case is weak, the precedent is hostile, and timing is suspect. So why would Attorney General Merrick Garland green light a case that seems likely to fail in spectacular fashion?
While I have great respect for Garland, this does seem like a rare moment of weakness in yielding to political pressure from the White House and Congress. The lawsuit legitimates Biden’s over-heated rhetoric on Republicans dragging the nation back into the Jim Crow era.
Garland has been under increasing pressure for failing to use the Justice Department more aggressively against Republicans. Critics want the Justice Department to get with the program and support these key narratives going into the midterm elections. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin just a few months ago heralded Garland in a headline as “the right pick” for attorney general but in June denounced him as “the wrong man” for not using the department to pursue Trump and Republicans.
The Justice Department has long followed a “first do no harm” approach to lawsuits. If you truly value voting rights, you do not want to advance cases that are likely to fail and further limit voting rights laws. Instead, the Biden administration filed a lawsuit before hearing from the court on the very provision that it is raising in lower courts. Those lower courts are required to follow precedent of the Supreme Court, not the politics of the moment.
In her dissent to Brnovich, Justice Elena Kagan criticized the “cramped reading” of the court that “undermines Section 2 and the right it provides.” However, the Biden administration just filed a Section 2 case that would easily take a “cramped reading” and turn it into a categorical disaster just before the 2024 presidential election.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University and a member of USA TODAY’s Board of Contributors. Follow him on Twitter: @JonathanTurley
Karen S
Want to thank you for your posts; clear, researched, well written, and free of the venom/hysteria that so many Lefties bring to this blog.
You are an asset to the blog.
Hear, hear!
Professor, professor….so every time we lose we should stop and say never mind? No way. This is about the right to vote! SCOTUS is wrong.
On Nursing Home Fraud that is not supposed to exist, and on ballot harvesting malfeasance that isn’t supposed to happen:
“Since 2012, she has missed just five elections, even voting in this year’s presidential primary at age 95 during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic.
The problem? Ethel suffered from dementia and, according to her daughter Janet, barely knew who she was or what she had for lunch that day…
“She hasn’t been lucid enough to make any qualified decisions for years. I was her power of attorney and had legal paperwork stating she was incapacitated and not able to make her own decisions, which is on record at her facility.”
Ethel died in early October, two weeks before her completed mail-in ballot for this month’s Presidential Election was returned to her local clerk’s office…
“It is absolutely an epidemic,” explained the operator of an assisted living facility in Dane County, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “Votes are stolen all the time because it’s just so easy to do.”..
Right after the election, one of my clients said that he voted for [Democratic Presidential candidate Joe] Biden but didn’t want to.”
Her curiosity piqued, Susan (whose name has been changed because she fears reprisal for blowing the whistle on what she believes is widespread fraud) then asked each of her other clients about the election. Shockingly, all of them—who all live at various assisted living centers and group homes in and around Milwaukee—said that they either had a ballot filled out for Biden in their name or were pressured to vote for Biden by staff members who assisted them in voting.
One woman even told the staff member at her home who was helping her vote that she wanted to vote for President Trump, but the staffer marked her ballot for Biden anyway.
“She told me, ‘I really wanted to vote for Trump, but [the staff member] said ‘no, he’s a bad man. We’re voting for Biden,’” Susan said. “And the staff member instructed her to vote for Biden. So she did. But she wasn’t happy about it.”
Susan’s experience convinced her that this sort of fraud in nursing homes is far more prevalent than anyone cares to admit…
A little over a month ago, a mayoral candidate in Texas was arrested and charged “with 109 felonies for fraudulently requesting and obtaining mail-in ballots he alleged were for nursing home residents.”
In 2018, the Philadelphia Inquirer investigated dozens of absentee votes at a nursing home that were likely not cast by the residents themselves; including one woman who made a point not to vote and didn’t for more than 30 years because she didn’t want to get called for jury duty.
A year earlier, D Magazine outlined massive fraud in Dallas County and City Council elections that centered on stealing the votes of the elderly and disabled.
“Why are these big envelopes being sent to many people who didn’t even request a mail-in ballot? Because before these ballots were harvested, these precincts were ‘seeded,’” the magazine explained. “Large batches of applications for ballots, stuffed in manila envelopes, had arrived at the county elections office, each request with a name from voter lists that had also been requested from said office.”
The elections office would then alert ballot “harvesters” when each precinct would receive their ballots, so they would know exactly when to show up to either coerce the elderly voter into voting the right way or simply steal their ballot and vote for them.
By ignoring the plain letter of state law requiring trained deputies to administer elections in nursing homes and care facilities, the Wisconsin Elections Commission made preying upon this state’s most vulnerable even easier.
Versions of this form of disenfranchisement of the elderly and disabled through the theft of their votes has been so widespread and pervasive that the bipartisan Commission on Federal Election Reform concluded in 2005 that “absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud” and that those who vote “at nursing homes…are more susceptible to pressure, overt and subtle, or to intimidation.”
https://www.maciverinstitute.com/2020/11/want-to-find-vote-fraud-look-no-further-than-nursing-homes/
Note the trend. Ballots are being filled out on behalf of people who have dementia, and against the wishes of those who are competent, in nursing homes.
Note the repeated warnings about the largest source of potential voter fraud being absentee ballots.
Exactly HOW MANY ballots, from how many people were involved, and WHAT WAS THEIR VOTE? Was it all for Trump? Even if this is true, it wouldn’t change the outcome of the election, and it wouldn’t stop elderly competent and incompetent people from being manipulated. This is not a widespread problem, and Trump still lost the election. But, hey, any scrap of hope to defeat the will of the majority of Americans.
With all the posts about the Georgia election law one fact still remains. The Washington Post gave Joe Biden four Pinocchio’s when he voiced the Democratic talking points. Because I cannot read the Post’s story due to their paywall would some of the posters on the left please tell us if the story is to be found on the pages of their newspaper of the left. We need your help to find out if the Post actually did give Bid Daddy Joe four Pinocchio’s. We are waiting for your charitable response to our curiosity. If we do not hear from you soon rest assured that we will ask for your help with conformation of The Post’s story once again with the understanding that your lack of response will be due only to innocent oversight.
Here is the full text of the Georgia Voting law in all it’s semi-colon glory:
https://www.legis.ga.gov/api/legislation/document/20212022/201121
What are the concerns over ballot harvesting?
An activist can collect ballots, and discard those for the other candidate. There is nothing preventing fraud, negligence, or malfeasance other than the character of the ballot harvester. It makes it quite easy for either side to commit fraud.
An absentee ballot should be mailed, or dropped off at a state designated collection site. Let’s say the voter is an elderly person or someone with a medical issue. There is nothing preventing someone’s daughter or friend or neighbor from putting someone’s absentee ballot in the mail for them, just like they would a bill payment.
It’s foolish to allow outright ballot harvesting or to object to signature verification. What’s to stop them from collecting the ballots of those in memory care units, filling them out, and sending them in? What’s to prevent forgery? I get voting materials for the previous owners of my property, at least one of whom is dead. I have repeatedly marked them return to sender, moved, but I get them like clockwork. Without signature verification, what’s to prevent someone from filing in those ballots, and sending them in?
Is there any evidence that ballots were “harvested” and discarded, or that dementia or Alzheimer’s patients had ballots filled out by others, or forgery? What makes you think there isn’t signature verification with mail-in ballots? Don’t you know that for each precinct, there is a book with the voter’s signature from his/her registration that is used for comparison purposes? If you filled out and sent in the ballots you got for previous residents, they would be discarded because the signatures wouldn’t match. What would stop Republican poll workers from invalidating Democrat ballots? In GA, the Republican legislature could invalidate votes on a mere allegation of fraud, so Trump could have gotten the SOS to “find” him votes in this manner–by invalidating Democrat ballots. Do you think they wouldn’t do this? Republicans are desperate to hold onto power. All but 2 of them refuse to counter the Big Lie.
The overarching question is: where’s the proof of fraud? It’s been 7 months since the election, and there have been multiple recounts. Where’s the proof that Trump won by a landslide?
If you filled out and sent in the ballots you got for previous residents, they would be discarded because the signatures wouldn’t match.
Georgia signed a consent decree to bypass signature varification. We could go back and to the signature envlopes and check them now…but large numbers of envlopes were destroyed…in violation of election law.
There is still the matter of chain of custody. Georgia Sec. of State is waffeling on whether such chain of custody can be presented when asked for, during an audit.
iowan – exactly. In addition, a percentage of states don’t verify signatures at all.
Thats a lot of whataboutisms.that have never been proven to be an issue.
Svelaz:
Which part hasn’t been proven an issue?
How would the state have any idea which votes were cast by people with dementia? Many states, like North Carolina, do not match signatures. The ACLU has challenged states that do try to match signatures, as there can be variation in someone’s signature, and it can degrade over time. 18 states do not match signatures at all, and there is a lot of debate about how much effort and accuracy goes into the remaining 32.
Don’t think dementia is an issue? How would the state know which ballots were cast by people with dementia, and how far advanced the disease is? I lost my grandmother to dementia. Someone will still receive voting materials unless a probate or other applicable court rules them incompetent, AND the voter roll is updated. Most conservatorship hearings never even deal with the issue of voting. I’ve said before that I keep getting voting materials for a previous owner who died. So moving, and dying, are not sufficient, apparently, to update the voter roll.
You can’t claim this isn’t a problem if you have absolutely no idea which votes were filled out on behalf of another person, especially in states that either don’t check, or don’t do a good job checking signatures.
Why would you think voter fraud wouldn’t happen?
https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/vote-fraud-election-seniors-pennsylvania-20171103.html
Lucy Corrato, a 91-year-old former South Philadelphia resident, is a longtime, dedicated nonvoter.
She arrived at St. Francis Center for Rehabilitation & Health Care in 2014 having deliberately avoided voting for decades.
Nicholas Corrato estimated that his mother hadn’t voted in at least 30 years because she never wanted to get called for jury duty. Philadelphia election officials say they have no record that she was ever registered to vote in the city.
This spring, Corrato’s streak was broken.
On April 17, the last day to register before the May primary, she became a registered voter in Delaware County, at St. Francis’ address in Darby Borough, just over the Southwest Philadelphia border. Minutes later, an application for an absentee ballot was submitted on her behalf for the Democratic primary, according to the election bureau time stamp.
Corrato’s signature is missing from both forms. She has insisted to her son that she didn’t vote and that no one asked her about registering.
“There wasn’t a signature. There was just an x,” said Nicholas Corrato, who has power of attorney for his mother. “She was either coerced or someone else put an x for her name.”
“That’s voter fraud,” Corrato, 67, a retired salesman, said in his home near 19th and Oregon Streets.”
It might not be an isolated case at St. Francis, according to records reviewed by the Inquirer and Daily News and interviews with relatives of other elderly residents. The records include absentee-ballot applications with similar handwriting and time-stamped within minutes of one another.
Voter history records show that 34 people at St. Francis’ address on Lansdowne Avenue voted in the May primary, all by absentee ballot.
From the same article:
Violet Heath, 96, who has lived at St. Francis since 2005, also cast an absentee ballot in the May primary, records show. That was news to her grandson, Christian Heath, when informed of the vote last week by the Inquirer and Daily News.
“She doesn’t even know an election is taking place, so she wouldn’t express a desire to do so,” Heath said.
Heath said his grandmother is relatively healthy, but she has shown symptoms of dementia in recent years. He said she doesn’t follow national political news, let alone state and local elections.
This article was way back in the day (2017) when Democrats and Republicans both understood that voting by mail was vulnerable to fraud.
https://www.texastribune.org/2017/05/13/reaching-across-aisle-texas-lawmakers-target-voter-fraud-nursing-homes/
“It would create a process for collecting absentee ballots at nursing homes — essentially turning them into temporary polling places during early voting — to ensure facility staffers or others aren’t manipulating residents’ votes. That’s been a well-documented threat surrounding such vulnerable voters.
“Many of our elderly voters in Texas are being disenfranchised,” Eric Opiela, a lawyer for the Texas Republican Party, told lawmakers at Thursday’s hearing of the Senate Committee on State Affairs.
“When was the last time you heard about a voter fraud bill that actually made it easier to vote?”
— State Rep. Tom Oliverson, R-Cypress
The fight against such fraud comes amid a high-profile investigation in Dallas County into broader mail-in ballot irregularities affecting at least two Dallas City Council races. The county’s district attorney, according to news reports, has received an “off-the-charts” number of complaints from voters — especially in West Dallas — who said they received mail-in ballots they didn’t request, with fears that someone else voted in their place…
“What the committee found was that most election fraud occurs through the mail-in ballot system, through voter registration, and through politiqueras or vote brokers which are predominantly found in South Texas,” the House Committee on Elections wrote in a 2008 interim report. Politiqueras are typically paid to harvest votes by bringing elderly voters to polling places or manipulating the mail-in ballot system.
“The Supreme Court agreed with a lower court that upheld the laws, that “the spark for the debate over mail-in voting may well have been provided by one Senator’s enflamed partisanship, but partisan motives are not the same as racial motives.”
Actually partisan motives CAN be racial motives. Jim Crow laws had partisan motives because one party was racially biased.
That would have been the Democratic Party.
Svelaz, sure partisan motives can also be racial. The KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party, for example.
But partisan is not a synonym with racial. The two can occur simultaneously, but one does not require the other.
Reviewed the comments in both of today’s posts.
I was right about the Lefty posts. Voluminous, hysterical, and full of venom (except for enigma… – his posts are worth reading).
(Hint for Anonymous – quality beats quantity.)
Struck by how often Lefties are offended that Turley doesn’t follow their script.
Also struck by how little facts matter to Lefties – emotion (primarily anger) seems to be their prime motivation.
I don’t even bother reading the entirety of what you write any more, Turley, because I KNOW it will partisan drivel. Everyone knows why Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Covid-Barrett were put on the Court: to help Republicans stay in power because they can only rig the vote by gerrymandering so much. The country is becoming more Democratic, so the last tactic left for Republicans to try to keep power is voter suppression. The 6-3 decision undermines the claims raised in the new challenge to Georgia’s election law. The SCOTUS is ultra-right-wing. That 6-3 ruling is WRONG, and is one of the big-ticket items that was predicted to happen after Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Covid-Barrett were shoved onto the Court, and no one is required to accept their opinions as correct or not politically-motivated. Here’s the bottom line for you Turley: the Biden Administration won 2020 fair and square, by the vote of the MAJORITY of Americans. The MAJORITY of Americans do not agree with the ultra-right-wing bent of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Covid-Barrett, which is why there is a push to expand the SCOTUS: to dilute their toxic influence of these ultra-right-wingers. But, hey, instead of ADMITTING that the SCOTUS did exactly what most predicted they would, get in a few digs at Biden and his Administration. After all that’s what Fox is paying you to do, isn’t it?
JT’s posts commonly become R talking points. And thus it is necessary to read them to keep informed about R propaganda.
JT’s posts commonly become R talking points. And thus it is necessary to read them to keep informed about R propaganda.
JT’s posts commonly center on Constitutional foundations, and thus support R premises and agenda items.
Natacha, once again the Fox canard. Professor Turley often writes for news outlets on the left. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley. Don’t you understand that when you continually post about Professor Turley’s affiliation with Fox News the thinking reader will research his bio to see if he has affiliations with news outlets of the left? By your obsession with Turley and Fox you destroy your own credibility not only in this post but even in other posts where you don’t mention Fox News. If we can’t trust you in one of your posts how can we trust you in any other of your exclamations. You reveal yourself.
How long has it been since Turley was a commentator on non-pro-Trump media?
Natacha, do you know where you are, the date, and what you have recently read? One has to wonder about what is running around in your head.
You have recently posted your comments to Turley op-ed’s taken from the Hill and Politico. They are not pro-Trump. One has to think about whether anything you say has any basis. I don’t think it does.
SM
Turley is the pro-Trump “counter balance” on both publications. Despite your passionate efforts to make Turley seem neutral, he isn’t, and these outlets publish him as the right-wing element, so as to appear balanced. Turley is NOT going to publish anything that counters the talking points of the network that pays him so well to try to normalize Trump, to demonize Democrats, defend the SCOTUS, to ignore or downplay the insurrection and Trump’s role in it, to ignore the Big Lie and to defend members of Trump’s campaign and inner circle from criminal prosecution. Turley is NOT viewed as neutral any more.
+100
eb
What the h*ll is wrong wtih you? Thank God there are SCOTUS’s like Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB. The country is undoubtedly better off with moral people like them on the Court.
the Biden Administration won 2020 fair and square,.
The “fair and square” is still up in the air. Arizonia, Pennsylvania, Georgia and a dozen other states are either conducting audits, or considering doing so. The nation would be hared pressed to be more evenly split, politically. But the nation is not about majority rule. In fact the constitution is structured to prevent, that which you celebrate.
Take remedial civics coarse and get back to me when you learn how wrong you are.
“Any non-Dem who thought this Jan 6 Select Committee was a legit thing being offered in good faith and not an effort to help Dems keep the House in 2022 or something that would literally include Russia Collusion Liar Adam Schiff should be disqualified from all political work.” @mzhemingway
It’s blind Marxists like you nasty that impune every and any attempt at sanity in clearing up massive voter fraud. Voter fraud dominated as an almost exclusive bent of one particular left wing party and it’s apparatchiks. It’s no small wonder partisans like yourself demagogue and sling feces at the truth …the TRUTH(s) that expose and effect your particular party fraud brand. Yeah you do protest too much and it’s obvious to all why….. the truth hurts.
Trump is right about Biden, he’s the least patriotic president in history. The liberal media is simply another arm of the democrat party. Their job is to spread lies, propaganda and disinformation and to divide America along political, racial, gender and financial lines..
Did Biden ever call members of our armed services “suckers”, like your fat hero did? Did anyone with the surname “Trump” ever serve in our military? Hell to the no! Biden’s deceased son, Beau, was in the military. You are an alt-right news disciple who faithfully regurgitates the lie you hear about most media. Did Biden ever mock someone like John McCain, a genuine American hero, because his plane got shot down and he got captured? Your fat hero did. What constitutes “patriotism” in your book? Cheating to “win a victory” by accepting help from a hostile foreign country? How about not paying your lawfully-owed taxes, and claiming that by evading taxes you are “smart”? (that was in a debate with Hillary Clinton. Trump not only didn’t deny he evades taxes, he interrupted her and claimed it made him “smart”–in the Weisselberg matter that will come back to haunt him). How about refusing to abide by the Constitution and inciting an insurrection to try to prevent the victor from taking office? How you Trumpsters can be so dense never ceases to amaze me.
Natacha……….You lie so much that your nose must be in another zip code!
Did Biden ever call members of our armed services “suckers”
I have posted the quote. It does not call the armed services “suckers”
Never use that lie again, unless you provide the exact quote.
DELRAY BEACH, FLa. (AP) — A new report details multiple instances of President Donald Trump making disparaging remarks about members of the U.S. military who have been captured or killed, including referring to the American war dead at the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery in France in 2018 as “losers” and “suckers.”
Trump said that the story is “totally false.”
The allegations were first reported in The Atlantic. A senior Defense Department official with firsthand knowledge of events and a senior U.S. Marine Corps officer who was told about Trump’s comments confirmed some of the remarks to The Associated Press, including the 2018 cemetery comments.
The defense officials said Trump made the comments as he begged off visiting the cemetery outside Paris during a meeting following his presidential daily briefing on the morning of Nov. 10, 2018.
Staffers from the National Security Council and the Secret Service told Trump that rainy weather made helicopter travel to the cemetery risky, but they could drive there. Trump responded by saying he didn’t want to visit the cemetery because it was “filled with losers,” the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the official was not authorized to discuss it publicly.
The White House blamed the canceled visit on poor weather at the time.
In another conversation on the trip, The Atlantic said, Trump referred to the 1,800 Marines who died in the World War I battle of Belleau Wood as “suckers” for getting killed.
Trump emphatically denied the Atlantic report, calling it “a disgraceful situation” by a “terrible magazine.”
Speaking to reporters after he returned to Washington from a campaign rally in Pennsylvania, Trump said: “I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more. No animal — nobody — what animal would say such a thing?”
Trump also reiterated the White House explanation of why he didn’t visit the cemetery. “The helicopter could not fly,” he said, because of the rain and fog. “The Secret Service told me you can’t do it. … They would never have been able to get the police and everybody else in line to have a president go through a very crowded, very congested area.”
White House chief of staff Mark Meadows said, “It’s sad the depths that people will go to during a lead-up to a presidential campaign to try to smear somebody.”
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said, “If the revelations in today’s Atlantic article are true, then they are yet another marker of how deeply President Trump and I disagree about the role of the President of the United States.”
“Duty, honor, country — those are the values that drive our service members,” he said in a statement, adding that if he is elected president, “I will ensure that our American heroes know that I will have their back and honor their sacrifice — always.” Biden’s son Beau served in Iraq in 2008-09.
ADVERTISING
The Defense officials also confirmed to The AP reporting in The Atlantic that Trump on Memorial Day 2017 had gone with his chief of staff, John Kelly, to visit the Arlington Cemetery gravesite of Kelly’s son, Robert, who was killed in 2010 in Afghanistan, and said to Kelly: “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
The senior Marine Corps officer and The Atlantic, citing sources with firsthand knowledge, also reported that Trump said he didn’t want to support the August 2018 funeral of Republican Sen. John McCain, a decorated Navy veteran who spent years as a Vietnam prisoner of war, because he was a “loser.” The Atlantic also reported that Trump was angered that flags were flown at half-staff for McCain, saying: “What the f—- are we doing that for? Guy was a f—-ing loser.”
Trump acknowledged Thursday he was “never a fan” of McCain and disagreed with him, but said he still respected him and approved everything to do with his “first-class triple-A funeral” without hesitation because “I felt he deserved it.”
In 2015, shortly after launching his presidential candidacy, Trump publicly blasted McCain, saying “He’s not a war hero.” He added, “I like people who weren’t captured.”
Trump only amplified his criticism of McCain as the Arizona lawmaker grew critical of his acerbic style of politics, culminating in a late-night “no” vote scuttling Trump’s plans to repeal the Affordable Care Act. That vote shattered what few partisan loyalties bound the two men, and Trump has continued to attack McCain for that vote, even posthumously.
The magazine said Trump also referred to former President George H.W. Bush as a “loser” because he was shot down by the Japanese as a Navy pilot in World War II.
Associated Press
Published 4 September 2020
Biden’s living son, Hunter, was in the military, too.
Thanks for that reminder! Good story on how Hunter even got INTO the military. Even better story on how Hunter got kicked OUT of the military.
Hunter’s redemption arc began when he became the Biden family bagman. Beau was always the “good son.” Now Hunter is the “good son” too. Even though he was banging his dead brother’s widow before his body was cold, Hunter is still the “good son” because he is cutting deals and raking in the cash for the Biden family business of selling Daddy’s political office to the hightest bidder.
The Biden family is a disgusting lot of corruption, greed and bizarre family dysfunction.
The Trump family looks like picture-perfect normality compared to the eff’d up Biden family.
Too bad the media won’t delve into it and tell the bizarro Biden family true story.
Natacha, come on, you can’t hide it anymore. You really are Rosemary’s baby.
The problem is the Federalists on the Court have adopted mythical voter fraud tropes into their reasoning and have now proved themselves incapable of standing up for fair voting rights. Full stop. Add this to their destruction of pre clearance and it becomes clear voting rights have to be protected in Congress because the Court is peacing out on it.
And the archaic collective we again: “Many of us anticipated the reversal of the Ninth Circuit. “…
I think the reason the many of you who anticipated this did so because you’ve been given marching orders to do so, Turley.
eb
The problem is the Federalists on the Court have adopted mythica
Gosh<, justices on the Supreme Court of a federalist republic are labeled Federalists! I am shocked, shocked I tell you.
But really, the justices have not adopted any "federalists" principles, unless you call the precise language of the constitution "federalists" when the court notes the constitution expressly empowers the STATES to conduct congressional elections ' The Clause directs and empowers states to determine the “Times, Places, and Manner” of congressional elections"
The Arizona laws enacted by the States could not be overturned for no reason. The 3 dissenters ignored the constitution. They substituted Democrat Party talking points
Time for some changes.
eb
Very respectfully, the Professor and libs like him cannot possibly be this naive, particularly now. It looks a lot more like willful denial, every single time. Our country cannot hang by the slender thread of a few judges and expect to remain unscathed, particularly with the full force of the dem machine intent on irreversibly packing the courts.
Though it may very well be they see how poorly they are regarded and might indeed be desperate, dems do not make arbitrary moves, nor do they care about optics or ethics. This was set up with the expectation of benefit in the future.
Let’s prove that supposition wrong, shall we?
https://williamspivey.medium.com/the-supreme-court-excuses-its-own-racism-d2c840cbda31?sk=40f3d02772e84c8520937ca81fb8364b
+100
eb
Enigma, the entire premise of the article you linked is flawed. The author declares that the ruling is discriminatory and racist, as the premise to his argument. He brings up partisan gerrymandering without acknowledging that Democrats gerrymander to concentrate as many of their voters and political advantage as possible, too. This is the goal for gerrymandering.
He slanders the Court by declaring it looks out for the interest of rich, white men. He declares Congress serves rich, white men.
William Spivey shows a clear bigotry against white people in this article, and is therefore a racist. If you replaced “white men” with “black men” it would be obvious.
He ignores the votes of minorities in Congress. He distills someone’s political perspective and character down to skin color. If a white person is in Congress or on SCOTUS, then they are racists looking out for their own race.
The ruling wasn’t racist. Perhaps read Turley’s post again. Polls used to close before 5:00. The law requires them to stay open at least until 5:00 PM, and it allows them to stay open longer. It actually expanded voting hours. It does not prevent people from getting water in line to vote. It prevents political activist from using water distribution as an excuse to get close to voters waiting in line. Voters can get water from self serve stations, or from poll workers.
Voter ID does not inhibit the black vote.
Frankly, I’m surprised why more black people aren’t offended by this propaganda. It presumes people lack critical reasoning. Why would Biden keep saying that the Georgia law does something it does not in fact do? Because he’s counting on his voters to be naive. He’s counting on them not looking it up and calling him out on it. He’s depending upon them not critically reviewing the claims and debunking them. He thinks only one race, the black race, cannot possibly be expected to get an ID. No one’s saying Asians, Latinos, Pacific Islanders, Europeans, or anyone else can’t manage to get an ID. Only black people, born and raised here. It’s so racist it should offend everyone until their teeth clench.
Yet here’s Spivey, dutifully repeating debunked claims that the ruling is racist, that the Court with its Liberal members are all racists looking out for the white man’s club.
Come on, Enigma. What “effects felt by minorities” through this ruling? Longer voting hours? Providing audits? Providing a hotline to report voter intimidation? Putting limits on emergency powers? Requiring that election superintendents and board of registrars cannot accept private funding? Requiring notice when a poll changes location?
Karen….William..Spivey is enigma, or so he used to say.
Cindy, if so, then it’s very sad, as I found the article to be racist. If all he sees is skin color, then that’s a sad waste.
Karen Yes it is a waste.
Click on his picture/avatar… Someone told me 2 years ago, that it/he was a sock puppet. Who knows….but he is claiming to be real.
Cindy is correct. Enigma is Spivey, but I don’t think he hides that fact. At least he didn’t in the past.
Skin color is all Enigma sees which is unfortunate since I believe he has things to offer. Take note he doesn’t provide statistical proof. He only makes claims. A lot of things that he has said have been proven wrong when studies are done and those studies eliminate skin color.
He doesn’t like the results, but he has no solid studies of his own. He should read Thomas Sowell who provides statistics along with his conclusions. One can’t argue with Sowell’s statements because they are backed up with proof..
Cindy Bragg says:
July 4, 2021 at 9:03 PM
S Meyer…………..Good to see you, Allan. Happy 4th!
Happy 4th to you to Cindy. It’s always nice to hear your voice. The fireworks were grand last night. At least they weren’t CANCELLED.
Turley’s article is flawed in that it points out the only possible instances that voting is enhanced and ignoring all the rest. Other critics of some of the new laws that say New York has some worse laws are correct. Parts of New York like the Bronx were covered under the preclearance requirement because of their past (and current racist votinmg laws). Justice Alito acknowledges the racist effects of the laws, he just doesn’t consider them racist enough. Tell me anything I said about the Supreme Court that isn’t true? I’ll wait.
S Meyer…………..Good to see you, Allan. Happy 4th!
The trend is for Democrats to claim a person, action, or law is racist without or contrary to evidence, for political purposes.
Voter ID laws, for example, are not associated with any decline in black voting. In fact, an increase in black voting followed NC’s voter ID requirement.
It is the bigotry of low expectations applied to one, single race.
The GA voting laws are in no way racist. Biden’s easily disprovable lies have been called out repeatedly. He continues to tell them, because repetition will root it deep in the psyche of Democrat voters until they resist reason. It’s like the “very fine people” comment. Trump is on video saying he’s not referring to Neo Nazis who “should be condemned totally.” Democrats repeated the lie that he called Neo Nazis fine people so many times it brainwashed people. You can send them the video disproving the lie, send them videos of journalists admitting they were wrong, but it can’t lever out the brainwashing. The very best t day they’ll repeat the fine people lie.
It’s propaganda brainwashing.
They also use it as a backdoor for other minorities. By definition, the voter base they are currently attempting to install – people living in the country illegally – would not possess the requisite ID. Not one leftist social initiative has anything to do with black people, so insidiously callous are the left. Due to Western civilization’s history, black folks just happen to be the favored sacrificial lambs.
The more you drivel on and on, the more you expose how little you know. Talk about resisting reason: where is the proof of widespread fraud from the 2020 election that these new laws were enacted to remedy? WHERE? You want to talk about lies? What about the Big Lie, Karen? You know nothing about voter ID laws: it’s the KIND of ID that unreasonably burdens minorities that is objectionable. Who is “calling out” Biden’s alleged “disprovable lies”? Or, is calling Biden a liar the new alt-right tactic in some pathetic attempt to mitigate the 30,000+ lies Trump has told in 4 years’ time? And, once again, you’re trying to re-litigate or explain away you hero’s “very fine people comment”. I heard Kellyanne’s lying spin on this comment at the time. Trump praised White Supremacists because they make up a huge part of his base. You are the one who is brainwashed. Trump tried to walk back what he said earlier, but we all heard it, and because he is a pathological liar, we don’t believe the walk-back, which is nothing more than a Kellyanne talking point. You are the one who is a disciple.
Bad Legal thinking. by Garland….absolutely.
But….good politics….a loss in Court gives the Democrats something to run on in the next Election.
That is a. tried and true strategy used by the Democrats for Decades.
The odd chance of winning in Court is worth the downside….and the provision of a oolitical. issue to lie to the Uninformed Voter that the Democrats rely upon to win at the Polls.
I have encouraged the Republicans to use exactly the same strategy….and do to the Democrats what they have done to the Republicans with great success over the years.
Garland is AG because the majority of the American people elected the President who chose him. Garland’s appeals are based on the will of the majority of the American people. Turley is paid to put out anti-Democratic talking points, to criticize the Biden Administration and what it does, and to defend the toxic things Trump has done, including defending the alt-right SCOTUS. Most Americans want it to be made easier for everyone to vote. There was NO widespread voter fraud, and no problem to remedy from 2020, other than the fact that Trump lost the Presidency and Republicans lost the Senate. But, like was predicted the alt-right leaning SCOTUS did what everyone predicted they would do. Turley tried to pre-defend them by more anti-Democrat posts on small potatoes cases in which there was consensus. Can’t even you Trumpsters see this for what it is?
Garland’s appeals are based on the will of the majority of the American people
We are not a nation of majority rule. We are ruled by the constitution, not the will of the majority of people. Garland should never consider public opinion. You should be ashamed to admit you thing he should/
Garland is AG because our lawfully-elected President nominated him, and this is how the Constitution works. The majority of Americans want to make voting easier for everyone, everywhere. Republicans are afraid that if it is easier for more people to vote, they will never again attain the power they crave, because their message does not appeal to most Americans, especially since adopting an orange liar who was rejected by the majority of Americans as the head of their party.
The people want secure elections where it is easy to vote and hard to cheat (which is how Democrats “win” their elections).
3 Biden lies with respect to one item. I don’t think anyone can top the lies or granting of political favors performed by Biden.
—
“The problem with the filing was captured by President Joe Biden himself who repeatedly misrepresented the Georgia law, calling it “Jim Crow on steroids.” Even The Washington Post awarded him four “Pinocchios”
Biden declared, “it’s sick. It’s sick … deciding that you’re going to end voting at 5 o’clock when working people are just getting off work.” Biden repeated this claim despite it being untrue. The election law actually does the opposite.
Biden also claimed that the law prevents water from being given to voters waiting in line at polling places: “Imagine passing a law saying you cannot provide water or food for someone standing in line to vote, can’t do that? C’mon!” That is also untrue.
As expected, this column is filled with verifiable lies. Go read the GA law yourself and you will see that JT is lying.
Provide your research here to prove what you assert.
SECTION 33.
Said chapter is further amended by revising subsections (a) and (e) of Code section 21-2-414, relating to restrictions on campaign activities and public opinion polling within the vicinity of a polling place, cellular phone use prohibited, prohibition of candidates from entering certain polling places, and penalty, as follows: “(a) No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast: (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place. These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which cannot be seen or heard by such electors.” “(e) This Code section shall not be construed to prohibit a poll officer from distributing materials, as required by law, which are necessary for the purpose of instructing electors or from distributing materials prepared by the Secretary of State which are designed solely for the purpose of encouraging voter participation in the election being conducted or from making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.
This law clearly is not limited to just around polling stations, and applies to everyone except poll workers. JT has never read this bill and just goes off R talking points. If a guy passes his mother a water bottle while she waits in line, he will be committing a crime under this bill.
” or from making available self-service water from an unattended receptacle to an elector waiting in line to vote.”
The law doesn’t REQUIRE that poll workers put water receptacles along the voting line. Plus there is no set requirements that such polling places stock water at all. Who is going to pay for and store such receptacles when they are not in use?
“No person shall solicit votes in any manner or by any means or method, nor shall any person distribute or display any campaign material, nor shall any person give, offer to give, or participate in the giving of any money or gifts, including, but not limited to, food and drink, to an elector, nor shall any person solicit signatures for any petition, nor shall any person, other than election officials discharging their duties, establish or set up any tables or booths on any day in which ballots are being cast: (1) Within 150 feet of the outer edge of any building within which a polling place is established; (2) Within any polling place; or (3) Within 25 feet of any voter standing in line to vote at any polling place. These restrictions shall not apply to conduct occurring in private offices or areas which cannot be seen or heard by such electors.”
There IS a way around this prohibition. The law only bars people from “giving away” food and water. I doesn’t say you can’t sell it to those standing in line. Because you are not “giving it away” you are not breaking the law. One could simply sell these bottles of water for a nickel and still no break the law. Any libertarian who likes to read the law “narrowly” would be hard pressed to argue that you cannot do that despite the law not specifically stating you can’t sell the water as opposed to just giving it away. Note that law only states that “no person shall offer to “give” or participate in the “giving” of any money or gifts. including ,but not limited to, food and drink.
The key word her is “give”. Nothing really prevents anyone from selling food or drink. Something to consider.
Example please?
“Go read the GA law yourself and you will see that JT is lying.”
What about this is so hard to understand?:
eb
Bug, you have trouble reading an insurance policy before surgery and have problems paying for it despite calling yourself an expert on the grain markets. Apparently, that expertise doesn’t exist in the real world.
Here, in the real world, you are constantly making statements and concluding without saying anything. Based on your history, we know why you say nothing. You don’t know any more about the discussions at hand than you did about the grain markets.
SM
Allan, I consider your insults, taunts, lies and blatant disregard for the civility policy of the blog nothing but complimentary coming from someone such as yourself. In other words, because it’s clear you need this spelled out for you, your constant projections to cover up your own insecurity about your cluelessness translates to a positive statement because to be in agreement with you on any issue would signal being in agreement with flawed and wildly gullible alt right policy (and with the social skills of an anti-social 6 year old) …
So know that you are viewed as nothing but a clown by a significant portion of commenters here. Someone who flagrantly wears the equivalent of a dirty diaper of chaotic confusion on his head at all times. I laugh hysterically at your chronic inability to decipher what makes up good science, good logic and good policy. You’re an idiot, bud. And every time you open your mouth you confirm that reality.
eb
Bug, you get what you deserve. I tell the truth based on fact and you do not. What factual material have you brought to the blog? Nothing. Instead you focus on innuendo and character assassination.
Your tall tales might have carried you to the point you are at, but I don’t know that your chosen direction was such a good decision.
Tip: Reevaluate what you say and how you say it. Check your work to see if it contains accurate facts.
Tip: Things thrown out have a tendency to come back and hit you in the face. If you can’t handle the blowback stop throwing things.
SM
Thanks for the chuckle.
eb
I mean the cretin bonus round.
eb
Bug, you get what you deserve. I tell the truth based on fact and you do not. What factual material have you brought to the blog? Nothing. Instead you focus on innuendo and character assassination.
Your tall tales might have carried you to the point you are at, but I don’t know that your chosen direction was such a good decision.
Tip: Reevaluate what you say and how you say it. Check your work to see if it contains accurate facts.
Tip: Things thrown out have a tendency to come back and hit you in the face. If you can’t handle the blowback stop throwing things.
Oh look, a clown decides repetition is the answer.
eb
Molly I have read the entire bill and contrary to what you stated ,the confabulator in this case is sadly, Pres Biden.
What else can we expect from an administration that starts from the premise that, in Kendi’s words: “The only remedy to racist discrimination is antiracist discrimination. The only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination. The only remedy to present discrimination is future discrimination.” The fundamental problem with the “anti-racist” philosophy of the Biden administration is that it is tilting at windmills, and is willing to bend the law and skirt the Constitution to achieve some twisted notion of “equity.” This administration, packed with virtue-signaling, moralistic SJWs, flies in the face of law, facts and common sense.
Those people never let facts get in the way of a good commercial
So why would Attorney General Merrick Garland green light a case that seems likely to fail in spectacular fashion?
Because the risk of legal failure doesn’t outweigh the potential for political success.
Thank our stars that Garland is not on SCOTUS; a weak, political man.
Jennifer Rubin, WaPo’s resident “conservative”. Tells us a lot about that paper.
Lefties still complaining about Trump’s lies, but OK with Biden’s lies.