Sorry I can't watch that guy. It is like watching Hannity.
His guests as well? Character aside, curious about the content.
Didn't watch - much too long, but I googled Starr to see what was written up about his opinion. It sounds like the main thing has to do with an interpretation of the line in the constitution that grants the states power over the elections. Vox did a decent piece on this.Basically the question is whether the constitution intended to give this power solely to the actual legislative branch of each state, or to the law making process of each state (which would then include things like other 2 branches of the state governments). The relevance to PA, at least prior to the election, is that the extending of the deadline by when ballots had to be received in order to be counted (if they were postmarked by election date) was done through the executive and judicial branches of PA, not through the legislature. When it went to the SCOTUS, they split 4-4, thus leaving the change in place. The 4 that voted against PA were essentially broadcasting their adoption of the more literal interpretation, that only the state legislative branch holds power over elections.It won't be relevant to this election, since apparently Biden won without the ballots that came in during the disputed period (ETA: that claim came from the Vox video, I don't know the source), but it may be very relevant to other cases in the future, especially if ACB joins the 4 that voted against. This could come up with regard to things like gerrymandering, voter ID laws, and poll closures - all of which R controlled state legislatures have used or tried to use to control voting in their states - and in some instances were previously stopped by the judicial or executive branches of those states.
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,a Number of Electors"
AP dead or Obi dead?
Ok I started to watch it. Once Starr claimed SCOTUS (Alito) said the lower courts decision was unconstitutional I had to stop. No such ruling was made. All Alito did was make sure the ballots are separated.
All Alito did was make sure the ballots are separated.
On the basis State Supreme court ruling will be litigated I presume, so that's seemingly where he is heading with this.. CMIIW
On the basis State Supreme court ruling was unconstitutional I presume, so that's seemingly where he is heading with this.. CMIIW
It was fixed by @aygart SCOTUS Alito made no ruling on the constitutionality of the lowers court opinion. Actual the left has a better case to make that Alito agreed with the lower courts decision but that would not be correct either.
there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution
Trump now losing by 4mm+ votes and counting. If this election was stolen by the D's please get me the guys name. I want him to do my taxes!!!
4 members of the Court wrote that
Source? AFAIK Alito decided this.
Thomas and Gorsuch joined. (so it was 3, not 4). Barret didn't take part in the decision, and the other 5 didn't say either way (although Kavanaugh would have granted a stay).
I want your source because I keep reading PA was Alitos territory and he made the decision. https://nypost.com/2020/11/06/justice-alito-orders-pennsylvania-officials-divide-late-ballots/https://news.yahoo.com/supreme-courts-alito-tells-pennsylvania-021751657.htmlhttps://www.usnews.com/news/top-news/articles/2020-11-06/supreme-courts-alito-tells-pennsylvania-counties-to-separate-late-ballots
You'd be better off with the guy who does Trump's taxes.
Here
Decided [October 28, 2020]
Right. Before the election, 3 justices said that there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution
We are talking about the decision Alito just made. Follow the flow.
You might be. I'm not.
Poll