• Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 04:38 PM
    I didn't realize I had a duty to respond to every question put to me on this site. If it'll make you happy, then: no, I don't agree that the PA no-excuse mail-in ballot law is unconstitutional, at least with respect to the PA constitution. Making an informed judgment on that issue would involve in-depth research into PA law, which I have neither the time nor the PA resources to pursue, and something I'd wager no one else on this thread has undertaken. Nor do I think the PA law was "a predictable vehicle for election fraud". Those who think so need to explain how the bipartisan group of legislators (including all of the Republican senators and 105 of 107 GOP representatives) who passed the bill (including the two senators who are now doing an about-face) missed that.
    14 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 01:54 PM
    Actually, I was addressing the only issue that is currently pending before the Supreme Court. I suspect you are ignorant of the fact that a petition for certiorari was filed last October after the Court refused to grant a stay of the PA Supreme Court's decision. The only issue before SCOTUS is the legality of the PA court's extending the time for receiving mail-in ballots. Given that it takes only four justices to grant certiorari, it's curious that the Court hasn't come to a decision yet, especially since four justices (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch) would have granted the stay. If you want to see everything that's been filed so far, go here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-542.html As far as the OP is concerned, the issues Chief Justice Saylor was addressing were (a) the legality of Act 77's 180 day time limit on raising constitutional objections to the law (I agree with his concerns, and I can't see how such a provision is constitutional), and (b) whether Act 77's no-excuse mail-in voting provisions violated the PA constitution. As I understand it, that issue involves two different provisions of the PA constitution. As far as the filing of the PA state senators to which you linked is concerned, it addresses only the 3-day extension issue. As far as the alleged violations in PA that were set out in Paxton's application are concerned, PA's response is as follows (I previously cited its response to the three-day extension period issue):
    14 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 11:45 AM
    Biden's margin of victory in PA was over 80,000 votes, not counting the 9,428 mail-in ballots that were received during the 3-day extended period. There is no case or controversy regarding this issue; it's moot.
    14 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Today, 08:59 AM
    The PA Supreme Court's decision was based on the PA Constitution and on PA statutes. 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. A similar argument involving the authority of state legislatures under the Article I Elections Clause had been previously rejected in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, 576 U.S. 787 (2015), and the same reasoning would apply with respect to the Article II Electors Clause. TheTexan of course won't read it, but a far better legal analysis than Ken Paxton's mishmash of a petition is PA's response: See also PA's response in Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, No. 20-542 (U.S.) https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/20-542/156779/20201005132428197_Response%20to%20USSC%20Motion%20to%20Stay%20v.FINAL2.pdf
    14 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:28 PM
    What hypocrites. These guys voted for the bill that allowed no-excuse mail-in voting.
    14 replies | 308 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 05:06 PM
    That's rich. If you think Trump hasn't been living in "an alternate universe of propaganda and lies" for the last four years and if you've swallowed his "alternate facts", you're beyond hope.
    37 replies | 5835 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 11:50 AM
    I've listened to the entire call and read the transcript. You'd have to be like Tommy (deaf, dumb, and blind) to not know what Trump was up to. And I doubt very much that GOP Senator Pat Toomey, who called the phone call "a new low in this whole futile and sorry episode" and who commended "Republican election officials across the country who have discharged their duties with integrity over the past two months while weathering relentless pressure, disinformation, and attacks from the president and his campaign" as not being of sound mind.
    37 replies | 5835 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 10:14 AM
    Trump mentioned just about every conspiracy theory he could to get Raffensperger to change the election results, despite Raffensperger's refutations and insistence that his numbers were accurate. Trump even resorted to veiled threats of criminal action. There's nothing ambiguous about "I just want to find 11,780 votes" or "I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break."
    37 replies | 5835 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 09:41 AM
    I should also have mentioned Trump's soliciting the Georgia Secretary of State to commit election fraud, which was mentioned in the Articles of Impeachment: In his January speech Trump referred numerous times to Pence's rejecting electors, and when Pence sent a letter to Congress on January 6 explaining that he had no authority to do so, a number of the goons who stormed the Capitol started yelling "Hang Mike Pence!" So there was a connection between Trump's bogus claim that Pence had the authority to reject reject electors and the insurrection. As a practical matter the Senate can view the totality of the circumstances and consider Trump's behavior preceding January 6. However, I think it's going to be a moot point because Trump has a good argument that the Senate has no jurisdiction to try him since he has left office. I suspect some GOP Senators who secretly condemn Trump's behavior but who don't want to alienate voters can use the no-jurisdiction argument as an excuse to vote for acquittal. It should be noted that there have been only two instances where impeachment of a former official went to trial: in 1876, William Belknap was impeached after he had resigned, and although a majority of the Senate voted to convict, the necessary two-thirds vote wasn't achieved. Most of the Senators voting to acquit did so because that thought the Senate had no jurisdiction.
    37 replies | 5835 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    Yesterday, 07:55 AM
    Urging Pence to subvert the electoral college by rejecting certified electors (a power Pence did not possess under the law) = an impeachable offense
    37 replies | 5835 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-25-2021, 07:58 AM
    It refutes your fatuous claim that "elevating a particular candidate in one state by illegal methods is most certainly an abridgement of the right to vote of people in others states whose legal votes are rendered meaningless, and diminished by the amount of illegal ballots counted in another state."
    36 replies | 1513 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-23-2021, 10:05 AM
    Bilge. A voter in Illinois has the right to vote for electors in Illinois but has no right to vote for electors in Georgia. His vote in Illinois isn't rendered meaningless or diminished by anything that happens in Georgia because if his vote is properly counted in Illinois that's all he's entitled to. You might as well allow California to sue Texas in the Supreme Court alleging that Texas's voter ID law violates equal protection and therefore damages CA or its citizens. And you can cite Douglas's dictum fom now until doomsday but it will always remain dictum, nothing more. Are you oblivious to the fact that the PA no-excuse mail-in voting procedure was enacted by a GOP-controlled legislature in 2019? Or that the act required any constitutional challenge to be brought within 180 days (which didn't happen)?
    36 replies | 1513 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-22-2021, 10:41 AM
    You can't remove language to try and shoehorn the rest into something the drafters didn't intend. All it means is that SC authorities can go on the land the fort is situated on and serve process. The legal matter the process is associated with doesn't have to involve the land itself. For example, if a soldier got into a bar fight in Charleston and someone he beat up sued him for assault, the summons could be served on him in the fort. If SC really wanted to serve an eviction notice it's doubtful anyone in the fort would have had the authority to accept service on behalf of the federal government. It's more likely someone in D.C. would need to be served. That's inconsistent with the language of the cession, under which SC transferred "all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory", which transfers ALL of SC's interest, not merely a leasehold.
    186 replies | 4219 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-22-2021, 08:18 AM
    The book cites a resolution passed by the South Carolina legislature in 1836 and recorded in the deed records in Charleston in 1840, both well before Reconstruction.
    186 replies | 4219 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-22-2021, 08:14 AM
    You misunderstand the language. It means simply that if someone in the fort is being sued in a civil suit or is being charged with a crime under South Carolina law process can be served upon him on the fort by South Caroina authorities. It has nothing to do with the fort's ownership. That doesn't follow. Even assuming the people "own" the federal government it means all of the people, not just South Carolinians. They would have no greater claim to the Fort than Virginians or Vemonters. But secession has no bearing on ownership. If South Carolina had sold the fort to the federal government would you seriously claim it could get it back by seceding? Or what if it sold cotton raised on state-owned land -- would the cotton suddenly become SC's property upon secession? The fact that the fort was ceded instead of sold is irrelevant. If someone makes a gift to you the subject of the gift is still your property even though you paid nothing for it, and the donor has no legal claim to it. The same applies to property that's ceded by a State. This is reinforced by I.8.17, which contemplates that the area comprising the Seat of Government of the United States would come from land ceded by States. Would you claim that when Virginia seceded it magically became the owner of the portion of D.C. that it had ceded?
    186 replies | 4219 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-21-2021, 07:58 PM
    That's because it was already owned by the United States. South Carolina ceded Fort Sumter to the federal government in 1836. https://books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false
    186 replies | 4219 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-21-2021, 10:12 AM
    All she said in her confirmation hearing is that she'd "consider" taxing unrealized capital gains; it wasn't a proposal. Such a rule is already in place for securities dealers, but it's totally impractical for average investors and has zero chances of being passed.
    32 replies | 526 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-18-2021, 09:00 AM
    The reason this lying POS doesn’t talk about it is because it’s a totally bogus theory. Notice that Rose never points to anything in the Constitution that exempts any kind of income from taxation. He goes on and on bloviating about the regulation’s reference to income that’s not constitutionally taxable, but he conveniently never gives an example. But there’s a very good reason for that – there is no example. There used to be examples, but not because of any specific language in the Constitution. What happened was that beginning in the 19th century the Supreme Court held that certain kinds of income were exempt from federal taxation because of the federalism structure of the Constitution. In a series of cases the Court held that Congress couldn’t tax such things as the income earned by the States, the salaries of state employees, or interest on state and local obligations. The idea was that taxing such items would unduly interfere with the States’ governmental functioning. The drafters of the regulation Rose cites obviously had these decisions in mind, and when the regulation was promulgated interest on state and local obligations was still exempt. But what Rose never mentions is that all of these prior decisions were overruled by the Court itself, the last instance occurring in South Carolina v. Baker, 85 U.S. 505 (1988), in which the Court held that interest income from state and local obligations could be subject to federal taxation. So since 1988 there is no kind of income that’s constitutionally exempt except certain income earned by state and local governments. He also misrepresents the regulation under Section 861 as somehow exempting some income from taxation. It doesn’t.
    414 replies | 47617 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2021, 04:33 PM
    He addressed it directly in his phone call with Trump. When Trump asked, "And Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? They put them in three times." Raffensperger replied, "Mr. President, they did not put that - we did an audit of that and we proved conclusively they were not scanned three times." Regarding the observers, the SoS said that the staff, not the observers, were told they would be discontinuing the counting at 10 and would resume in the morning. The observers then likely went home on their own accord (why stick around?). Of course, you probably think that this was done intentionally just to get rid of the observers so they could resume the nefarious counting after they'd left. But the Trumpers have never been able to explain why a pro-Trump Republican Governor, a pro-Trump Republican Secretary of State, and a pro-Trump Republican chief operating officer would have allowed this or any of the other alleged fraudulent actions to happen.
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2021, 12:47 PM
    A lot of people don't want to examine Trump's claims for fear they'll discover that they've been had.
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-16-2021, 10:40 AM
    He and the Trump campaign claimed that the containers of ballots pulled from under the tables had been added in secret, when in fact they were sealed and placed under the tables in full view of the monitors. So it wasn't just a case of there being a lack of evidence to support a Trumpian claim; the actual evidence was to the contrary.
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 08:24 PM
    But if all this is true (and I'm not saying it is), why was it necessary for Guiliani and his cohorts to lie about the edited video?
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 06:42 PM
    When an agency is is given increased responsibilities but is underbudgeted and understaffed because its funding has been reduced, it's not incompetence and poor service should not be surprising.
    26 replies | 732 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 06:29 PM
    I suggest you watch this piece, in which the chief operating officer for the Secretary of State (a Republican and Trump voter) explains exactly what happened, contrary to the lies put out by Trump's people. Watch the video at the top and the one marked "Sterling refutes election conspiracy". https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-60-minutes-2021-01-10/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/georgia-election-brad-raffensperger-60-minutes-2021-01-10/
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 04:28 PM
    If your last name is Trump or Kushner, it's free.
    17 replies | 574 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 03:13 PM
    The January 6 date, as well as the objection procedure, comes from the Electoral Count Act, 3 USC § 15.
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 03:09 PM
    Well for starters, I think if a Trump toady like William Barr says there was no widespread fraud, there wasn't any. Of course, this won't satisfy those who think Barr is a Deep State mole, but there's no reasoning with such people. Here's a point-by-point refutation of the claims Trump made in his phone call with Secretary Raffensperger: https://sos.ga.gov/admin/uploads/Letter%20to%20Congress%20from%20Secretary%20Raffensperger%20(1-6-21).pdf Trump's claims of a stolen election have a 100% failure rate in court. But don't think that all of the courts dismissed the claims on procedural grounds. In Nevada, for example, a trial court ruled that there was "no credible or reliable evidence that the 2020 General Election in Nevada was affected by fraud.” The ruling was affirmed by a unanimous Nevada Supreme Court. An Arizona court found that the evidence presented "did not prove illegal votes, much less enough to affect the outcome of the election” and that "The court finds no fraud, no misconduct, and no effect on the outcome of the election...Plaintiff has not proven that the Biden/Harris ticket did not receive the highest number of votes.” And when given the opportunity to present evidence in a Georgia court, the Trump team voluntarily withdrew its suit the day before the hearing was to occur. https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/trump_legal_team_folds https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-drops-georgia-lawsuit-overturn-biden-win And when Trump's legal team resorted to presenting highly-edited and misleading video to Georgia Senators instead of honest evidence, you can bet there was nothing to support their claims. If Giuliani was aware of the edited video's mischaracterization of events, he should be disbarred.
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-15-2021, 11:12 AM
    It’s precisely because conduct warranting impeachment doesn’t need to constitute criminal conduct that the charge against Trump makes sense. While his January 6 speech, standing alone, probably doesn’t amount to inciting insurrection under the criminal statute, his actions preceding the speech coupled with it certainly amounts to impeachable conduct. Here’s the entire impeachment article (emphasis is mine): Additional conduct not specifically mentioned in the Article but clearly encompassed by the phrase “his prior efforts to subvert and obstruct the certification of the results of the 2020 Presidential election” (and also alluded to by Trump in his speech) was his effort to have Pence not accept certified electoral votes from certain states, something Pence had absolutely no authority to do under the Constitution. Fortunately, Pence had the integrity to recognize this and to send a letter to Congress on January 6 in which he explained he has no such authority, thereby causing some of the rioters to scream for his death. There is no question that Trump's conduct warranted impeachment.
    174 replies | 3510 view(s)
  • Sonny Tufts's Avatar
    01-14-2021, 05:19 PM
    Most legal scholars agree with that position. https://apnews.com/article/a4ac94cbde7e34c953dce82d0f60d0a4
    174 replies | 3510 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
2,121
Posts Per Day
0.66
General Information
Last Activity
Today 04:38 PM
Join Date
04-25-2012
Referrals
0

01-26-2021


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 57 1231151 ... LastLast

01-27-2021


01-26-2021


01-25-2021


01-23-2021


01-22-2021


01-21-2021


01-20-2021

  • 05:49 PM - Hidden


Page 1 of 57 1231151 ... LastLast