• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 12:42 PM
    Ah yes, the same Sidney Powell whose batshit crazy conspiracy theories were too much even for the Trump campaign to swallow anymore. One of the reasons Flynn may have copped a plea was an additional charge against him that the DOJ agreed not to pursue: making false statements in a filing with the Department of Justice relating to his company's lobbying efforts on behalf of Turkey.
    139 replies | 3555 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 08:53 AM
    Proof? So why did he try to withdraw his plea later? Did his son die or something so the threat went away?
    139 replies | 3555 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:10 AM
    Pray tell, who held the gun to his head and forced him to admit his guilt in open court? http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?546150-General-Flynn-Exonerated!&p=6946456&highlight=Flynn#post6946456
    139 replies | 3555 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-20-2020, 04:28 PM
    It's not all that clear that the PA Supreme Court invalidated the law. If you read the opinion it seems to try and get around the severance issue by saying it's not invalidating the law but merely granting a one-time equitable extension due to COVID and the USPS delivery problems and that the 8 pm deadline would still apply to future elections.
    49 replies | 1384 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-20-2020, 07:44 AM
    Not that close. The PA Secretary of State said there were only about 10,000 such ballots, and even if all of them went for Biden. he'd still have a lead of around 72,000 votes.
    49 replies | 1384 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-17-2020, 01:30 PM
    I make the following comments after going back and rereading the portion of the PA Supreme Court’s opinion regarding the 3-day extension for receiving mail-in ballots. The entire majority opinion can be read here: http://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Supreme/out/J-96-2020mo%20-%20104548450113066639.pdf?cb=1 The statutory deadline provision applies solely to absentee ballots received after the deadline, not to those received before the deadline. Your cites to the provisions dealing with watchers and nonseverability are irrelevant. In other words, if the PA Supreme Court's decision is reversed, then the 8 pm deadline applies and only the late arriving ballots get tossed; no statute has been voided. Now if you're arguing in the alternative that if the PA Supreme Court's decision stands then per the nonseverability provision all mail-in ballots (as well as the vast majority of the 2019 act) are void, many questions remain: (1) The PA Supreme Court relied on a PA statute giving lower state courts the authority to decide “matters pertaining to the election as may be necessary to carry out the intent of” the Election Code and on a previous lower court decision upholding a two-week suspension of an election due to a natural disaster. The PA Supreme Court held that COVID was a natural disaster and that it had the jurisdiction to grant the equitable remedy of a 3-day extension. It did not explicitly hold the statutory deadline was unconstitutional. Instead, it seems to have adopted the position of the Secretary of State (who was a defendant in the proceedings), who emphasized that she was not asking the Court to invalidate the statutory deadline but to grant a temporary extension of the deadline due to COVID and that the deadline would remain unchanged for future elections. (2) However, if you view the decision as holding the statutory deadline was unconstitutional as applied to the current situation (which in all honesty I think is what the PA Supreme Court’s decision did without actually saying so), it follows from the nonseverability provision that all of the amendments to the voting regulations made by the 2019 act are invalid, which leads to wondering whether the election in PA complied with pre-2019 law. Many provisions of the 2019 act don’t deal with absentee or mail-in voting; for example, Section 3 of the act amended the official form of the ballot, and it’s reasonable to assume that the new form was used in the election. But under pre-2019 law, this wouldn’t be a valid official ballot. It’s therefore possible that if the pre-2019 law wasn’t followed in all respects ALL votes in PA, not just mail-in votes, must be thrown out. And if that’s the case, what happens to PA’s electoral votes?
    49 replies | 1384 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 02:35 PM
    Can you please cite the PA law that would invalidate the mail-in ballots that were received before the polls closed?
    49 replies | 1384 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 01:03 PM
    It is unless there is an actual controversy the resolution of which will be determined by the Court's decision. If Biden would win regardless of how the Court decides, the case is moot. The Court will not opine on something that would impact only some hypothetical future election.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 10:17 AM
    The Court doesn't give advisory opinions.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 09:44 AM
    I simply reported what the Secretary said at a news conference; there's no need to get your panties in a wad. If necessary, I have no doubt the State will report the count to the court in the proper legal manner. Of course, if you believe the PA newspaper that published the story is part of the massive Fake News Conspiracy, then there's no help for you. The same can be said for Trump's pathetic lawsuits. They keep getting tossed because his attorneys have no evidence.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 09:30 AM
    The Court has a long tradition of not deciding constitutional issues unless it's really necessary. If Biden's margin in PA turns out to be such that the late mail-in ballots wouldn't make a difference I can't see that the Court would choose to hear the appeal because the case would be moot. Yes, if your scenario were to happen in 2022 the Dems would bitch. But then they can try to take the case to SCOTUS.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 08:08 AM
    If you take the DH to its logical conclusion, baseball should be two platoon like football. Why restrict the DH to pitchers? If you have a great fielding shortstop who can't hit the side of a barn with a cannon (e.g. Ray Oyler -- lifetime batting average of .175) wouldn't you want someone else to hit for him?
    16 replies | 481 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-16-2020, 07:54 AM
    Please provide a link to the law that says she had to. On November 6 Justice Alito ordered that the ballots received after the polls closed were to be segregated. It's reasonable to assume that the number of these segregated ballots were determined in each county and reported to Bockvar's office, after which she reported the 10,000 figure on November 10. https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/11/pa-received-10000-late-ballots-that-arrived-after-polls-closed-on-election-day.html Trump is still losing, and his refusal to to permit his Covid task force to coordinate with Biden's simply demonstrates he cares more about his swollen ego than he does about the country.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-15-2020, 04:58 PM
    It’s interesting that of the seven Justices who addressed the II.1.2 issue in Bush v. Gore, only three (Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia) adhered to the notion that a state legislature is supreme under state law when it comes to presidential elections. The other four did not. In his dissenting opinion, Justices Stevens (joined by Justices Ginsberg and Breyer) noted: But will SCOTUS get involved? The PA Secretary of State has said there were about 10,000 ballots that were received after the polls closed. The latest count in PA has Biden leading Trump by 67,921 votes, and there are still to be counted mail-in ballots received before the polls closed and provisional ballots. If this lead is maintained the late ballots will be irrelevant, and SCOTUS will likely decide to not grant certiorari.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-15-2020, 11:00 AM
    Maybe it's because he's the most narcissistic President in history whose me-me-me outlook makes it impossible for him to entertain the possibility that he would lose a fair election and that if he does lose it must mean the election was rigged by a massive conspiracy. As John Bolton said on a talk show this morning, if a massive conspiracy really pulled this off the CIA ought to hire its members.
    30 replies | 776 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-15-2020, 10:44 AM
    So you're saying that this provision allows the PA legislature to violate the PA Constitution?
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-15-2020, 09:34 AM
    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court's opinion was based on the Pennsylvania Constitution, and that court, not SCOTUS, is the final authority on the meaning of PA law. Unless the Trump folks can come up with a violation of the US Constitution, they will lose.
    40 replies | 1283 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2020, 08:15 PM
    He will be...until noon on January 20.
    15 replies | 373 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2020, 08:13 PM
    I see you've adopted Trump's philosophy: lie, lie lie.
    15 replies | 373 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2020, 03:28 PM
    No, a snowflake is one who wails and moans and can't face reality. In 2016 it was the Clinton voters; today it's the Trump lemmings.
    15 replies | 373 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2020, 12:33 PM
    A delusion.
    15 replies | 373 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-12-2020, 08:00 AM
    Looks like Kavanaugh is ready to uphold the ACA. “I tend to agree with you that it’s a very straightforward case for severability under our precedents, meaning that we would excise the mandate and leave the rest of the act in place,” Kavanaugh told a lawyer defending the law on behalf of the House of Representatives.
    6 replies | 326 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2020, 03:47 PM
    60 Minutes ran a piece on the vote-counting process in Pennsylvania last Sunday. It featured Al Schmidt, a Republican election commissioner in Philadelphia who debunked the claims that there is widespread fraud going on, and Ben Ginsberg, a Republican election law attorney who represented George W. Bush in the Bush-Gore recount and who said that Trump's litigation strategy is incoherent. https://www.cbs.com/shows/60_minutes/video/L5R3q_8r13q789FNXq0KFQUGYWr2DjP1/11-8-2020-counting-the-vote-operation-warp-speed-ken-burns/ Another interview with Schmidt can be seen here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/11/al-schmidt-philadelphia-city-commissioner-voter-fraud-misinformation-newday-vpx.cnn I fully realize that nothing in these pieces will ever convince the diehard conspiracy theorists on this site who would be convinced that Schmidt and Ginsberg are moles planted by the Democrats, the Illuminati, the British Crown, or extraterrestrials, and who would point out that because CBS and CNN are puppets of the Marxist Establishment anything they say must ipso facto be propaganda devoid of truth (they won't mention Fox News's Neil Cavuto cutting off Kayleigh McEnany's screed about election fraud, unless it's to charge Cavuto with being a mole as well).
    6 replies | 326 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2020, 08:22 AM
    That will happen only if Trump's lawyers present evidence that the irregularities that occurred were such to have made a difference in the result, something they have failed to do so far.
    29 replies | 930 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2020, 08:17 AM
    The suits are being filed in state courts, and Republican Presidents don't appoint state court judges. Amend: Some suits have been filed in federal court -- e.g., the request for an injunction on the automated signature-verification machines used in Clark County, which was rejected.
    29 replies | 930 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2020, 08:12 AM
    For the problems with relying on the 9th Amendment to invalidate legislation, see all of the different opinions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/, and this comment: https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment9.html
    20 replies | 596 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-11-2020, 07:54 AM
    But courts don't have the power to enforce their own rulings; they must rely on the executive branch to do so. It's called separation of powers. Of course, if you think the government is one homogeneous glob of people all of whom have the same agenda, then the answer to you is this question: who chooses the people who enforce the law?
    20 replies | 596 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-10-2020, 08:13 PM
    But there's plenty of authority for judges to determine how the Constitution applies to cases in which one of the parties raises a constitutional issue. Article III, Section 1: The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. Judicial power includes the power to determine the law applicable in a case. Just because you disagree with the result a court reaches doesn't mean it didn't have the authority to make that determination.
    20 replies | 596 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-10-2020, 07:39 AM
    The paranoia is strong in you.
    403 replies | 17302 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    11-09-2020, 05:31 PM
    If every court in which a lawsuit is filed on behalf of Trump is dismissed due to lack of evidence or for some other reason (as has happened in AZ, PA, and GA), will that mean the courts are part of the Democrat conspiracy? Sometimes when you throw everything against the wall nothing sticks.
    403 replies | 17302 view(s)
More Activity
About Sonny Tufts

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1

Signature


We have long had death and taxes as the two standards of inevitability. But there are those who believe that death is the preferable of the two. "At least," as one man said, "there's one advantage about death; it doesn't get worse every time Congress meets."
Erwin N. Griswold

Taxes: Of life's two certainties, the only one for which you can get an automatic extension.
Anonymous

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
1,924
Posts Per Day
0.61
General Information
Last Activity
Today 02:39 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

04-06-2018


03-17-2018


03-08-2018


08-03-2017

  • 10:57 AM - Hidden

12-15-2016


No results to display...
Page 1 of 47 12311 ... LastLast

11-23-2020


11-22-2020


11-20-2020


11-16-2020


11-15-2020



Page 1 of 47 12311 ... LastLast