I have been commenting on the ongoing challenges to the presidential election. While I have not seen evidence of systemic voter fraud, there are hundreds of affidavits alleging localized fraud, including cases of deceased persons voting. The challenges should be heard and the evidence should be examined. However, the most worrisome response came out of Michigan this week where Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel’s Office of Public Information threatened a website, Big League Politics, with criminal prosecution if it did not take down a video of alleged voting fraud. The video may indeed be misleading or false. However, the threat of criminal prosecution by the Michigan Attorney General’s office is a chilling escalation of the crackdown on free speech in this country and the calls for censorship on the Internet.
One can have an interesting debate over the most self-defeating political statements in American politics. There was Bill Clinton’s not-so-clever answer about his affair with Monica Lewinsky as depending what “the meaning of ‘is’ is.” There was John Kerry’s statement that he was for the Iraq war before he was against it. There was Donald Trump’s refusal to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. However, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer may have taken the crown with his yelling on the streets of New York that “Now we take Georgia, then we change the world. Now we take Georgia, then we change America.” It is a quote that will live in political infamy — and play endlessly in Georgia. Now adding to the Democratic problems are liberal figures openly encouraging Democrats to move to Georgia to stack the vote in the runoff elections. So Georgia just started a hand recount in the midst of claims of voting irregularities but figures like New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman are calling for liberals to move to Georgia to influence their election. In other words, Friedman and others are sending the self-destructive message is that Jon Ossoff and Raphael G. Warnock might not have enough Georgians to vote for them so they need New Yorkers and Californians to come and vote as Georgians. The New York Times, which has run repeated pieces on alleged vote suppression by the GOP, has had nothing to say about Friedman’s call for vote stacking in Georgia.
Last night, we passed the 46,000,000 mark in views on the blog. The blog continues to grow with new regular commenters and a growing international readership. Again, we thank our loyal readers who return every day to discuss contemporary legal, political, and occasionally bizarre stories. We have used these moments to give thanks for our many regular readers around the world and give you an idea of the current profile of readers on the blog. We continue to rank with the top legal blogs in the world. As always, I want to offer special thanks for Darren Smith who has continued to help manage the blog and help out folks who encounter posting problems.
So here is our current profile: Continue reading “Res Ipsa Hits 46,000,000”
Yesterday’s oral argument before the Supreme Court was most notable in the collapsing of the false narrative used by many Democratic senators and media figures in the Barrett confirmation that the Affordable Care Act was close to being overturned in the case of California v. Texas. That conspiracy theory (of which suggested that the rush to confirm Barrett was to supply the final needed vote) was shattered when both Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh repeated their position in favor of severance — a position that would guarantee the survival of the ACA. What was equally notable however was the slightly pathetic scene of Roberts effectively acknowledging that he might have been a chump in accepting the arguments on the individual mandate eight years ago in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). For years, Roberts has been on a collision course with himself — and yesterday he had a one-person pileup.
Continue reading “After Taking The Bait, The Chief Justice Prepares To Switch On The ACA”
The Lincoln Project is airing a commercial today celebrating the end of the politics of division and personal attacks as Twitter removed a tweet (with a skull-and-crossbones emoji) from The Lincoln Project that sought to target lawyers simply because they represent the Trump campaign. The crushing irony is magnified by the fact that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) has called for liberals to start to assemble enemy lists of people who were “complicit” in the Trump Administration and the first entry was . . . you guessed it … the Republicans who founded the Lincoln Project. It is the reality of our doublespeak politics. Call it skull-and-crossbones civility.
We previously discussed the views of Boston University professor and head of the school’s Center for Antiracist Research Ibfram X. Kendi after his infamous description of Justice Amy Coney Barrett as a “white colonizer” for adopting two Haitian children. Despite such extreme views, Kendi remains a popular speaker at universities like Harvard. Now, Kendi is warning that the use of “legal vote” in the current election is itself racist. Continue reading ““Fraught And Functionally Racist”: Professor Declares “Legal Vote” A Racist Term Like “Handouts,” “Personal Responsibility” And “Postracial””
During the Barrett confirmation hearing, we discussed the narrative of the Democrats and the media that the Affordable Care Act was dangling in the balance on the Supreme Court. With huge pictures of beneficiaries of the ACA displayed around the room, some Democratic senators actually said that Barrett was part of a conspiracy to rush her to the Court to kill the ACA. As I repeatedly said, the narrative was entirely disconnected from any legal reality since at least two conservative justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh — were likely to vote for severability and thus preserve the Act. They previously voted on similar cases. Today’s oral argument in It’s Obamacare day at the Supreme Court. In California v. Texas again exposed the unfair and unfounded narrative against Justice Barrett with both Roberts and Kavanaugh expressly reaffirming their positions on the severability. Will any of these senators or analysts now acknowledge that the hype in the hyperbole from the hearing?
We have been discussing the calls for top Democrats for increased private censorship on social media and the Internet. President-elect Joe Biden has himself called for such censorship, including blocking President Donald Trump’s criticism of mail-in voting. Now, shortly after the election, one of Biden’s top aides is ramping up calls for a crackdown on Facebook for allowing Facebook users to read views that he considers misleading — users who signed up to hear from these individuals. Bill Russo, a deputy communications director on Biden’s campaign press team, tweeted late Monday that Facebook “is shredding the fabric of our democracy” by allowing such views to be shared freely. Continue reading ““Shredding The Fabric Of Our Democracy”: Biden Aide Signals Push For Greater Censorship On The Internet”
After the election with two races undecided in Georgia, Chuck Schumer sounded more like William Tecumseh Sherman, proclaiming on the streets of New York: “Now we take Georgia, then we change the world. Now we take Georgia, then we change America.” The Senate Minority Leader (and hopeful Senate Majority Leader) was referring to two runoff elections that could hand the Senate to the Democrats with total control of the legislative and executive branches. The last Yankee to promise a scorched earth campaign through Georgia delivered on his promise. Ironically, the Georgia campaign will commence on an ominous anniversary. The infamous “March to the Sea” by Gen. Sherman began on November 15th and ended shortly before Christmas. The march left Georgia in ashes. Continue reading “Georgia Prepares For Second “March To The Sea” As Leading Democrats Promise Scorched Earth Campaign”
Below is my column in The Hill on the challenges to the presidential election and moving beyond heated allegations to hard evidence in the filings. I have expressed skepticism over the sweeping claims of fraud or that the current margins could be overcome with anything other than systemic flaws in the authentication of ballots. However, the demand for clear evidence of systemic violations after only a couple days of the tabulation stage is bizarre. We would not necessarily have such evidence, which is largely held by election officials. As expected, we have a series of localized affidavits and allegations of intentional fraud. Yet, network analysts were dismissing any and all allegations within the first 24 hours, as tabulations were continuing. It is like saying that a patient has a low white blood cell level but insisting on stopping testing if you cannot conclusively say that there is cancer. These initial allegations may or may not be indicative of a more systemic problem. There is no reason to presume fraud but also no reason to demand concessions before we look at these allegations, particularly with the addition of sworn statements and at least one computer problem resulting in loss of thousands of Trump votes in Michigan. Half of this country voted for Trump and it is not much for them to ask for a review of the challenges — a right that the Democrats would be demanding if the positions in this close election were reversed. Moreover, those voters can be understandably skeptical to hear these instant dismissals from networks, which previously predicted a sweeping victory for Biden and the Democrats. Even if, as expected, these allegations are rejected, it is important for this country to have a full and open consideration of these claims and the underlying evidence.
Here is the column:
By Darren Smith, Weekend Contributor
Voters within the City of San Francisco passed Proposition L, a measure designed to tax corporations having CEO compensation in excess of 100 times the median compensation of line employees. City analysts estimate the measure would raise between sixty and one hundred million dollars per year confiscated from large for-profit companies employing over one thousand persons nationwide and having administrative offices in San Francisco.
According to the San Francisco Voter Information Pamphlet:
• For a business that pays the Gross Receipts Tax, if its Top Executive Pay is more than 100 times Employee Pay, the business would pay an additional tax from 0.1% to 0.6% of its San Francisco gross receipts.
• For a business that pays the Administrative Office Tax, if its Top Executive Pay is more than 100 times Employee Pay, the business would pay an additional tax from 0.4% to 2.4% of its San Francisco payroll expense.
The Proposition invoked from a hearing of July 28, 2020 where the Board of Supervisors voted 11 to 0 to place Proposition L on the ballot. The government wrote:
The more inequity between the top executive and their workers, the higher the surcharge. Corporations can avoid the tax by simply paying their executives less or by raising their employees’ wages.
We believe that big corporations that can afford to pay their executives million-dollar salaries every year can afford to pay their fair share in taxes to help us recover. Over the last 30 years, executive salaries in the United States have skyrocketed by 940 percent. But regular workers’ salaries have grown by just 11 percent. Prop L incentivizes companies to invest in their workers, not just their executives ~+~
That’s quite an incentive? Yes, I would agree: Laying off workers is the incentive that might actually come to mind at some companies.
Being a legal analyst often makes you a killjoy at a party. As millions broke out in celebration over the calling of the election for Joe Biden (including most of my immediate family), I watched with a mix of shared excitement and silent apprehension. It does appear that Biden won this election and his speech last night was the perfect pitch and message for a divided nation. However, there are still legal challenges being filed in a half dozen, new affidavits containing troubling sworn allegations, and relatively close state contests. As someone who has covered presidential elections for networks going back to 2000, those challenges are like live torpedoes in the water – you do not know if one could actually hit below the water line. The issue for legal analysts is that, with the tabulations still occurring, there is little ability to judge allegations of voting irregularities.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has announced her campaign to be reelected Speaker of the United States House of Representatives despite losing seats against one of the least popular presidents in history. This is not the first such loss for Pelosi who remains one of the most polarizing and unpopular figures in American politics. Pelosi claimed that former Vice President Joe Biden was not only already the “President-Elect” but insisted that she and Biden had a “tremendous mandate” despite the election blows in the House and the close presidential election. She insisted that she is “part of that mandate” from the American people.
It turns out that some things that happen in Vegas may not stay in Vegas . . . like voting. The Republican Party in the Silver State is now arguing that thousands of votes in the close presidential election were cast by workers who moved out of the state or even by deceased individuals. Various voters reported their deceased relatives receiving live ballots in the mail. Now, the Nevada Republican Party has sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department alleging at least 3,062 instances of voter fraud in the battleground state. The referral is substantially less than the “10,000” referenced earlier but the underlying allegation is still important. The early concern for many of us was that the system established in Clark County would be difficult to review for violations due to how the tabulation was handled and the record preserved. Continue reading “What Happens In Vegas May Not Stay In Vegas: Why The Nevada Challenge Could Be Important To The Presidential Election”
Below is my column in the Hill on continuing controversies over vote counting in states like Nevada and Pennsylvania. Some of these challenges are based on the resistance to monitors and observers in states like Pennsylvania. It is mystifying why Pennsylvania is fighting so hard against such access. The litigation is only fueling suspicions of wrongdoing as the vote balance shifts dramatically. The problem is that a court could ultimately agree that the officials violated state laws but declare such challenges as effectively moot since the vote counting is largely completed. For other challenges, the litigants will need to convince a court that the number of impacted ballots could be “outcome determinative” for the electoral votes. Otherwise, it could be treated as immaterial to the outcome. Those challenges need to be made and supported without delay. Time works to the advantage of the party protecting a lead. As it stands, the allegations of systemic violations is still to be made by the Trump campaign. Absent real evidence, Joe Biden has a clear path to 270 electoral votes and the White House.
Here is the column: