We recently discussed a federal court upholding the Georgia election law as constitutional, rejecting challenges based on voter suppression by a group associated with Democratic Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams. President Biden has denounced pre-2020 and post-2020 changes to the state election laws as not just “Jim Crow on steroids” but “Jim Eagle,” an awkward effort to suggest something more scary than Jim Crow. However, some of us pointed out that provisions criticized by the President are found in many blue states, including his own state of Delaware. Now, the Delaware Supreme Court has rejected a Democratic universal mail-in voting law as unconstitutional.
The Delaware Supreme Court ruled on Friday that a state law enacting universal mail-in voting violated the state’s constitution. At issue was the Vote-by-Mail statute under which Democrats sought to expand the categories of absentee voters. However, Article V, Section 4A of the Delaware Constitution is explicit on those categories. The provision states with specificity the grounds for such absentee voting:
§4A. General laws for absentee voting.
Section 4A. The General Assembly shall enact general laws providing that any qualified elector of this State, duly registered, who shall be unable to appear to cast his or her ballot at any general election at the regular polling place of the Election District in which he or she is registered, either because of being in the public service of the United States or of this State, or his or her spouse or dependents when residing with or accompanying him or her, because of the nature of his or her business or occupation, because of his or her sickness or physical disability, because of his or her absence from the district while on vacation, or because of the tenets or teachings of his or her religion, may cast a ballot at such general election to be counted in such election district.
The legislature decided to simply ignore the constitutional provision. It is a standard canon of construction that “the expression of one thing is the exclusion of the other” (“Expressio unius est exclusio alterius”).
President Biden’s claims about the Georgia law have been refuted, including by the Washington Post. Indeed, not only has the President misrepresented the law but Delaware has some provisions more restrictive than Georgia’s law.
Now it appears that universal mail-in voting is barred in the state. Does that mean that “Jim Eagle” has landed in Delaware? No. The Supreme Court is clearly correct and the legislature knowingly violated the Constitution. Indeed, the Governor John Carney and Democratic sponsors were warned at the time that it was unconstitutional. If they want universal mail-in voting, they will have to change, not simply ignore, their constitution.
May I point to an article published in tax Notes International (Vol. 107, No. 13 of Sept. 26), titled ‘Constitutional Integrity and Gun Control through Taxation’, which deals with the same problem of intentional bypassing the US Constitution, and may be of interest to the commentators of Turley’s blog.
the legislature knowingly violated the Constitution.
They should be required to sign a disclosure acknowledging their vote in favor of the legislation, if ultimately ruled by the courts to be unconstitutional, that they will receive a strike on their political record.
1st strike: removal from all committees.
2nd strike: loss of voting power.
3rd strike: disqualification from any public office and employment in any company contracting with the government.
The Democrats want to mail a ballot to every person in the state in order to be able to “fudge” the numbers or at least to manage to cajole those on assistance to send in their ballots. As an example of what I am talking about let be tell you about what happened in MA the first time Liz Warren was on the ballot for the senate:
The MA Dems were shocked when Scott Brown won an upset election and became a Republican senator in the deeply blue state of MA. When Brown was up for re-election the Dems nominated the lying fake Indian Liz Warren and the party and the unions pulled out all the stops. One of their more egregious maneuvers was when a group of “community activists” took the state to court on behalf of welfare recipients for some side issue and as a remedy the activists demanded that the state send ballots to every person on assistance. NOT EVERY RESIDENT, ONLY THOSE GETTING TAX PAYER ASSISTANCE. Now the “activist group” that took the state to court was headed up by LIZ WARREN’S DAUGHTER and when the group sued the state the DEMOCRAT GOVERNOR, Deval Patrick, didn’t contest the suit, he agreed to make the mass mailing of ballots to WELFARE RECIPIENTS ONLY.
The act of sending everyone absentee ballots is a scam! I am all n favor of sending them to anyone that REQUESTS ONE, not a mass mailing.
Vote by Fail
“Jim Crow Eagle” Ah. Thanks so much for explaining that ‘awkward’ phrasing Prof Turley. I had no idea what president Biden was talking about.
Once more into the breach dear friends. If only Ds and/or Rs can win elections – and that’s the way its been since the Whigs went out of business – it doesn’t matter how you count the votes. Put that in your mail pouch and deliver it.
It’s a trick .. . pick a caRd, any carD.
Do you know where the Laptop is, or not?
*Snowden for President 2024 ‘the Crown Jewels of National Security’
There should be consequences when a political party in power knowingly passes a law which is unconstitutional. There are no consequences to Delaware of knowingly passing a law regarding unlimited absentee/mail-in ballots.
The Dims are so stupidly corrupt. I’m going to call them the Sturupts from now on.
Nice to see the chickens come home to roost, so to speak. Of course Delaware has no business even being a state with senators. It simply provides the eastern suburbs of Philadelphia, Baltimore and D.C. Sort of like Rhode Island being a suburb of Boston and Hartford. Kind of why the Northeast has outsize political influence for it’s actual population and size. Hopefully that decline in population and influence will continue.
If the western and mountain states had their land returned to them by the Feds then we might see them grow considerably and then eclipse the stagnant Northeast. Frankly I would like to see the next Republican Administration decrease federal holdings in the Mountain states and remove it’s chokehold over their economic freedom and growth.
Help make Rhode Island and Delaware a national park with Joe’s home the tourist center. One can dream can we not.
Delaware is on the side Angels. Of course Jim eagle did not land in Delaware. Half the country is below average in intelligence.
Remember when Obama said the Constitution wasn’t good because of all the negative “rights”. By that he meant, the all seeing, all knowing, DC elites cant tell the prols what is best for them.
Just like Dems see Dobbs as bad, because the dirty commoners are allowed to vote for the rules they live under, rather than just be told by their betters what to think.
Dems passed a law called Citizens United, limiting political speech. Despite the 1st amendment clear stated “Congress shall make no law”. To this day Dems insist SCOTUS got the “Shall make no law”, part wrong.
Dems are still insisting they are going make law concerning elections, Despite the Constitution specifically assigning the power to run elections…to the STATES.
Dems hate voters, even Dem voters. According to Dems, voters have too much power.
Yes, those pesky laws. The arrogance of the modern Democratic Party, who obviously know what’s best for us in spite of us, makes the Kennedy family look like modest Quakers by comparison. The encouraging thing is that thus far law has largely held, and these fools keep stepping on the landmines they themselves placed on the ground. Nothing like a record voter turnout to implode the narrative.
If the last election was conducted in accordance with an unconstitutional law, shouldn’t the remedy be to declare it invalid and void?
That could be a slippery slope @ wiseoldlawyer.
It is a more than a slippery slope for government to go lawless.
We see that constantly from the left. It is not limited to elections.
DACA has just been declared unconstitutional – AGAIN – LAWLESS.
When people are elected or employed by government – they swear to uphold the constitution and the law of the land.
We expect that some may disagree with portions of the constitution or the law. And they are free to work outside of govenment to change the law and constitution. But inside the government – in the executive, in the subsidiary we expert and they are required to enforce laws and constitution whether they like them or not.
That is the requirement for the rule of law.
When government is lawless we are rushing headlong towards chaos and anarchy. We must reverse or there will be violence.
Whether it is J6, or the riots in the summer of 2020, or the past 3 year spike in crime.
The most fundamental root cause is the same – increasingly lawlessness of government.
We have rising levels of anxiety, and depression and drug use and death – these are all symptoms of rising chaos and anarchy as a consequence of govenrment lawlessness.
As government lawlessness increases – so does that of the citizenry.
The less we can trust government the more we take the law into our own hands. and the more those inclined to lawlessness will engage in lawlessness.
“You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down – [up] man’s old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.”
Ronald Reagan – A time for Choosing.
“ DACA has just been declared unconstitutional – AGAIN – LAWLESS.”
False, DACA has not been declared unconstitutional.
The 5th circuit has only ruled that the legal rationale for DACA did not meet the requirements of the APA. The 5th circuit explicitly pointed out that their ruling did NOT mean that DHS was authorized to stand removal proceedings, that they could still defer removals. They only ruled on the merits of how DACA as an rule did not meet the requirements of the APA. They did NOT declare DACA unconstiutioal.
The executive CAN choose not to enforce certain laws thru their authority to exercise prosecutorial discretion. Even police officers exercise this when they choose to not enforce the law by not issuing a ticket or letting a suspect go.
If all laws were required to be enforced as you claim congress would explicitly stipulate when writing their laws what punishment would be given for those not enforcing the law. Obviously there is none. The only remedy as you often say is to vote those people out of office and demand they enforce the law. That may mean a 2 or 4 year wait to vote and that is how it’s supposed to work according to you.
Prosecutors and police have the authority to press charges or drop them regardless of evidence.
This is more than an APA case, and can not be fixed by APA games.
The court made it clear that the president did not have the authority through the constitution or through congress to broadly ignore immigration law.
The court did not rush to put this into effect – because there is no harm to delay.
Something that the 11th cir. ct. of appeals could take a lesson from.
I have not heard whether DOJ will appeal. There are problems no matter what they do.
DACA was a massive mistake from the start.
The question SCOTUS will have to deal with – should this go that far is does prosecutorial discretion allow the president to gut existing laws ?
My personal view is h311 no. The court should narrow proprietorial discretion to the head of a pin.
I doubt they will do that. But I strongly suspect they will craft some limit to prosecutorial discretion.
I would note this is a far bigger issue than DACA. This also applies to the Soros DA’s across the country.
I have no idea where SCOTUS will set the limits to prosecutorial discretion.
It is possible they will reverse the 5th. But I suspect that is unlikely.
DACA and broad prosecutorial discretion undermines the rule of law.
But finding a line that will work is hard.
The wise choice would have been for the left not to have ever brought an issue like this before the court.
But you can count on the left to take any power and expand it to be able to ignore the law and do as they please.
I would note the APA part of this means Myorka’s immigration memo is likely toast for similar reasons.
From the opinion”
Chief Judge Priscilla Richman of the 5th Circuit of Appeals lauded Hanen’s earlier ruling, arguing, “The district court’s excellent opinion correctly identified fundamental substantive defects in the program. The DACA memorandum contracts significant parts of the [Immigration and Naturalization Act].
“DACA creates a new class of otherwise removable aliens who may obtain lawful presence, work authorization, and associated benefits. Congress determined which aliens can receive these benefits, and it did not include DACA recipients among them.”
The court concluded, “We agree with the district court’s reasoning and its conclusions that the DACA Memorandum contravenes comprehensive statutory schemes for removal, allocation of lawful presence, and allocation of work authorization.”
The court sent the whole thing back to the judge that declared DACA unconstitutional to determine if DHS’s new claim that if they follow the APA and impliment it as a regulation they could save it.
The district court Judge is just not going to buy that. Everyone will be back to the 5th cir. ct. of appeals in a couple of months.
And they have already telegraphed that they do not think DHS can save it.
I would note that the lower court ordered new applications for DACA halted, and the appellate court confirmed that.
What they have not yet done is ordered DHS to start deporting existing DACA beneficiaries, or to terminate their benefits or right to work.
One would think state legislators or the Governor of these states would consider the constitutionality of a law before proposing, much less passing it . . . and apparently One would be wrong!
Yea…we don’t want too many people voting…..shameful.
@justice holmes
Sure. Guess it doesn’t matter if a percentage of those ‘too many people’ aren’t legally supposed to be voting in the first place. Stupid laws. And I guess it also doesn’t matter that even in the places with the loosest voting laws of all, only a fraction of the population vote. By your own declared metric of voter participation, the Georgia law could *actually* be called a resounding success. Your logic is the kind of logic that isn’t.
Next time you are on vacation overseas, see what happens if you just show up to the polls and try to vote in their elections. I dare ya.
We want legally REGISTERED, ID holding LEGAL CITIZENS voting ONLY. Isn’t that the way it is supposed to be. And,PLEASE do not tell me how ANY LEGAL citizen cannot get a free ID?
Lets get rid of voter registration entirely.
It is a huge and unnecescary mess.
If you have government issued photo ID – that confirms your right to vote and your residence in a given state and locality.
Nothing else is required.
“ Lets get rid of voter registration entirely.
It is a huge and unnecescary mess.
If you have government issued photo ID – that confirms your right to vote and your residence in a given state and locality.
Nothing else is required.”
That is not a very good idea. If only a government issued ID was enought what would stop alien residents from voting when the government issues them an ID? A driver’s license can be obtained by immigrants and illegal aliens. To avoid that you would need to have a large database to discern those groups apart.
A voter registration ID like they have on other countries is a much better idea. One that would have a photo AND your fingerprint to prove conclusively who you are. That would require just a database of who holds those ID’s Those who are home bound or too ill to go vote should still be able to send their ballots by mail.
I would agree to get rid of the party affiliation on voters completely. Voters should just be voters, not a ‘party base”. All should be categorized as “independent”. That way candidates would be forced to express their ideas to everyone and not just a specific demographic. They would have no I idea who the radicals and moderates are and therefore be accountable for THEIR radical or moderate ideas.
I beleive that Real-ID compliant drivers licenses – and every state will have them soon, include citizenship status in the data.
REGARDLESS, you do not need to prove citizenship to register to vote. But you do need to provide a valid address.
RealID also requires a valid SS# and citizenship can be verified from an SS# if not trivial.
So you are raising an objection for a possibly real problem, but one that exists as things are now.
I would further note that most states either automatically or nearly automatically register you to vote when you get or renew your license.
Today the prohbition on non-citizens voting is enforced by voluntary compliance as well as the threat of prosecution.
Using state issued ID does not change that.
If you vote with a state issued ID, the state will have a record of your ID information and it can at its descretion validate your citizenship and then choose to prosecute you for voting illegally.
Next, lets please not impliment an entirely new ID system.
I would note YOU are the one who wants to make voting Trivial. I am perfectly content with a system that non-citizens voting will KNOW that government has the ability to prosecute them if it chooses.
I am far more concerned with people showing up at the polls waiving a utility bill as proof of eligability than waiving a drivers license.
Regardless, the current voter registration database is crap.
I would like to see polls scan your DL and preserve it as a voting record for 22 months. That addresses prosecuting non-citizens from voting.
I do not need a fingerprint.
Now if you are adamant that you want to go beyond a DL – which does more than we currently have
Then you are welcome to change the Real-ID law and add a fingerprint and visible citizenship status.
I am not going to war over that. But I am going to oppose adding a new special Voter ID.
There are many ways to deal with the party problem.
1). Let parties run their own primaries and establish their own criteria for eligibility.
Who is a parties candidate for office is not the business of government.
2). run primaries like today, except voters can vote in whatever primary they want, but only one.
3). Eliminate primaries entirely. Set some criteria to get on the general election ballot.
As many or few candidates as meet that criteria are on the ballot.
Run the election. If no candidate wins 51% of the vote, knock out the bottom 1/3 of candidates and hold a snap recount within 4 weeks at most of the election. Repeat until someone wins 51% of the vote.
If with only 2 candidates no one wins 51% of the vote:
Flip a coin.
kick the election to the legislature.
Delay 3 months and try again.
Whatever you do, do NOT kick this to the courts. Courts should to the greatest extent possible not be asked to answer purely political questions.
While we are close enough on this that the differences do not matter.
It is highly likely that in most of the country both major political parties will oppose this.
The most fundimental purpose of voter registration today is to empower political parties.
Nearly any implimentation of this would result in some increase in 3rd parties.
That said I am adamant on one other aspect of this.
And absolute requirement for a win by 51% of the vote.
That alone is one of the most potent anti-fraud measures you can have.
You and I can disagree over whether there was sufficient fraud to tip the 2020 election.
But there is absolutely zero possibility there was 2% fraudulent votes anywhere.
TTV’s Max estimate was 800K of ballots harvested in 6 states. There more conservative estimate is under 350K.
But 350K would have flipped 5 of the 6 swing states. 350K is also 1% of the total swing state vote.
The probability that fraud effected an election decreases exponentially with the scale of the fraud needed.
Close races are the most critical factor driving and concerning us about election fraud.
The 2000 presidential election was decided by 150 votes.
One 2020 representative was elected by 29 votes.
Many many offices at all levels were decided by less than 1% of the vote.
Even if we ignore fraud – Error is in many cases greater than 1%.
I would note that the historic error rate for is time mailin voters is 6%.
That was the case in 2020 – except that the left games the rules to accept ballots with errors.
And that radically increases the likelyhood of fraud.
One of the points you just do not seem to grasp is that relaxing election laws to make things easier for voters, also makes it easier to commit fraud. They go hand in hand. Frankly, fraud benefits more than voters.
We are also fundimentally at odds over whether easy voting is a good thing.
It is not. High voter turnout statistically correlates globally to unstable government.
The US is seeing record high voter turnout. It is also seeing the most bitter political division and raised levels of anxiety and depression and violence. These are not all tied to high voter turnout. But some are.
Again back to Adam Smith
“Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice: all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things.”
True now as 250 years ago.
We do not need (nor want) government to give us everything we need. That will with certainty make us all poorer.
This is the core failure of the left.
vote in person, 1 day, with ID….if most countries in Africa and Latin America can do it…then we can! check the Carter Center
I don’t care if you VOTE
‘Absentee ballots remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.” That quote isn’t from President Trump, who criticized mail-in voting this week after Wisconsin Democrats tried and failed to change an election at the last minute into an exclusively mail-in affair. It’s the conclusion of the bipartisan 2005 report of the Commission on Federal Election Reform, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker III.
So what happens if they ignore the court ruling? Who, precisely, will hold them accountable?
Ignoring and violating constitutions has become standard fare for the Democratic Party, it has become an ends justifies the means political tactic.
Witherspoon, Republicans are adept at ignoring and violating the constitution too.
Passing laws that violate free speech rights of social media, teachers, professors, banning books. Etc.
Both parties have misused the Constitution, but only one, the Democrat Party has made the abuse of the Constitution national and has lied about it. The Democrat Party of today is a corrupt enterprise that is racist, lies, and cares only about themselves unless they are dedicated socialists or fascists, at which point they care about their ideology, but will always place themselves first.
You are terribly confused. You just described what republicans do.
Apparently you are blind, deaf, and … Do I have to add the last word, or can you figure it out for yourself?
Both parties share guilt, but today most of the guilt is on the Democrat side which seems to be a tremendous weight on your ego.
No, most of the guilt is on BOTH parties.
Not a republican, and past republicans (and democrats) have been not so hot on free speech.
But your claims are obvious nonsense.
No one is seeking to thwart the ability of social media companies to speak as they please.
Both left and right are seeking to control how they CENSOR – with Republicans wanting less and democrats wanting more
All censorship is not a violation of your rights. But all censorship LIMITS free speech.
There is no constitutional right to censor.
Are math teachers and professors free to teach christian fundimentalism ?
Of course not.
We have less than 1000 hours per year for 12 years to get the fundimentals necescary to survive much less thrive as an adult into our children.
That is a severly limited amount of time.
We have been adding to the true fundimentals with things like sex education over the years.
And those of you on the left think there is plenty of extra time to engage in political, racial, economic and sexual indoctrination ?
Absolutely no one is seeking to limit parents ability to teach their kids whatever they please.
Absolutely no one is seeking to ban books from Amazon or online or to take down left wing nut web sites or social media posts
Though the left actively seeks to ban books, web sites and social media posts they do not like.
Nor is this about teachers or professors rights. When you sign on to be a teacher – you join a profession dedcated to inculcating in students the skills their Parents, decided were necescary as adults. No one made you the parent, guardian, or advocate for these children.
They are not yours.
We grant college professors more freedom – as their students are adults, Though there is still a vast disparity of power and we do actually expect professors to refrain from indoctination and stick to teaching the acredited curriculm.
We need engineers who can competently build our roads and bridges and buildings – not cite Marx or Foucault or Diddera.
Absolutely no one precludes you from from reading Bell or Hannah-Jones.
Only from forcing them or their peers on public schools students.
Frankly I do not care much if colleges wish to teach any of this – as long as the rest of us are free to disassociate with or refuse to employee people who have been indoctrinated to try and destroy our lives or our businesses.
Finally – government should not subsidize any of this in anyway. That includes providing businesses like Disney special subsidies.
I am libertarian I oppose ALL government subsidies – even those with no connection to any ideology.
Govenrment should not involve itself in ANYTHING that is not part of its core responsibilities – the protection of our rights.
Show me where Republicans are violating the constitution – and I will join you in condemning them,
But lets start with some constitutional clarity.
There is no right to censor.
There is no right to indoctrinate.
It is not free speech when those you are speaking to are forced to listen to what you have to say.
“ But your claims are obvious nonsense.
No one is seeking to thwart the ability of social media companies to speak as they please.
Both left and right are seeking to control how they CENSOR – with Republicans wanting less and democrats wanting more
All censorship is not a violation of your rights. But all censorship LIMITS free speech.
There is no constitutional right to censor.”
Texas and Florida specifically ARE seeking to thwart the ability of social media companies to exercise their free speech rights. Texas passed a law to prosecute SM companies who censor politicians and others. Punishing them with fines up to $25,000 per violation. Forcing a private companies to carry a politician’s message IS a violation of the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority AGREES with that interpretation.
Florida’s own law which mirrors Texas was just struck down by a federal appeals court for violating. SM’s free speech rights because they were seeking to punish them for censoring political speech that violated THEIR policies.
Yes there is no right to censor, HOWEVER the constitution does NOT prohibit private entities from censoring speech art all. Only government is prohibited from censoring speech. In Florida government has passes laws forbidding the discussion of CRT in schools despite it being a different view point. Just because some don’t like it doesn’t mean the government is in any position to say that view shouldn’t be expressed. That is a violation of the 1at amendment. Just like there is no law saying discussing communism, Marxism, socialism, white supremacy, etc is not allowed because it is indoctionation. It is only applied to CRT or issues around LGBTQ. Obviously those issues SHOULD be discussed in class because it presents students with different points of view no matter how controversial they may be. These laws are not an out the students. it’s about the parents. Those who are most ignorant of what is being discussed. It’s about protecting parents ignorance than about the students.
“ It is not free speech when those you are speaking to are forced to listen to what you have to say.”
It’s also not free speech when you are being forced to carry someone else’s message against your own policy.
“Texas and Florida specifically ARE seeking to thwart the ability of social media companies to exercise their free speech rights.”
Nope
“Texas passed a law to prosecute SM companies who censor politicians and others. Punishing them with fines up to $25,000 per violation. Forcing a private companies to carry a politician’s message IS a violation of the 1st amendment. The Supreme Court’s conservative majority AGREES with that interpretation.”
Nope.
Barring censorship is not censorship. This is the typical looney arguments of the left.
Look I oppose the FL and TX laws – these problems will solve themselves, it just may take longer than conservatives want.
But my hope that we let the free markets sort it out does not change the fact that barring censorship is not censorship.
I would note that SM companies offer there services to absolutely everyone. You are essentially saying that bait and switch is legal.
SM companies should be barred S230 immunity if they censor political speech. Once you choose to censor – you become a publisher,
and publishers are liable for the content they publish.
SM companies should also be liable for their own speech.
If they tag something as disinformation and they are wrong – that is defamation.
“Florida’s own law which mirrors Texas was just struck down by a federal appeals court for violating. SM’s free speech rights because they were seeking to punish them for censoring political speech that violated THEIR policies.”
And TX;s was upheld by federal courts because the claim that censorship is speech is absurd.
“Yes there is no right to censor”
Then we are done.
“HOWEVER the constitution does NOT prohibit private entities from censoring speech art all.”
Correct, it also does not prohibit laws on private censorship.
The constitution does not prohibit private entities from murdering people.
“Only government is prohibited from censoring speech.”
Correct.
“In Florida government has passes laws forbidding the discussion of CRT in schools despite it being a different view point. Just because some don’t like it doesn’t mean the government is in any position to say that view shouldn’t be expressed. That is a violation of the 1at amendment. Just like there is no law saying discussing communism, Marxism, socialism, white supremacy, etc is not allowed because it is indoctionation. It is only applied to CRT or issues around LGBTQ. Obviously those issues SHOULD be discussed in class because it presents students with different points of view no matter how controversial they may be.”
I would strongly suggest some familiarity with schools and free speech laws – you are a million miles from the state of the law.
Google “Bong hits for Jesus” – schools were not prohibited from censoring the speech of an 18year old (adult) student in a public high school at a public non-school event.
Students have very limited 1A rights. The purpose of schools is to educate – specifically the knowledge and skills required for basic functioning in society. None of the long list of points of view you mentioned is required for basic functioning in society.
I would solve this problem by eliminating government schools. But so long as you have government schools SOMEONE must decide the curricula. And there is only 1000 hours per year. With respect to marxism, …. there are no laws barring their teaching – but there certainly could be. Or the law could require they be taught in a specific way. Regardless today School Board DO decide what is an is not taught and how.
And increasingly school boards are not answerable to parents – again a reason to eliminate public schools.
You are working towards a claim that any viewpoint can be taught in school – should schools teach beastiality favorably ? Pedophila ?
Obviously there is no right to teach anything and everything in school.
“These laws are not an out the students. it’s about the parents.”
Correct. You are getting it.
Get a clue. Fundamentally children are not much more than property legally.
The question is whose property are they – parents ? Teachers ? School Boards ? Governments ?
Whether you like it or not the track record of government in caring for kids is abysmal. 10000 times worse than parents.
“Those who are most ignorant of what is being discussed.”
Maybe, but TikTok is doing an excellent job of proving that the teachers you are essentially championing are complete morons.
Regardless, life is not perfect – there are bad parents, and we craft laws that hopefully rarely allow the state to intervene.
But on the whole Parents are 10000 times better at dealing with their children than teachers, school boards or governments.
As to the issues you are fixated on – amazon exists, the internet exists, no one has banned books or reading material.
My 3rd grade daughter many years ago googled sex and pain and discovered BDSM.
It was my job to deal with that – not some teacher. I have been part of my daughters life for 24years. No teacher has been for more than part of a year.
“It’s about protecting parents ignorance than about the students.”
No it is about protecting students from teachers.
If your some or daughter is gay today, even if they have the most unreceptive parents in the country, they will still be able to find the suport and resources they need far better than gays students 50 years ago. To the extent teachers play any role in this at all, it is to report ACTUAL physical and sexual abuse. It is not to be substitute parents. It is not to substitute their judgement regarding what is best for kids.
It is absolutely guaranteed that once in a blue moon a teacher will be right and a parent will be wrong. But that problem is far less severe that teachers pretending to be parents without the same real involvement and committment to the child.
“It’s also not free speech when you are being forced to carry someone else’s message against your own policy.”
Then do not be a teacher, or a manager, or take any position of responsibility, or frankly almost any employment at all.
People are paid to walk arround with Chicken suits on selling fast food – that is carrying someone else’s message.
When you choose to be a teacher – you are stuck with the job as it is. You are required to teach that 1 + 1 =2 not 5.
You are required to teach the curriculum provided.
Like the vast majority of employees on earth – you are required to carry someone else’s message.
If you do not like that – start your own business – start a school if you want.
Of course if you choose to start your own school teaching your own message – that message will have to be acceptable to the parents who can choose to send their kids to your school or not.
Svelaz – you are desperately struggling to prop up an impossibly bad argument.
while I do not favor the TX and FL laws. I absolutely 100% place the final voice for what a child is taught with the parents.
Not the child, not the teacher, not the school, not the state.
Next, regardless of the viewpoint we are dealing with – until public schools can teach all their students the fundamentals well,
The rest of stuff has no place in school.
What part of censorship is NOT free speech it is ANTI-Free speech is it that you are having so much trouble understanding ?
This is not a difficult concept – a 3rd grader could grasp it.
I would greatly prefer if republicans would leave this problem to the market to fix. It wioll take longer but the results will be more enduring.
Though just as FL revoked Disney’s special priviledges, they should revoke S230 protections.
No one should be given special priviledges by government.
But absolutely nothing in the constitution or first amendment stops government from increasing private free speech rights by reducing private censorship.
FL law does not prohibit discussions of CRT, it prohibits teaching it.
When a school teaches something they are not offering it as a viewpoint they are offering it as a fact.
Students do not discuss whether 1 + 1 = 2.
There is nothing in the FL law that restricts what Students can discuss – despite the fact that Fredrick V. Morse clearly allows government to restrict adult student speech outside school or school hours.
When schools graduate students who are competent in math and can read and write – we can discuss adding more complicated subjects.
I would terminate half of public school curricula until students meet grade level standards for reading, writing and math.
“ Show me where Republicans are violating the constitution – and I will join you in condemning them,
But lets start with some constitutional clarity.
There is no right to censor.”
“ Walker said the law, as applied to diversity, inclusion and bias training in businesses, turns the First Amendment “upside down” because the state is barring speech by prohibiting discussion of certain concepts in training programs. If Florida truly believes we live in a post-racial society, then let it make its case,” the judge wrote. “But it cannot win the argument by muzzling its opponents.”
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/florida-woke-law-blocked-by-judge-over-first-amendment-issues/#app
That is just one law in Florida among several.
Disney was punished by repealing the special governance agreement they had in their community because they criticized the governors “don’t say gay bill”. They were punished because they exercised their free speech right to criticize a government policy. Desantis retaliated as a response.
“ A three-judge panel of the Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously concluded that it was overreach for DeSantis and the Republican-led Florida Legislature to tell the social media companies how to conduct their work under the Constitution’s free speech guarantee.
“Put simply, with minor exceptions, the government can’t tell a private person or entity what to say or how to say it,” said Circuit Judge Kevin Newsom, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in the opinion.”
https://www.npr.org/2022/05/23/1100831545/appeals-court-florida-social-media-law-unconstitutional-desantis
Texas passed a similar law and the 5th circuit agreed that the state COULD force private social media companies to carry someone else’s speech
Are you going to condemn these?
I asked you for an example – you FAILED.
The judges comments are ludicrously stupid.
It is irrelevant whether we live in a post racial society, and the State need not prove that.
In the instance you are ranting about – you seem to presume there is a constitutional requirement for DIE programs.
There is not.
There is not a first amendment requirement that Florida have a HR department much less a DIE program.
No one is limiting what people can say. They are limiting what people say REPRESENTING Florida.
Your right to free speech is YOURS, it is not a right to speak for others.
Your judge is an idiot, he is not defending free speech, he is advocating for compelled speech.
As I said, find republicans limiting the free speech of others – and I will support you.
Nothing in the law you are ranting about prevents individuals speaking for themselves from saying whatever they wish.
Can FL pass a law that says that FL state employees while working can not tell Florida Residents they can drive as fast as they want on Mondays ?
It is very disturbing that we have federal judges this ignorant on basics of free speech.
When judges can not get easy questions right – how can I expect those like you to.
You are not muzzling people when you restrict what they can say when they are speaking for others.
Your right to free speech is to speak freely AS YOU. When you are acting as an agent of others, you speak for them and they can restrict what you say in their name.
These are not hard questions.
Disney was denied a special privildge they never should have been granted in the first place.
I though the left was rigorously opposed to government by corporation.
We see how strong that value of the left is.
With respect to your 11th circuit citation – the 5th circuit in a far better opinion just said the opposite.
The 11th circuit opinion is another example of the lunacy of the left.
There is no free speech right to censor. There is no right to sensor.
You can legitimately claim that social media censorship does not violate the first amendment.
But when you do you have ALREADY accepted that the first amendment does not apply to private censorship.
The 11th circuit is litterlly claiming there is a free speech right to prohibit free speech.
Have any of you lefties passed a basic course in logic ?
What is especailly disturbing is that Appellate court judges came up with this idiocy.
I would prefer that government stay out of the social media debate. The market will ultimately resolve these issues on its own.
But my preference is not a constitutional bar to government regulating censorship.
There is no constitutional impediment to government RESTRICTING private censorship.
This is not even a close call.
DIE BTW is about as racist as it gets, it teachs one group that they are inherently inferior and need special help to reach equality and the other that they are oppressors and must be subjugated.
Cant get more racist than that.
We are dealing with government – so DIE violates the equal protection clause.
Not going to condem a one of these.
Each and everyone is an example of Republicans promoting Free speech.
Most people trivially understand that less censorship always means more free speech.
Most people understand that you are not free to speak for another without their permission.
Isn’t this the same problem as occurred in PA? But there the PA Supreme Court ignored the PA constitution.
Yes the Constitution of Pa is very similar and the PA Supreme Court just chose to ignore it
In PA the SC are elected officials with a Democrat majority. That explains the ruling.
No, because the PA constitution is not EXACTLY the same as Delaware’s. Their issue was about deadlines and drop boxes. Which their own legislature agreed to prior to the lawsuits. The PA Supreme Court was correct in its interpretation of the law.
The PA supreme court was full of Schiff and obviously totally completely wrong.
The PA election law passed as a compromise between the governor and the legislature as a means to end PA’s decades long fight over Voter ID,
that law allowed no excuse absentee voting – which violates the PA constitution. Parts of the law appeared to allow limited mailin voting.
Which violates atleast 3 different provisions of the PA constitution.
The PA law was challenged – no only did the PA Supreme court find the law constitutional – but they rewrote the law themselves.
The actual law had no provisions at all for ballot drop boxes. Ballots had to be mailed or hand delivered by the voter to the SINGLE county election office where they had to be stamped it. PA SCOTUS turned this into almost any government office anywhere, and then unattended ballot boxes when there were no ballot boxes in the law.
Further PA Act 72 had a clause requiring that if any of the provisions of the law were found illegal or improper by the courts the entire law was rescinded – a non-sparation clause. PA SCOTUS ignored that and found individual clauses unconstitutional without striking the law as a whole as the law required.
The entire PA SCOTUS election law decision was an unconstitutional and lawless legal mess.
There is probably no principle of statutory construction that the court did not violate.
The court merely used ACT 72 as a scaffold to manufacture election law as they saw fit.
This is lawlessness.
This is also not repairable.
If the PA SCOTUS will not follow the constitution as written or the law as written
If they deem themselves free to legislate as they please – then what purpose does the legislature serve ?
I do not think I have seen an act of judicial lawlessness so egregious in my entire life.
I would note that the PA SCOTUS decision – more than anything else is the root of the TX Lawsuit filed in the Supreme court alleging that PA and other states by failing to follow their own constitutions and laws had broken the constitutional compact between the states.
SCOTUS did not want to touch this with a ten ft pole and dismissed it FALSELY on standing grounds – the constitutions actually provides that states can sue other states ONLY in the supreme court. It is one of the very rare instances in which the Supreme court is a trial court, not an appeals court.
“ The PA law was challenged – no only did the PA Supreme court find the law constitutional – but they rewrote the law themselves.
The actual law had no provisions at all for ballot drop boxes. Ballots had to be mailed or hand delivered by the voter to the SINGLE county election office where they had to be stamped it. PA SCOTUS turned this into almost any government office anywhere, and then unattended ballot boxes when there were no ballot boxes in the law.”
Nope.
The PA SCOTUS was correct in it’s interpretation of the law. The plaintiffs WANTED the narrowest possible interpretation because that is the only way their argument would hold water. The problem is that those who argued that the drop boxes HAD to be at the election office didn’t account for what the meaning of “election office” meant.
In the law that meaning meant the people running the office. not the physical building. Just like saying the office of the president means the government body encompassing the president’s staff. Not the physical office itself. In the PA law that is exactly what it meant me the PA Supreme Court with it’s authority to define words ruled correctly in this case. Just because you WANTED it to mean what you claim doesn’t mean that is what it meant.
Texas has absolutely zero standing in it’s lawsuit against PA. None. SCOTUS was correct. Texas would have been violating PA sovereignty as a state to make it’s own rules if they could sue because they didn’t like the way PA ran it’s own territory. Texas couldn’t produce evidence of harm in any fashion against PA for their decision. States can sue other states thru the Supreme Court when they can SHOW they will be harmed by their actions. For example water disputes involving dams crossing state lines, interstate commerce or state regulations involving other state businesses. NOT states laws regarding their own citizens or voting laws. This is why Texas and other states had NO STANDING whatsoever. It seems you don’t understand the concept of standing works at all.
More made up BS.
YOU do not understand how standing Works.
It has absolutely nothing to do with anything you claimed -0 despite the fact that you are completely wrong about those claims.
States automatically have standing to sue other states in th supreme court – the constitution makes that clear.
I would further note that Standing itself is court made extra legal and extra constitutional.
When it was originally created – it was far narrower that today.
I would further note that the abuse of standing is a double edged sword.
The left was unable to challenge the TX abortion law – SB 8 because TX constructed the law so no one would have standing.
We heard all kinds of waling from the left regarding that.
Ultimately the issue proved moot because of Dobb’s.
But the FACT is that no one should ever have to prove standing for a FACIAL challenge to the constitutionality of anything.
When A Law is unconstitutional on its FACE, we should NEVER have to wait until people are actually harmed to be able to challenge it.
Standing should never apply to facially constitutional challenges to law.
And to the very limited extent that it might – only to the extent that Facial challenges should always be made by the strongest party able to challenge the law. We should always have the strongest defenders and the strongest challengers – for constitutional issues.
That is the ONLY relevant criteria for standing related to a facial constitutional challenge.
With Respect to TX v PA. TX alleged that PA changes its election laws through no legislative means in violation of multiple US constitutional provisions.
TX is correct, PA obviously changed its election law through non-legislative means.
Alito and Thomas correctly responded that regardless of the outcome the Supreme Court was constitutionally bound to take the case.
As in this case they are a court of original jurisdiction and do not have the discretion they are otherwise afforded.
I fully understand why SCOTUS – as well as all other court refused to hear any election cases – they were complicit in the lawless disaster that was the 2020 election and really had no means to fix the mess they were instrumental in creating.
There was alomst no court in the country that had any intention of proceeding with a case that required the courts to confront the FACT that prior to the election they had FAILED to do their duty to protect the integrity of the election.
One thing that was certain the day after the 2020 election – was that we had a mess and absolutely no way to fix it that was not going to be a disaster.
We had 6 states where the margin of victory was significantly less than 1% and whether you like it or not credible allegations of fraud and highly unusual voting patterns. We were expected to beleive that every single place in the country followed voting patterns that were consistent with prior elections and trends, but that in only 6 cities in the united states – cities that Biden never visited. He got HUGE boosts that did not follow trends in the same states, in other states even in other democrat controlled deep blue cities.
In every one of these cities – election observers were throw out on election night in many cases despite court orders.
In several of these cities election officials announced that they stopped counting, and then secretly continued through the night.
In everyone of these cities there is a very large mismatch between the count of voters and the count of ballots.
In every one of these cities – and only these cities – Zuckerburgs 501C3 took over local election control and pumped almost half a billion dollars into the election 99% to democrats.
And I can go on and on and one.
The election smells like month old fish.
But there was absolutely nothing any court could do that was not incredibly dangerous.
The court chose the least dangerous choice they had – stick their heads in the sand.
Because god forbid they should open their eyes and find anything.
There is one and only one constitutional remedy to the lawless mess that the left made of the 2020 election,
And that was the very one that you left wing nuts keep calling criminal insurrection.
That is for congress to reject the electors from dubious elections. That has happened before, but not in over a century.
And that likely would have lead to a riot by the left that would have made J6 or the 2020 summer of love look like telle tubies.
The courts and democrats counted on Republicans and Trump supports to be the less violent and most likely to accept being shat uppon.
And they were RIGHT.
Humans have spent the last 7 thousand years inventing law, and legal interpretation.
We learned long ago that the idiotically broad means by which you and the left want to play with the law and constitution leads to hell.
Recently the PA SCOTUS reverse the PA Superior court who correctly ruled – based on the 4th PA constitutional provision that requires voting in person that the PA constitution really allows any form of voting at all. The opinion as written would allow voting by throwing darts, or by bumper cars.
This is one of the huge core problems with the entirety of the lefts mis applicaiton of law.
Law must be read broadly for rights, and narrowly for government powers – or any law eventually means anything at all you want it to.
Most people understand that when the constitution says Government has the power to do X and the power to do Y,
that it does NOT have the power to do Z.
Law and constitution must always be limited to what they explicitly say – because if they are not government is infinite, and all of us are slaves.
You can not construct laws of constitution that both identify every power of government and proscribe everything government can not do,
Inevitably something not thought of arrises or even something that did not exist in the past.
The left talks of a living constitution. – the Constitution is living in the sense that today we have the same power to expand it or reduce it as the prior generation or our founders. It is dead in the sense that the meaning of its provisions is set to what was meant at the time each part was ratified.
I am talking of US law and constitution – but these are lessons we have spent thousands of years learning. And are relatively common throughout the world. When the law or constitution can be changed without changing it – it means everything and it means nothing, and no one is free.
The constitution is a contract between the states. Quite literally.
One provision of the constitution is that each state is guarenteed and required to have a republican form of government.
Each state is required to have a judiciary, and executive, and a legislature.
Each branch of each state government is required to have a legislature that writes laws, an executive that enforces them and a judiciary that oversees that enforcement and ensures the executive stays within the law and the legislature stays within the constitution.
The constitution requires that of every single state.
Just as states are not free to leave the nation at whim, they are not free to ignore the requirements of the constitution or their own constitutions and laws as they please.
You claim that TX could not show harm. How was Massachusetts harmed with South Carloina suceeded ?
States have a great deal of freedom to govern themselves as they please. They do not have infinite freedom, they are bound by the provisions of the US constitution that apply to states.
When you say that TX is wrong in its lawsuit – you are also saying that PA can decide to abolish its legislature – and its supreme court and operate as a monarchy if it wishes ? Or restructure its government however it pleases and no other state has any say.
But the TX claim is more than that PA changed its election laws without going through the legislature. It is also that PA conducted a lawless election. To this day there is no law that allows the election in PA as it was conducted in 2020 (and aparently will be in 2022)
We are seeing this lawlessness from the left all over.
The 5th circuit struct down DACA – because it is essentially executive made law that confilicts with statutory law enacted by congress.
We see versions of the same when District Attorney’s announce that they will not prosecute laws they do not like.
When the president does not follow our immigration law regarding our borders.
When the courts or the executive make it up as they go – we are lawless. When they find in the law whatever powers they want – we are lawless.
We are fighting over something far more fundimental than elections.
We are fighting over the foundations of the social contract – the moral justification for government.
We are fighting over whether we are governed by the rule of law.
And the lefts answer is NO!.
And PA SCOTUS’s answer is NO!
The PA Supreme court was not even close.
They were flat out lawless, and that is unbelievably dangerous.
We can survive small errors on the part of our courts.
The federal courts are generally forbidden from overruling state courts with regard to state constitutions.
Rooted in that prohibition is that a state supreme court will not go completely lawless.
The action of the PA Supreme court was comparable to the south’s succession from the union.
The PA supreme court took for itself the right to direct PA elections – without regard for the PA constitution, PA election law or the US constitution.
There is no remedy for lawlessness this egregious.
It is this kind of extreme lawlessness in court that results in actual insurrections – and much more.
We see massive lawlessness by democrats all over – whether it is DACA or ignoring state constitutions to conduct elections lawlessly,
whether it is the president deciding that he can unilaterlly spend half a trillion dollars without legislative authority.
Over and over the left thinks that ANY power they have in govenrment can be used to accomplish whatever they wish.
If they control the legislature – they can ignore the constitution.
If they control the executive they can ignore they judiciary constitution and legislature.
If they control the judiciary they can ignore the legislature the executive and the constitution.
The rule of law conversely requires the agreement of ALL of the branches of government to act – not merely one of them.
The PA SCOTUS did not have the choice to rewrite the law. They would have been wrong to find ACT 72 constitutional.
But if they had, they were obligated to take it as written. They are not the legislature or governor.
The consent of BOTH of which is required to change a law.
The only correct decision was to declare act 72 unconstitutional and revert to prior election law.
Courts are not legislatures, they can not write laws.
“ Rooted in that prohibition is that a state supreme court will not go completely lawless.
The action of the PA Supreme court was comparable to the south’s succession from the union.”
You exaggerate quite a bit. The PA SCOTUS ruling was not lawless. They did exactly what they are supposed to do. Interpret the law. As I said before just because the republican legislators didn’t like what the law said they WANTED the PA SCOTUS to agree with their very narrow interpretation. Unfortunately the only branch that can define words and intent is the judicial branch.
The PA legislature DID change the law to accommodate COVID. That showed the intent of the legislature to the PA SCOTUS. They did not create new law. They correctly interpreted the law according to long held tests in court cases determining definition and intent. You can disagree all you want. But you certainly cannot claim they were wrong when they showed ample evidence as to why they arrived at their conclusion.
Your evidence that they “rewrote” the law is that they interpreted differently. That interpretation was clearly defended in their opinion. One of those interpretations was the term “election office” which in it’s narrow literal interpretation meant the physical building. Using the entire context of the law the term “electron office” clearly meant the governing body specifically authorized to make changes when needed to accommodate emergencies or other issues. The legislature did give local election offices the authority to make small changes and notifying LOCAL courts of the changes as per the law. This is why they were able to have drop boxes in locations other than the physical location of the election office. The PA legislature gave them the authority long before the dispute arose. Republicans were trying to argue long after that authority was given that the local election offices did not have that authority. The court correctly noted that the legislature had plenty of opportunity to challenge that issue before the election and they did so only when they were not happy with the outcome of the election. That was a problem the court correctly pointed out. It was the legislature’s problem both the election offices.
You are completely full of Schiff regarding the PA SCOTUS.
Legal “interpretation” has rules – they are not permitted to make things up out of whole cloth.
Nor are they free to ignore the plain language of the law.
Courts are NOT permitted to change laws. They take them as they are.
They can determine if they are constitutional or not.
They can determine if the law is being followed or not.
And no I am not exaggerating regarding the PA supreme court.
The 2020 Election in PA had no resemblance at all to PA’s actual election law.
And worse that election law was facially unconstitutional.
The DE supreme court has just ruled mailin voting and same day voter registration unconstitutional.
Delaware has exactly the same absentee voting constitutional requirement as PA.
But DE does not have secret ballot constitutional provisions – that PA does, as well as other constitutional provisions that make mailin voting unconstitutional.
This is NOT about “intepretation”.
both the DE and PA constitution share two provisions.
A constitutional requirement for in person voting
and an allowance for “for cause” in person absentee voting.
Unlike DE PA also has a secret ballot constitutional requirement, and other constitutional provisions that can not be met by mailin voting.
The PA constitution is MORE restrictive than the DE one.
Yet, Delaware – a blue state and home of our democratic president was able to apply its constitution to its laws correctly.
No they did not interpet it differently.
No they did not follow long established legal standards for judicial interpretation.
Legal interpretation is NOT about “evidence” this is not a trial.
it is about the words in the constitution and the words in the law.
If you do not like those – you can change them.
The court can not.
No the legislature did not delegate authority.
In fact the text of the law explicitly included provisions that if the law was not upheld AS WRITTEN in every single section
then the law was null and void.
This is a non-severability clause.
These are ways that the legislature prevents exactly what the PA Scotus did.
I have never before heard of a court ignoring a non-severability clause.
BTW while ACT 77 included a non-severability clause – they are not required.
non-severability is the default for legal interpretation.
Again those long standing rules that PA SCOTUS ignored that you claim they followed.
This became an issue with PPACA – because PPACA did not include a sever ability clause.
This ALLOWS the court to void as unconstitutional part of the law while retaining the rest.
If a single provision of PPACA was found unconstitutional – the whole law was unconstitutional.
As you are intent on getting into details which you are clueless about.
ACT 77 does not say “election office” – it says “The County Office of Elections” – SINGULAR and unique.
No interpretation necescary.
Further it specifies that absentee ballots (including mailin) must be mailed to or hand delivered to “The county office of Elections”.
That is the only acceptable means to legally submit a ballot – except in person at a poll.
There is also MASSIVE legislative history on this. When courts are not clear about the meaning of a law – they are NOT free to make up what they want. The legislators debated what they wanted – and they wanted all ballots to go to ONE place in each county.
If they were not delivered by mail they had to be HAND delivered to the elections clerk in the county elections office.
Why the legislature CLEARLY wrote as they did is in the legislative history.
I would note this law was very carefully constructed, it was the resolution to a political war that had been ongoing in PA for a decade.
PA has had a voter ID law for over a Decade. There have been legal challenges by democrats to it every election year, the federal courts have Every election year found that there was something wrong with the PA voter ID law and required PA to conduct the current election without ID.
Every election year this eventually went to an appeals court or even the supreme court which overruled the lower court AFTER the election.
This had been going on for more than a decade. PA has one of the older election ID laws in the country. And todate it has NEVER been allowed to be used. PA also has one of the broader voted ID laws – with provisions for vote without ID by affadavit.
The democratic governor, the democratic leadership, the PA DNC all agreed that as part of getting ACT 77 approved by both democrats and republicans that opposition to PA voter ID would cease. That Everybody – democrats and republicans alike would live with ACT 77 exactly as it was written. This was a very big deal in PA. This was a very important Bipartisan agreement.
And in 2020 the first year ACT 77 would be the state election law, the PA governor’s office violated ever single agreement he had made with republicans to get the law passed. And worse still – the PA scotus allowed all kinds of things that are not in the law.
This was an egregious act of bad faith on the part of democrats. And it has been near impossible for PA republicans and democrats to work together on anything since.
This is what happens when you engage in this nonsense – NO ONE TRUSTS YOU.
But back to “the country election office”.
There is no world in which delivering ballots in person by hand to the clerk in
the county election office means – to any of an unlimited number of unsupervised and unattended ballot boxes throughout the county.
But that is what we ended up with.
NO ACT 77 does not give local government any ability to modify the law.
That is BS.
“The PA legislature gave them the authority long before the dispute arose.”
Nope, not in the law.
This law was not some ad hoc construction by a bunch of idiots. It was incredibly carefully and tediously negotiated between PA democrats and republicans. There was also no “long before” – this law was passed in 2019 and 2020 is the first election it applied to.
Exactly what the legislature wrote and intended was FRESH in everyone’s mind.
No there was not plenty of opertunity to challenge this. This litterally was the first use of the law AND no one was proposing ballot boxes at all until the case reached the PA supreme court – where the court itself constructed the idea of ballot boxes.
I live in PA. I have been incredibly attentive to PA election law conflicts.
You are completely full of SCHIFF here.
These provisions were challenged WELL BEFORE the election. The initial challenge was by democrats – who were challenging “The County Election office” provision. Republicans joined the court fight when the Sec State determined – without authority to do so, that did not mean a single office. This all happened BEFORE the election. After PA SCOTUS ruled the case went to the US supreme court.
Alito – as the Justice for 3rd circuit sent an advisory oppinion that the PA SCOTUS decision was BS and that State election officials should follow the law as written or risk messy challenges AFTER the election. The case went to SCOTUS itself which deadlocked 4:4 because Ginsberg had died, and Barret had not been seated. After the election SCOTUS re-reviewed the case and decided that as the election was over there was nothing they could do and refused to re-hear the case. Then TX and 20 other states challenged this and several other state illegal and unconstitutional lawless election changes. This fell under a rarely used provision of the constitution that allows states to sue other states ONLY in the supreme court. This is the ONLY time in which the Supreme court is a court of original jurisdiction – that it hears witnesses and evidence.
SCOTUS rejected the case on Standing grounds – which is absurd – the constitution guarantees standing. Regardless, SCOTUS was doing exactly what courts throughout the country were doing – which was saying – We F’d up before the election. We have a Fing mess on our hands.
How do we get out of this.
I understand perfectly why SCOTUS decided not to hear the TX case – there was absolutely no good outcome for the court.
No matter how they ruled – they had a huge mess.
This is also why to a very large extent democrats are NOW losing election challenges all over the place.
The courts learned from 2020 – fix the problems BEFORE the election, it will only be worse AFTER.
That is why you have DE SCOTUS saying no same day registration, no mailin voting.
That is why you have WI SCOTUS repeatedly rejecting pretty much everything the WEC attempts.
That is why the courts blessed the GA election law.
Many courts do not want a repeat of the post 2020 mess where they put themselves between a rock and a hard place.
I would note that ALL the claims that some election nonsense was not challenged BEFORE the 2020 election are crap, and you clearly have no memory. There were numerous legal battles before the election.
Near universally state and federal courts said “the issue is not ripe” – wait until AFTER the election.
Then after the election they realized they had F’d UP, and to cover their asses they responded with – “the issue is moot”, or you do not have standing, or any other of a number of legal games to run out the clock and shove the decision to congress.
There is litterally nothing in your post that you got right.
You do not know the law, the court history, the political history.
If you say the Text says “X” – you are wrong.
If you say the challenge occured after the election – you are wrong.
I do not think there is a single fact in your entire post that is correct.
I posted a long rebutal, but it would take hundreds of pages to deal with every error you have made.
There are not more than two words next to each other in your post without error.
If you provide details – do not LIE about them.
I would note that in Feb 2022 the PA superior court invalidated ACT 77 as a violation of PA’s constitution.
Unfortunately the same nutjob PA supreme court has subsequently reversed in a decision as loony as the original,
claiming that the constitution does not prohibit the legislature from enacting voting methods that are unconstitutional.
And that the law was not challenged until after the 2020 election – which is ludicrously stupid because the PA supreme court ruled on a challenge to the constitutionality of Act 77 prior to the election. The justice is not even familiar with their own docket.
As a result of two decades of democratic rule PA has one of the most idiotic incompetent and broke supreme courts in the country.
They are not actually the most left leaning – they there are 5 democrats and two replicans.
But they are the most bat$hit crazy. This is not the only lunatic ruling from PA SCOTUS.
Just one of the more embarrassing ones.
My local commonwealth court is republican and pretty bad overall. But it is not 1/10th as bat$hit as the PA SCOTUS.
Yes and no. PA is different than Delaware. Where I think the PA Supreme Court went wrong was our Constitution says voting laws or procedures can only be changed by the Legislature and the Secretary of State basically changed the rules around mail in voting by decree. The PASC’s ruling was in direct contradiction to the clear wording of the Constitution.
No, PA legislature DID change the law to accommodate COVID. The SOS did not change the rules because the rules were followed.
The legislature authorized local election offices to make changes when emergencies arose and those changes were to be approved by the LOCAL courts as the law states. That is one part of the argument that is often lost or deliberately omitted because it undermines the bigger argument that PA SCOTUS was acting lawless. They noted that part fo the law when they pointed out that the term “election office” did not mean the physical building, but the local governing body and they backed up that interpretation with multiple examples of precedent definitions in their ruling.
The legislature GAVE local election offices the authority to make changes in order to accommodate or compensate or emergency disasters. They were required to notified local courts of the changes and have them approved by those courts. They’ did exactly that. Those claiming PA SCOTUS made up laws keep ignoring that because it undermines their main argument. This is why the PA ruling was correctly decided. Those opposing that ruling are making up claims that they made up laws and disregarded their own constitution. The ruling is public and you can see for yourself exactly why they were correct.
This is great
BIDEN, THE DEM’s corrupt,Stacy Abrams loooooose again. Very few courts are buying the DEM’s crazy election ideas and their way they try to bypass laws and the Constitution of the US and of the States.