Oh, boy! Democracy at work. :)

My request was processed in early Sept. Ballot mailings will START Oct 6. There are currently 96,000 absentee ballot requests in my county. The online tracker is supposed to notify me when my ballot is mailed. i'll keep you posted.

Spot on! Well said!

Gay marriage is one big example. No Republican runs today on overturning gay marriage. The sky was going to fall if it happened, then it did and the sky didn't, so now they know that it would be almost impossible for them to resurrect the "Defense of Marriage Act" idea. Even with SCOTUS 6-3, I doubt they'd overturn it either.

I agree that our right to marry might be safe, but there are far more ways for Conservatives to strip rights away from the LGBQT community. There are still states where we can get married on Saturday, post our wedding photos online on Sunday, and get fired from our jobs as a result on Monday.

I lost my job as a 911 call receiver in part because I demanded an investigation of my homophobic supervisor after she ordered me to falsify the classification of a 911 call simply because the suspect was black. Devon was forced to resign from the police department he was working at because he was defending me. This all happened in King County, WA — the county’s largest city being Seattle — one of the most liberal counties in this country! Washington had a law making it illegal to fire someone based on their sexual orientation, but that requires extremely specific declarations of the intent to discriminate by the employer to enforce. If they create reasons to fire you that do not mention your sexual orientation, the state agencies that are tasked to investigate these matters won’t even consider your case.

Despite my experience, I cannot imagine risking our livelihoods by moving to a state that does not offer any protections against discrimination based on our sexual orientation. I miss Georgia more than I ever thought I would, but I cannot imagine living in constant fear that would come with moving back home.

https://lightuplive.ca/

https://www.facebook.com/hashtag/lightuplive?__eep__=6&source=feed_text&epa=HASHTAG&__xts__0=68.ARASgC0MsaZIIzYBHdK5ewWxrGqAClzCn-ML-jEfjL0749h4wrr3k9RvtufXY0qI5MSF7yia1lePIK30O1axkT1zKhqpb2vSD10hd3oQJFQIx4wesH7_NqQeSDbocBv_YzmlIu3R3sIVfdzzwFNxaGL_2OAsfDDevbaZsLnrOHr5LCjBeO0RceoAGUFEVCRb0AjSVqXnjOZbIakBzdDcS4SuOyvzHtYXgOA-afZfQemsYDttgtPACITEY-6pSIMCguqkgghnR1xgQ7rLEFSB1EO5PtQs51cGjjU9KAUx40t0XS_o3RuMbLRs_1prvazAXpOQCOkdylhSxBgxgfBj6wVqHCih8Iwb1BQ0Ds6M4gaYJAOu&__tn__=*NK-R

Normally, I would agree with everything you say.

And you would be correct. ;)

However, (1) with Trump, all things are possible, and (2) Bush v. Gore, which I still can't quite believe happened.

As for (2), I hear you... but remember that Bush v. Gore was stopping a recount of votes and not an actual first count where candidate Texas dipshit declared himself the winner before the votes were counted.

As for (1), "all things"? Nah. The SCOTUS has denied Trump many things:

No citizen, not even the president, is categorically above the common duty to produce evidence when called upon in a criminal proceeding.

~ Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

You want more "things"? Well, okay.

Trump has the worst record at the Supreme Court of any modern president

Interesting reading for those wishing to see Trump's record with the SCOTUS. Yes, I realize that was with a 5-4 SCOTUS, but many of the decisions were lopsided. Having said that, I do realize there are two of the Supreme Court justices who would allow Trump to bend them over on national television. I won't name them. There are those who would insist Trump wins all the time in the SCOTUS, and they would be bigly wrong.

Trump running around the country and pretty much broadcasting his intentions does not help him in the SCOTUS. His inept rambling and tweeting is killing whatever argument he'd potentially have in the SCOTUS. Seriously, Trump has a bad record in the SCOTUS... one of the worst, and much of that is due to his own actions. He's installed his own man at the USPS to sabotage the mail and then attempted to use the courts to invalidate the ballots before they're even cast.

Once bitten, twice shy, in other words. And with Trump, very shy indeed.

Forewarned is forearmed, and I hope everyone feels the way you do and VOTES!

Remember: Trump uses the courts as a weapon -- always has, always will.

Remember: Trump is a pathological liar and has perjured himself in multiple depositions/jurisdictions. Trump loses a lot in court:

Roundup: Trump-Era Agency Policy in the Courts

And it doesn't matter what the lower courts throw out (while laughing at the legal "logic"), SCOTUS will be the deciders. And with a 6-3 SCOTUS, anything is possible....

Anything? History says "nope," but I do understand where you're coming from. If Trump wins when all the votes are counted, no problem. If Trump actually loses when all the votes are counted or the SCOTUS allows Trump to overturn multiple state elections that Trump lost, they will deserve their fate when the King they've created does away with their precious SCOTUS. Our democracy will then be gone, and you'll understand why I wasn't exactly kidding when I referred to the con artist jackass as "Benedict Donald" and the biggest threat to America.

There is clear precedent that recusal is advisable when the judge is appointed at a time when issues are pending against the person who nominated him to avoid the appearance of a conflict. This is what then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist did in the seminal Watergate case, U.S. v. Nixon. It really boggles the mind that this is something that we have to worry about in our country!

“Let me just give you one example of the issues that are out there,” said Toobin. “Most people don’t know this, but under the Constitution, a state legislature can decide to award the electoral votes to the candidate of its choice, regardless of the voters. So if you have contested elections in North Carolina, in Wisconsin, states with active and very conservative Republican majorities, they can say, you know, this election is too chaotic, we are awarding our electoral votes to Donald Trump. That is a possibility that exists. And people need to start focusing on it now, because it is a real possibility.”

Normally, I would agree with everything you say. However, (1) with Trump, all things are possible, and (2) Bush v. Gore, which I still can't quite believe happened.

Once bitten, twice shy, in other words. And with Trump, very shy indeed. Remember: Trump uses the courts as a weapon -- always has, always will. And it doesn't matter what the lower courts throw out (while laughing at the legal "logic"), SCOTUS will be the deciders. And with a 6-3 SCOTUS, anything is possible....

-CW

That's mighty nice of Mr. Bloomberg.

Yes, sir. There's more than one way to stop the disenfranchisement of voters. Suck it, Florida GOP. :)

I need to study up on the one election that happened in a way I could see 2020 going. It was just after the Civil War, and a few states (2?) certified two separate sets of electors. With one set, one guy won, but with the other set, the other guy won.

Yes, sir... 1876: Rutherford B. Hayes (R) vs. Samuel J. Tilden (D), wherein Democrats ran on a platform that included dealing with the tyrannical carpetbaggers that plagued the South. Tilden was the Governor of New York who was famous for sending Boss Tweed to prison.

This election led to the Compromise of 1877 where the Democrats agreed to concede to Hayes in return for the end of Reconstruction and withdrawal of federal troops from the South and a transcontinental railroad of the South they promised but never delivered. There were 20 electoral votes where each Party reported that their candidate had won the votes of multiple Southern states. Members of the SCOTUS were indeed part of a commission wherein a compromise was reached.

That scenario -- uncertainty as to who is an official elector -- could play out again, which is why I really need to read up on it. Um, Tilden? I think Tilden was the guy who lost... gotta look it up...

Yes, it was Tilden. Not surprisingly, there was voter intimidation in the South involved. All this electoral shenanigans let to the Electoral Count Act.

Fast forward to today where I cannot fathom how a scenario like 1876 could happen again considering the fact that states count the valid legally cast ballots whether the candidates like the outcome of the count or not.

The very complexity of the system means there are plenty of places to launch a legal attack against it. Which votes are counted, when to stop counting, which votes are approved and rejected, who is in power in the state government (which could change with the election results), who is certified as an elector, faithless electors -- there are all kinds of things that have to happen for a president to actually officially win. Most of the time, nobody pays any attention to this machinery at all. This time might be different, with the ever-litiginous Trump....

Yes, Trump will attempt to cheat with the help of the same multiple nations who helped him before, but I cannot fathom how he can successfully shut down the counting of votes wherein states hold their own elections with their own rules as outlined in the Constitution. How does one go about overturning the multiple separate elections that would have to be invalidated in order for Trump to win the election? Seems highly unlikely.

Trump can declare himself the winner all he wants and whenever he wants; it won't stop the states from counting the votes. The results of a state election are certified according to rules of each state after each state has received the data from 100% percent of their voting precincts. Full stop.

Can you imagine Trump declaring himself the winner of New York State because he was ahead with 30% of precincts reporting at 12:00 p.m. EST? It's never worked that way, and the rules aren't going to miraculously change to meet the needs of Benedict Donald Trump and the GOP. If Biden wins Florida on election night, Trump has no path to the nomination. He can whine all he wants about it.

There are no precincts in America that aren't going to count their legally cast ballots as determined by law and report them, and I cannot fathom the Supreme Court intervening in order to invalidate vote counting. Stopping a vote recount? Sure... Bush v. Gore... but stopping valid vote counting? Not bloody likely.

Trump is a master at using the courts to get his own way, or at the very least delaying things forever. He'll manufacture sixteen different reasons, in sixteen different lawsuits. SCOTUS only has to agree with one of them. That's how I could see it playing out. Bush v. Gore was such naked partisanship that SCOTUS even said "don't use this as a precedent, ever" right there in the text. They knew how bad a decision it was, but they went right ahead and made it anyway.

Like in B v. G, the timetable is short. The Electoral College date is hard-wired in the Constitution, as is Jan 20. So things have to happen very fast. Trump would also use this leverage, I would guess.

It's depressing to contemplate, but it's no longer an impossibility, if you know what I mean.

Alin [20] -

More and more I find myself on the side of jettisoning the filibuster once and for all. My reasoning is similar to yours, but I have to admit I hadn't thought about the positive effect on voters.

Sure, we'd swing wildly back and forth between the liberal and conservative agenda for a while, but at least stuff would get done. Good things and bad things would get done, but after a time, most people would be able to see what worked and what didn't. Therefore the push to overturn stuff might peter out for some issues, and some solid progress would be made.

Gay marriage is one big example. No Republican runs today on overturning gay marriage. The sky was going to fall if it happened, then it did and the sky didn't, so now they know that it would be almost impossible for them to resurrect the "Defense of Marriage Act" idea. Even with SCOTUS 6-3, I doubt they'd overturn it either. Marijuana legalization is another one -- the sky is still firmly in place in all the states which have done so, and it is becoming less and less controversial each year.

So yes, there will be wild oscillations, perhaps, but when you look at the long term, perhaps the good ideas from both parties (and the GOP does occasionally have a few) would get enacted and stand the test of time.

Maybe I'm just a wild-eyed optimist, but that's where I am now. And, interestingly, I think Schumer might just be angry enough to do it if he gains control of the Senate this year.

Kick [25] -

I need to study up on the one election that happened in a way I could see 2020 going. It was just after the Civil War, and a few states (2?) certified two separate sets of electors. With one set, one guy won, but with the other set, the other guy won. They convened a select commission (SCOTUS was involved, partially, as I remember) and handed the election to one of the parties, with some compromises (on killing Reconstruction, I believe) to the other side.

That scenario -- uncertainty as to who is an official elector -- could play out again, which is why I really need to read up on it. Um, Tilden? I think Tilden was the guy who lost... gotta look it up...

The very complexity of the system means there are plenty of places to launch a legal attack against it. Which votes are counted, when to stop counting, which votes are approved and rejected, who is in power in the state government (which could change with the election results), who is certified as an elector, faithless electors -- there are all kinds of things that have to happen for a president to actually officially win. Most of the time, nobody pays any attention to this machinery at all. This time might be different, with the ever-litiginous Trump....

-CW

Meant to also report that the $16 million raised to pay off the fines is in addition to the $100 million Bloomberg is investing in Florida to support Joe Biden.

As you wish:

Bloomberg pays fines for 32,000 felons in Florida so they can vote

"The right to vote is fundamental to our democracy and no American should be denied that right," a Bloomberg spokesperson told the news outlet. "Working together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, we are determined to end disenfranchisement and the discrimination that has always driven it."

Florida passed a law in 2018 reinstating voting rights for felons that dictated they could register only if they pay all fines, fees and restitution — sometimes totaling more than $1,000 — owed to the government.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers Florida, last week ruled to uphold the law.

Did you get your ballot yet? We want voting details. :)

Anyone who trusts Susan Collins is a fool.

You mean the Susan Collins who pledged over two decades ago to serve no more than two terms... that Susan Collins?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_0N9DKtAH8

You know what would solve the problem- ending lifetime appointments.

Why doesn't it surprise me that Death Harris has a "solution" that would be unconstitutional unless the United States Constitution was amended?

The excuse for lifetime terms is pure nonsense.

The "excuse for lifetime terms" is the United States Constitution, and if you can see your way fit to claiming that one of the most awesome ideas ever promulgated on paper is "pure nonsense," then maybe you're not too ignorant to wrap your head around the fact that the majority of Weigantia feels the exact same way about your shitty "idea."

So to recap: If the United States Constitution is "pure nonsense," then that definitely means your fantastical flaming failure of an idea is bullshit on a stick inside a brown paper bag set on fire on the front porch of every residence in America.

Maybe you should have taken another day or two on this and you might have gotten around to actually thinking about solving the problem instead of tinkering with a flawed system.

Maybe you should go fix your effed up piece of flaming shit website. :)

I don't see how it's a lose-lose for Roberts, and why should he weigh in? The Constitution is clear on this.

McConnell and the GOP have decided that the only Party who can fill a SCOTUS seat is the one who holds the power in the Senate. So when Democrats regain the Senate, they can make the rules.

Vote.

The "election result" isn't a single outcome. Do you think the Supreme Court is going to overrule the Constitution and just "overturn" the results of voting in the State of California? Maybe the results of the State of New York? If Trump doesn't like the results in Florida, you think the SCOTUS will just toss them?

What's to stop Trump from declaring himself the winner tonight? Nothing, and it would be just as much "hot air" as if he declared himself the winner on election night because the states choose their own representatives and manner of elections, and as we all know (or should), each state has their own rules for their own elections where one set of rules does not fit all the states. Trump has already launched multiple dozens of lawsuits in a plethora of states, and he's losing most of them because the states make the rules for their own elections according to the United States Constitution... that thing that the POTUS and the SCOTUS swear to govern by.

I think the reelection of Trump will permanently tip the scale in the decidedly wrong direction.

"The US experiment in self government is failing. The U.S. Constitution may not be worth the parchment it's written on. Every US state has its own written constitution and its own legal code. One, two, three Balkanize."

I hardly think so, at least not yet. We've been thru worse before and survived. The Civil War, Jim Crow, Desegregation, the Vietnam War protests, were all more serious threats to united self governance.

HA!

Ahem.

The court, even conservatives, would be extremely loathe to intervene so heavily in a partisan political question, knowing full well that doing so would really tear the country apart politically.

Setting overturning elections aside for the moment - which I was talking about with tongue in cheek, above - this assertion that the court would be loathe to intervene in a partisan political question seems odd as this is exactly what the court is asked to do on a regular basis.

The Southern States should love this...and they already have a flag! Big states will not be grossly under represented in Federal Government as they are today. Yes, there will be minor-esque problems. Who get's what part of the military? Especially those pesky nukes, be they in silos, SSBNs or aircraft....but if Israel can have a working Nuke Triad, any state should be able to handle this. Even Rhode Island. Industry, Medicine, Education - same deal.

You don't keep an old clunker forever....unless you are Leno or a museum. You trade it in for something newer - with better performance that spends more time on the road than in the shop. OK, some of the smaller states without a coastline may end up walking, but that's just because Freedom.

"It sounds amazing to say, if the SC doesn't overturn a Biden election. Not something I'd ever imagined possible. But, I guess that strange thing in America has already happened."

My TWO questions would be:

1) What possible grounds would the court have to actually overturn the results of an election? (Unlike Bush vs Gore, where a recount was simply halted in a razor close election.)

2) The court, even conservatives, would be extremely loathe to intervene so heavily in a partisan political question, knowing full well that doing so would really tear the country apart politically.

I resisted the urge in this article to delve into the various ways SCOTUS could be reformed, although I may devote a later article to the subject.

The real key: which reforms could pass as a law, and which would require an actual amendment? And -- with SCOTUS being the deciding factor -- how much confidence does anyone have in such hair-splitting? If Congress passed a law reforming the court in any way, would SCOTUS abide by it or try to overturn it as a constitutional overreach?

I'm still percolating all these questions, which is why I didn't really address it in this article...

MyVoice [6] -

Manchin's statement is a lot more forceful than I would have given him credit, I have to admit.

I've heard a new Dem slogan of late: "No confirmation before inauguration!" Seems to sum it up nicely...

Again, the pre- or post-election Senate vote question is another one I blew off for this article, but may indeed devote a later article to, because it may prove to become vitally important.

JFC [7] -

True 'dat. Just ask anyone in Maine...

[8] -

They've held several flawed referenda, but they'd have to hold a new (and clean) one to decide.

JFC [10] -

I'm just glad we've heard recently from LizM, if you know what I mean -- female Canuck? Arrested?

Heh.

Second reaction (see "South Park" movie): Blame Canada!

C.R. Stucki [11] -

Yeah, I've said that myself (and recently), but then again, would Mitch have let both of them get away with it, or would it have ended up in the same black hole as Merrick Garland?

John M. from Ct [12] -

See my answer to DonH.

-CW

puerto ricans held a vote on the statehood topic recently, and have another vote scheduled this year. right now statehood holds a pretty strong plurality, if not an outright majority.

JL

C'mon CW. Never say ever, this is Sausage Making 101. It can always get worse.

It's kinda like saying "Republican Majority for a Generation" means maybe two years.

This, as silly as it sounds, makes an end-run around the problem of the Dems increasing the Court to 11 or 13 or 15 this cycle around, to be combatted by the next Republican president and Senate enlarging it to 19 or 21, etc.

Do Puerto Ricans get a say in that decision? It's not clear to me that they want to be a state.

“For the sake of the integrity of our courts and legal system, I do not believe the U.S. Senate should vote on a U.S. Supreme Court nominee before the November 3rd election. For Mitch McConnell and my Republican colleagues to rush through this process after refusing to even meet with Judge Merrick Garland in 2016 is hypocrisy in its highest form. The U.S. Supreme Court is the highest court in the land and it is simply irresponsible to rush the adequate and proper vetting required of any new candidate for the bench. Pursuing an overtly partisan approach to confirming a Supreme Court Justice will only deepen the political tribalism we are witnessing across this country. I implore every Senator, regardless of party, to honor their responsibility to act in a manner that brings this country together rather than feed a cycle of endless political division.”

W. Va. Senator Joe Manchin: Senate Should Not Vote On Supreme Court Nominee Before November Election

Where does that leave us after the election?

It sounds amazing to say, if the SC doesn't overturn a Biden election. Not something I'd ever imagined possible. But, I guess that strange thing in America has already happened.

That would be just Biden's luck though - thirty plus years to get the nomination after his first try and then he wins the election only to have it overturned by the Supreme Court. Sigh.

That's actually kind of hilarious ...

In response to an earlier issue, I'm not sure whether I've ever done so previously (I'd have to check -- maybe during a convention or Netroots?), but I did indeed strongly consider posting a Saturday column this weekend.

In the end, I chose not to, and I'm kind of glad I waited. I was able to consider some scenarios that hadn't immediately suggested themselves, and was able to work through some implications that would have been left out.

In any case, like I say in the article, buckle up everyone...

-CW