Conservative icon says 'the quiet part' very loudly

[LostInSeattle]

That appears to have happened in more voting districts than it ever should in the 2020 election, which should raise all kinds of red flags on those districts.
How is it possible to have more legal and legitimate votes than there are residents in a district? It makes no sense at all.

Name one precinct or district where this happened. Please reference actual vote tallies and demographic data from real sources, not some wild affidavit.

The responsibility of purging voter rolls in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations needs to be 100% observed. If there are issues with those applicable laws and regulations, they need be changed to be an accurate reflection of legal and legitimate voters in those districts, full stop and period.

Agreed. Although, why not say "maintaining" voter rolls as opposed to purging? It's more inclusive and accurate. For example, if someone moves down the street, as we did a few years ago, maintaining implies that you want the voter roll to have the correct address, rather than just saying "Oh, you moved, you're purged." After all, isn't the purpose of maintaining the rolls to make sure the information is accurate and inclusive? It's equally bad if not arguably worse to remove voters who shouldn't be removed as it is to fail to remove voters who should.

 

[LostInSeattle]

@lemmiwinx

Still waiting to hear your response to post #184. Lay out that doomsday voter fraud scenario and educate all of us.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Not at all. Someone who has an anti America agenda should be called what they are.

I’m a communist. What he was saying had nothing to do with communism. I agree that it’s obviously anti American. As he himself pointed out, he is very much not a communist.

 

[reflechissez]

That appears to have happened in more voting districts than it ever should in the 2020 election, which should raise all kinds of red flags on those districts.
How is it possible to have more legal and legitimate votes than there are residents in a district? It makes no sense at all.

The responsibility of purging voter rolls in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations needs to be 100% observed. If there are issues with those applicable laws and regulations, they need be changed to be an accurate reflection of legal and legitimate voters in those districts, full stop and period.

show your work

 

[NatMorton]

First you asked "can" the court... I said originally, and I'll say again, "SCOTUS can overturn a law only if they find it to be unconstitutional." I'm not rewording plain English for you. Do the italics help? As to what I think they should be able to do - which you're asking now and is not the same thing, my answer is the same. The court should be able to do only what the Constitution allows it to do.

SCOTUS has to provide a legal opinion for its decision, with reasoning and case law to support it. Is it possible for the court to fake a constitutional reason? Conceivably, yes. Have they? I don't know. I'm not a sufficiently informed constitutional scholar to make that assertion. I think that the court has made some horrible decisions in the past - Plessy, Korematsu, Citizens United. I can't say whether they were made in bad faith because I can't see into their justices' minds. Fortunately, no really bad decision is unanimous (at least I don't know any) so there is always a dissent that one can use to discern the relative strength of the majority's legal arguments.

Now, how about you answer my question of what you consider to be judicial activism, and how you can identify it?

You’re over complicating this. Excellent, you agree federal judges are bound by the Constitution. The gist of my question is what is the implication when a judge departs from the Constitution (put aside for the moment whether that is an easy or hard thing to discern). I argue that when a court’s majority uses extra-Constitutional reasoning to overturn a law they are usurping the will of voters. Do you agree?

As to your question, I answered what activism is in my reply to you in post 137. As for identifying it, while it can be difficult at times, it comes down to an argument based on policy rather than one based on the law. For example, an activist argument for Biden’s vaccine mandate might sound like “We cannot get the COVID virus under control until people are vaccinated and this mandate will help the country do that.” That may be a sound policy argument for a legislator to make but it does not speak to the issue before the court: whether OSHA has the authority to implement the mandate.

 

[cpwill]

Because, sadly, Republican’s have chosen to make an issue of the least concerning issue involved in election integrity (voter fraud, which accounted for 0.00006 percent of total votes cast in the United States in the last 20 years) to suppress the minority vote.

MIT SHASS: News - 2020 - Pandemic - Voting by Mail -Safe, Honest, and Fair - Stewart

The MIT School of Humanities, Arts, and Social Sciences (SHASS) is one of the five schools of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The 20+ fields, disciplines, projects, and areas of research at the School represent the most diverse range of scholarship at MIT.

shass.mit.edu

The Republican lies don’t stop there. In 2020, Lindsey Graham said “If we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country”.

He could very well be correct, but not because of the potential for fraud. Mail in ballot processes make fraud very difficult, if not impossible in most cases.

“The conservative Heritage Foundation, which has warned of the risks of mail voting, found 14 cases of attempted mail fraud out of roughly 15.5 million ballots cast in Oregon since that state started conducting elections by mail in 1998.

The most prominent cases of mail fraud have involved campaigns, not voters. North Carolina invalidated the results of a 2018 congressional election after state officials found that a Republican campaign operative had orchestrated a ballot fraud scheme.”

Explainer: Fraud is rare in U.S. mail-in voting. Here are the methods that prevent it

With the number of Americans voting by mail on Nov. 3 expected to nearly double due to COVID-19, election experts see little reason to expect an increase in ballot fraud, despite President Donald Trump's repeated claims.

mobile.reuters.com

As for requiring ID to purchase a firearm from an FFL, I see the law as well intentioned, but not very effective at keeping firearms out of the hands of those that are prevented by law to possess/own them.

Having said that, personally speaking, if requiring ID could prevent (an impossibility, I know) everyone that is prohibited to possess/own a firearm from acquiring one, I’d be 100% onboard.

Hello Rale,

I agree that widespread voter fraud is not a serious problem (neither is widespread voter suppression), but, I didn't see in there where you outlined how showing an ID to access one right is suppressing that right, but not when you are accessing another. Would you mind outlining that for us?

 

[eohrnberger]

Name one precinct or district where this happened. Please reference actual vote tallies and demographic data from real sources, not some wild affidavit.

In my news sources I see multiple instances being called out when Judicial Watch sues voter rolls.

Agreed. Although, why not say "maintaining" voter rolls as opposed to purging? It's more inclusive and accurate. For example, if someone moves down the street, as we did a few years ago, maintaining implies that you want the voter roll to have the correct address, rather than just saying "Oh, you moved, you're purged." After all, isn't the purpose of maintaining the rolls to make sure the information is accurate and inclusive?

Who decides the verbiage being used in the headline?

It's equally bad if not arguably worse to remove voters who shouldn't be removed as it is to fail to remove voters who should.

Fair enough. From my view I'm not seeking that voters who shouldn't be removed are. Only those that should be are.

 

[Lovebug]

I'm not sure what to call Matt Walsh, but he works for Ben Shapiro or something. Anyway, here he is saying that voting rights should only be reserved for elite people because the masses are too stupid to steer 'democracy' correctly.



This is not a new sentiment among the right wing, and is what I suspect most of them believe. Saying you support democracy is fine when you can win elections. However, conservatives can't win federal elections without suppressing the vote, because they know their ideas are not palatable to the average person. That ship sailed after Bush. Even when they cheat they generally lose, so they have to resort to more voter suppressing tactics to maintain power. This is why those of us with sense believe that democracy is in peril. If they attain power without fundamentally sabotaging democracy, they will never win another election. The last heist is always the biggest.

Don't worry, the Hillary / Sinema ticket will save us.

Not sure exactly who or how many, but I read posts by our liberal friends saying something similar.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

I wouldn't call it fascist, but it is grossly elitist. Sincere fascists despise the idea of voting at all, whether for the masses or the privileged few. The Party knows what is best for the people.

The Nazi party was a subset of fascism, and the National Socialists were, indeed, pretty socialistic.

However, I look forward to seeing what you can pull up

So, some preamble. To @Felis Leo I disagree that sincere fascists despise the idea of voting at all. Usually, they despise the idea of the "wrong people" voting. Fascism is a populist ideology. Both Hitler and Mussolini rose to power on speeches of the "hardworking common man retaking their country". To @cpwill, seeing as Matt Walsh is a fascist and not a Nazi, and is overall very opposed to socialism I cannot demonstrate he is a socialist. I will do my best to show what I believe to be his fascist tendencies.

So first off, there is his twitter bio.

Now, obviously this is a joke. He does not call himself a fascist, but rather he is probably making fun of the number of people that call him a theocratic fascist. I do think that is an accurate descriptor however. The main crux of my argument is that Matt Walsh very much decries the "degeneracy of freedom" in our society, and often talks about how religious morality should be imposed through the state.

Matt Walsh responded to this tweet:

“We need a law” is everything going wrong with this country. Stop outsourcing morality to the government… including schools. (Source)

With the following:

This tweet is everything that’s been wrong with conservatism for thirty years (Source)

He is openly anti-libertarian, and generally makes the argument that freedom allows people to be degenerate. It's important to keep in mind what he means when he is talking about "degeneracy". He means gay people. Trans people. Sexually liberated women. Porn. Consumerism. Atheists. Men wearing dresses. And whatever he deems to currently be a threat to the construct of "Western Civilization" that fascists seem obsessed with. Here is a tweet of him decrying the death of Western Civilization because of...trans people existing I guess.

Some more tweets talking about degeneracy.

I can't believe I have to say this, but degeneracy and depravity are not conservative ideals. (Source)

My personal view is that we should burn the porn industry to the ground and salt the earth with its ashes, but I'm trying to see if we can at least agree on even the most moderate steps towards protecting the innocent from filth and degeneracy (Source)

A tweet reiterating what was said in the OPs video:

Everytime I hear Democrats panicking over the “attack on voting rights,” I get my hopes up. I wish someone would attack voting rights. It’s crazy that we let everyone vote. But sadly it’s all in the Left’s imagination. (Source)

We're treating violent crimes as misdemeanors while Russia ships their worst criminals off to penal colonies in the Arctics Their approach is the superior one. By far. (Source)

His criticisms of Trump generally are directed at Trump not being conservative or nationalistic enough for him:

Trump ran on the promise to build a giant wall across the entire border and deport every illegal immigrant. Instead he built a couple miles of new fencing and is now promising amnesty by executive order. Lol. I mean you have to laugh. Better than crying, which would be unseemly. (Source)

He's a nationalist. Is openly theocratic. Is opposed to voting rights. Believes that people having freedom has led to moral degeneracy. Constantly rants about how the ever nebulous concept of Western Civilization is under attack. Believes in returning to traditional social structures, to the point that he literally thinks that women belong in the kitchen. I think theocratic fascist pretty much sums it up personally.

 

[Juks]

Name one thing conservatives are doing to suppress voting. And don't say voter ID, you have to show ID to buy booze or airline tickets ffs.

Just on the top of my hat:

1. You must activly register to vote at all even if you have the right to vote in the first place (and an ID). Different states have different rules for when this must happen
2. In poor areas, there is often a long distance between polling stations, which results in hour-long queues. Which scares away voters.
3. Voting day is a weekday, which makes it extra difficult for workers, especially those with the lowest incomes and multiple jobs, to vote
4. Previously, it was illegal to change electoral laws or close polling stations without the permission of the courts, but that requirement was recently abolished by the conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
5. In many states, you must have special reasons for getting a postal vote or ordering your vote before a certain date.
6. Another method is to throw voters out of the polls if they did not vote in the last election. Many states do not inform the voter.
7. Gerrymandering is an advanced variant of vote-rigging that means that the party in power in a state can redraw the constituencies in a way that maximizes its own party's chance of winning seats in Congress. Something that both Democrats and Republicans do, by the way
8. The system of the Electoral College that decides the presidential election was created precisely to prevent the general public from voting for the "wrong" candidate. Therefore, for example, Trump could become president in 2016 despite Hillary Clinton receiving three million more votes.

 

[LostInSeattle]

You’re over complicating this. Excellent, you agree federal judges are bound by the Constitution. The gist of my question is what is the implication when a judge departs from the Constitution (put aside for the moment whether that is an easy or hard thing to discern). I argue that when a court’s majority uses extra-Constitutional reasoning to overturn a law they are usurping the will of voters. Do you agree?

As to your question, I answered what activism is in my reply to you in post 137.

I agree in theory but has that ever happened? It's not as though any opinion just reads, "because we say so." The court's decisions are always going to crafted from legal reasoning, maybe bad perhaps, but what you're describing could never really be established.

If the will of the voters/legislators is unconstitutional then the court absolutely has the prerogative to replace the voter's will with the court's will. And the definition of whether it is constitutional is whether the court agrees because the court is the final arbiter of these questions per the Constitution.

This is why people often get frustrated with the court, and why some bad decisions are allowed to stand for a time.

As for identifying it, while it can be difficult at times, it comes down to an argument based on policy rather than one based on the law. For example, an activist argument for Biden’s vaccine mandate might sound like “We cannot get the COVID virus under control until people are vaccinated and this mandate will help the country do that.” That may be a sound policy argument for a legislator to make but it does not speak to the issue before the court: whether OSHA has the authority to implement the mandate.

This makes sense. I would add that life isn't black and white, nor is the Constitution. Grey areas are usually where people start yelling, "judicial activism."

 

[Dans La Lune]

Ironic when you consider that the left’s advocacy of judicial activism

Meanwhile the Federalist Society was built to foster a conservative litmus test for activist judges. Oh, I guess it's only activism when it's "left leaning'.

(left-leaning judges only) is precisely that: nullifying voting rights by allowing judicial elites to usurp the legislative process.

The Supreme Court operates outside of democracy, which is why the right-wing have made it their mission to usurp it and subvert the rights of citizens, while empowering the rich.

 

[Dans La Lune]

Yeah. And think about it - our current structure puts these people in charge of the most powerful government in the history of the human species.

I'm not sure what your point is. Is it that America has too much power? Well, I agree... so....

There is no obvious connection to the ability to at least know what one is doing when one votes. The Citizenship Exam should suffice.

Step #1: Mandate Citizenship Exam for voting rights.
Step #2: Change the citizenship test.
Step #3: Laugh that the rich and powerful they got away with it again.

 

[dockside]

Purging voter rolls.

Removing voting places in areas predominantly Democratic.
Restricting hours of voting.
Making it difficult or expensive or both to get a government ID

 

[NatMorton]

I agree in theory but has that ever happened? It's not as though any opinion just reads, "because we say so." The court's decisions are always going to crafted from legal reasoning, maybe bad perhaps, but what you're describing could never really be established.

If the will of the voters/legislators is unconstitutional then the court absolutely has the prerogative to replace the voter's will with the court's will. And the definition of whether it is constitutional is whether the court agrees because the court is the final arbiter of these questions per the Constitution.

This is why people often get frustrated with the court, and why some bad decisions are allowed to stand for a time.


This makes sense. I would add that life isn't black and white, nor is the Constitution. Grey areas are usually where people start yelling, "judicial activism."

I agree with your first point completely. Activism doesn't call itself out, but that doesn't mean it can always remain invisible. Logic and reasoning matter.

And I agree there's plenty of gray area. My line is the judge making a good faith effort to craft their decision based on the intent of the legislature. I may disagree with their assessment of that intent, but that's okay. I don't expect everyone to agree there. But there are members of the court who do not see their role as understanding intent. They see their role as deciding what's "right," and that is where they leave me.

 

[NatMorton]

Meanwhile the Federalist Society was built to foster a conservative litmus test for activist judges. Oh, I guess it's only activism when it's "left leaning'.

I am perfectly okay with a originalism as a litmus test. No judge should be a judge who cannot pass that assessment.

The Supreme Court operates outside of democracy, ...

You get points for honesty on that one even if you fail spectacularly on American civics.

 

[Dans La Lune]

I am perfectly okay with a originalism as a litmus test. No judge should be a judge who cannot pass that assessment.

Translation: Activism is okay, as long as there's a conservative bias.

You get points for honesty on that one even if you fail spectacularly on American civics.

Prove me wrong. Challenge delivered.

 

[vanceen]

Limiting the vote to certain sections of society is not on the face of it crazy, or fascist. Reasonable arguments can be made for it.

However, there haven't really been any new arguments offered for it since the early 20th century, when the issue was more or less settled in all liberal democracies. (OK, some earlier, some later, but generally it's been settled for a long time.)

I would say the winning argument comes down to this: Universal suffrage has some drawbacks, but given that everybody is affected by elections, it's right that everybody participates. ("Everybody" being understood to exclude those who aren't of majority age, and sometimes felons.)

 

[NatMorton]

Translation: Activism is okay, as long as there's a conservative bias.



Prove me wrong. Challenge delivered.

No, I oppose conservative activism as well as liberal. For example, were the current court to decide in overturning Roe that "life begins at conception and thus all abortions are murder" I would oppose that decision equally as I do Roe.

Before accepting your challenge, let me just say I've been debating judicial review, activism, and originalism since the pre-internet days on CompuServe, and I think your statement "The Supreme Court operates outside of democracy, ..." is quite possibly the single most ignorant assertion I have ever heard made about the Court. Well done.

To your challenge. The Supreme Court's authority both stems from the US Constitution and is bound by it. Here's the relevant passage from Article III:

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. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

... the Article, and other parts of the Constitution go on to layout the requirements of the court and its authority.

Now, here's where your assertion -- and your challenge -- are shredded to tiny little bits. Were we to author and have passed by two-thirds of Congress and three fourths of the states -- the proscribed democratic process for amending the US Constitution -- the Supreme Court will cease to exist:

28th Amendment​

​

Section 1.​

Article III of the Constitution, and all references to it, are hereby repealed. ​

​

Section 2.​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in a committee of Republican party donors with the written consent and approval of the Federalist Society. The committee will be named in honor of Donald J. Trump.​

​

Section 3.​

No person ever registered as a member of the Democratic party may serve on the Trump Committee for Justice.​

Voila, and QED, the Supreme Court is not only subject to a democratic process, it only exists at the whim of democracy,

 

[LostInSeattle]

Meanwhile the Federalist Society was built to foster a conservative litmus test for activist judges. Oh, I guess it's only activism when it's "left leaning'.

The Supreme Court operates outside of democracy, which is why the right-wing have made it their mission to usurp it and subvert the rights of citizens, while empowering the rich.

How does the SC operate outside of democracy?

 

[American]

Meanwhile the Federalist Society was built to foster a conservative litmus test for activist judges. Oh, I guess it's only activism when it's "left leaning'.



The Supreme Court operates outside of democracy, which is why the right-wing have made it their mission to usurp it and subvert the rights of citizens, while empowering the rich.

Prove it.

 

[D_NATURED]

Let's consider the political left's views regarding the masses:

1. The masses are too stupid to decide how much to work for, therefore the state must impose minimum wage laws.

A necessitous man is not free. The GOP advocates slavery.

2. The masses are too stupid to hire other people, therefore the state must set up occupational licensing schemes to restrict their choices.

LOL. You're against regulating and licensing professionals? I can only assume your opinion here is informed by the most cynical disdain for doctors whose patients live, teachers whose students learn and tradesmen who don't build dangerous, ramshackle dwellings? Hypocrite. You hate workers (the masses) who dare to prove their qualifications. You should build your summer home in Somalia. They'll let you do anything (and anything done TO you) there.

3. The masses are too stupid and violent to own and carry firearms.

I assume that opinion is derived of gun death statistics. I wonder how many of your family members would have to be gunned down before you accepted reasonable gun laws.

4. The masses are too stupid to decide which drugs to put into their own bodies, therefore we need a prescription drug system to restrict their choices.

Hey, if you and Rush Limbaugh want to snort oxys until your heads explode, I'm all for it. But, really, dude, this is an absurd complaint.

I'll stop there, but no one thinks less of the masses than the political left. You view the masses as petulant children, to be controlled and dominated by the state.

Thanks for the laugh. You've reinforced my suspicion that the right wing lives in fantasy land more than any kumbaya, communist liberal I've ever met. Even the most rational exercises of government are poison to you. No wonder the GOP produces and elects so many incompetent, angry, retards.

 

[LostInSeattle]

Prove it.

I would say that the GOP is not trying to subvert the court per se, but rather has subverted the process by which justices as appointed, in an attempt to stack the courts with nominees whose judicial philosophy they prefer. The most egregious example of this was McConnell's refusal to allow a vote on Garland for an entire year. The Senate's constitutional role is to advise and consent, not block. Voting a candidate down is completely dissimilar from refusing to vote at all. McConnell also dramatically slowed the pace of judicial confirmations during Obama's term, then ramped up during Trump's term. The ABA article below discusses this.

In sum, the GOP has put its party interest ahead of the nation's interest and need for a fully functioning judiciary. From the article below:

"The president and the Senate have a constitutional responsibility to nominate and confirm judges to the Article III courts. The president and both chambers of Congress also have a responsibility to authorize a sufficient number of federal judgeships to handle the workload of the federal courts in an impartial, just, and timely manner."

Judicial Vacancies

Judicial Vacancies.Independence of the Judiciary

www.americanbar.org

 

[LostInSeattle]

Just on the top of my hat:

1. You must activly register to vote at all even if you have the right to vote in the first place (and an ID). Different states have different rules for when this must happen
2. In poor areas, there is often a long distance between polling stations, which results in hour-long queues. Which scares away voters.
3. Voting day is a weekday, which makes it extra difficult for workers, especially those with the lowest incomes and multiple jobs, to vote
4. Previously, it was illegal to change electoral laws or close polling stations without the permission of the courts, but that requirement was recently abolished by the conservative majority in the Supreme Court.
5. In many states, you must have special reasons for getting a postal vote or ordering your vote before a certain date.
6. Another method is to throw voters out of the polls if they did not vote in the last election. Many states do not inform the voter.
7. Gerrymandering is an advanced variant of vote-rigging that means that the party in power in a state can redraw the constituencies in a way that maximizes its own party's chance of winning seats in Congress. Something that both Democrats and Republicans do, by the way
8. The system of the Electoral College that decides the presidential election was created precisely to prevent the general public from voting for the "wrong" candidate. Therefore, for example, Trump could become president in 2016 despite Hillary Clinton receiving three million more votes.

This is a great post!

 

[NatMorton]

I would say that the GOP is not trying to subvert the court per se, but rather has subverted the process by which justices as appointed, in an attempt to stack the courts with nominees whose judicial philosophy they prefer. The most egregious example of this was McConnell's refusal to allow a vote on Garland for an entire year. The Senate's constitutional role is to advise and consent, not block. Voting a candidate down is completely dissimilar from refusing to vote at all. McConnell also dramatically slowed the pace of judicial confirmations during Obama's term, then ramped up during Trump's term. The ABA article below discusses this.

Judicial Vacancies

Judicial Vacancies.Independence of the Judiciary

www.americanbar.org

Consent is not obligatory, thereby blocking a nomination is a perfectly valid thing for the Senate to do.