Sonny Tufts
Member

Fun fact: you don't need to be in politics to be a chronic and habitual liar. In fact, in the real estate business it can be an asset. And sorry to burst your deluded bubble, but I never watch or listen to MSNBC. You suffer the malady shared by many Trumpers: you think that anyone who dares to criticize him just has to be a MSNBC-loving left-wing nutcase who worships Harris and the other loonies in the Democratic party. In any case, I don't give a damn about your uninformed opinion. I wish Barry Goldwater or someone like him were around (and given the sorry state of the GOP, that ain't gonna happen); he'd tear Trump a new asshole.

You obviously haven't been listening to Trump very much. How can you tell he's lying? His lips are moving.. No, she shouldn't get a pass. Here's a link to today's article by Politifact in which it analyzes the claims of both Trump and Harris during the debate. https://www.politifact.com/article/2024/sep/11/2024-presidential-debate-fact-check-harris-trump/ Yes, they should. But I wonder if one factor was that Trump repeated lies he has spewed in the past and the moderators probably figured he'd do so again so they had the facts at hand, whereas Harris didn't have a long enough lying track record (compared to Trump, no one does) and they weren't sure what she was going to say.

Not from most politicians. But Trump takes lying to a much higher level, both in frequency and in narcissism.

Because he's a chronic and habitual liar.

Remember this bit?

Except the case involved timely-received ballots with no date. So there is no issue regarding timeliness. The question neither you nor anyone else seems to know the answer to is if a ballot is timely received what is the purpose of the handwritten date? What compelling governmental function does it serve? Even, as in your hypothetical, an incorrect date (i.e., one after the election date) appears on a timely-received ballot, what's the problem? What's the significance of the date? The only possible one that I can see is that it's theoretically possible some election worker could falsify the date the ballot was received; to do this he would have to falsify the timestamp on the ballot and its barcode scan. But I think it's a fair assumption that the timestamp and barcode scan occur before the envelope is even opened. If so, why would an election worker try to throw out a ballot when he doesn't even know who the vote is for? This scenario is too improbable to imagine.

What in the world does this have to do with whether a date (which is not used to determine the timeliness of a ballot, a voter’s qualifications/eligibility to vote, or fraud)* was put on the outer envelope? Keep in mind that the case involved a challenge based on a provision in the PA constitution requiring elections be free and equal. Since the date requirement serves no purpose the Court held that those wo gailed to date the envelope were being disfranchised, resulting in an unequal election. * In fact, the PA Secretary of State confirmed that none of the county boards of elections use the handwritten date for any purpose.

And just who do you think that is? Ya think it just might be someone at the county board of elections? And if you that person would deliberately back date the stamp to hide the fact that the ballot was received after the election day deadline, wouldn't he or she do so whether or not the envelope had a handwritten date on it?

According to the opinion the envelopes contained a "timestamped date indicating its timely receipt by the voter’s respective county board of elections by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day". So pray tell what is the significance of a handwritten date?

The opinion has nothing to do with ballots received after election day. It deals solely with the failure to date a ballot envelope under circumstances where the date has absolutely no significance.

It helps to read the opinion of the court.

I think it was addressed -- in the "judicial power if the United States" phrase. But that aside, who else is going to decide? Congress? There's your massive conflict of interest. If Congress gets to determine the constitutionality of its own actions you can kiss the Bill of Rights goodbye. The states? Impossible. You've got a case between parties involving a constitutional issue. Are they supposed to wait for years before 50 state legislatures give their opinion on the issue? I'm not sure what being removed from the people has to do with deciding constitutional issues, especially those involving the Bill of Rights. After all, its provisions were deliberately designed to override the desires of the majority. And again, what non-politicized entity should make constitutional determinations?

That was Jefferson's opinion. Federalist 78 explains why he was wrong. The fact that the Court cannot enforce its rulings but must rely on the Executive Branch to do so; the fact that Congress controls its appellate jurisdiction and its budget; and the fact that Congress must approve all appointments to the Court are sufficient rebuttals to Jefferson's concerns. For what it's worth, we've had judicial review for over 200 years and there's been no groundswell to eliminate it. I should also point out that those who bitch and moan about the Court's declaring federal and state laws unconstitutional also bitch and moan when it doesn't.

I've explained this before. The Constitution explicitly delegated to the federal courts the "judicial Power of the United States". This power clearly includes the power to determine the applicable law in a given case (that's what courts routinely do). If a party claims that a law violates the Constitution, a court must necessarily decide that issue. The Marbury case is a classic example. Marbury brought an original mandamus action in the Supreme Court seeking to have his commission as a justice of the peace delivered to him. Although the statute Marbury was relying on (the Judiciary Act of 1789) authorized the Supreme Court to issue writs of mandamus, the Constitution did not give the Court original jurisdiction over Marbury's case (the Court's original jurisdiction is limited to "cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be a party"). So what was the Court to do? Issue the writ although it had no jurisdiction to do so? Which is supreme, an act of Congress or the Constitution? The answer is obvious: In other words, the "judicial Power of the United States" includes the power of judicial review.

How is this an example of the courts declaring the Constitution unconstitutional? Now if you mean that the courts uphold laws you think are unconstitutional and that the law establishing the IRS is such a law, you should know that establishing the IRS is clearly constitutional pursuant to Article I, Section 8, Clauses 1 and 18.

Can you please give an example?

I was commenting on WarriorLiberty's claim that the judges were hand picked by Soros. But if you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks GWB was a Soros puppet, have fun in your fantasyland.

The writer of the opinion was a George W. Bush appointee, as was one of the other two judges.

"Bone Spurs" Trump should be the last person to denigrate military members, especially those who received the Congressional Medal of Honor. All MOH awardees are either dead or in bad condition?? Can anyone possibly be any dumber? Yes, Trump can.

You haven't a clue what the issue with the PA process was. The PA Supreme Court had held that the PA Constitution's provision for free and equal elections required extending the deadline for submitting mail-in and absentee ballots. Texas's argument was based on the astonishing claim that in devising the rules for selecting electors a state legislature isn't bound by its state constitution. This theory, called the Independent State Legislature Doctrine, had been previously rejected by SCOTUS in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), a case involving the authority of state legislatures under the Article I Elections Clause. It was rejected again in Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1 (2023), another case involving the Article I Elections Clause. The reasoning in those cases would also apply to a case involving the Article II Elections Clause, such as Texas' complaint. B.S. Texas wasn't injured at all; all of its electoral votes went to Trump, and that's all Texas and its voters were entitled to. All three Trump appointees were of the view that Texas lacked standing. But Trump lemmings such as yourself would never consider for a second that those three and the other 4 in the majority just might know a bit more than you about the law of standing and that maybe, just maybe, they got it right. No, under your outlook they "chickened out", as if their lifetime appointments were meaningless.

Funny, that's just what the Constitution says: "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..." This matter has been hashed out before. See http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?552290-PA-lawmakers-move-to-end-illegal-no-excuse-mail-in-voting-used-to-poisoned-2020-election&p=7018494&highlight=Paxton#post7018494 and http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?551158-Texas-Sues-Georgia-Michigan-Pennsylvania-and-Wisconsin-at-Supreme-Court-over-Election-Rules The bottom line is that SCOTUS (including 2 and possibly 3* Trump appointees) held that Texas had no standing, just as I had predicted in 2000. When 7 (and possibly 9*) justices pour you out, it's a good indication that your suit is meritless. So you can bitch and moan about the "cowardly" or "corrupt" Supreme Court justices, but it doesn't change the fact that Paxton wasted Texas taxpayers' money by filing a baseless petition with the Court. * 7 justices declined to hear Texas' petition due to lack of standing. Alito and Thomas would have heard the petition but would not have granted other relief. While not totally clear, their statement (Statement of Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas joins: In my view, we do not have discretion to deny the filing of a bill of complaint in a case that falls within our original jurisdiction. See Arizona v. California, 589 U. S. ___(Feb. 24, 2020) (Thomas, J., dissenting). I would therefore grant the motion to file the bill of complaint but would not grant other relief, and I express no view on any other issue.) can be interpreted as indicating that they too believed that Texas lacked standing.