Agree Agree:  25
Likes Likes:  21
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910
Results 136 to 140 of 140
  1. #136

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Because this happens a lot in my industry, all I say about experience is:
    An idiot with 25 years experience is still an idiot. Brilliance out of college is still brilliance.
    The absolute danger is the idiot straight out of college. This woman is no idiot, but the background for ideologically-tainted decisions is completely there. She can truly join the wrong side.
    Anyway, she is there for only two purposes, and those are well known.
    Last edited by ponchi101; 10-27-2020 at 06:40 AM.
    Face it. It's the apocalypse.

  2. #137

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Sahil Kapur
    @sahilkapur

    This thread highlights factual errors by a Supreme Court justice that would compel a series of corrections and clarifications if they ran in a serious news outlet.
    Tierney Sneed
    @Tierney_Megan
    Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Wisconsin case is sloppy AF.

    (A thread.)

    Merrill II is a weird citation here, as the Supreme Court intervened to allow a state election official to unilaterally implement a voter restriction — a ban on curbside voting — that was ~no where~ in the state’s code.


    Wrong! Vermont has made a major change: it’s mailing everyone a ballot! There’s almost no risk of someone receiving a ballot when it’s too late to mail it in, as is the case in Wisconsin.
    https://twitter.com/srl/status/1320914198378020864

    Vermont Secretary of State’s Office
    @VermontSOS
    Replying to @srl and @AmberMcReynolds
    Mailing every voter a ballot by 10/1 factored into our decision to stick with an election day receipt deadline instead of postmark. We also authorized ballot processing 30 days out. Those are our VT specific solutions, but other states needs are different. Count. Every. Vote.
    This analogy makes no sense. The WI deadline is receipt deadline, not a submission deadline. The in-person voting equivalent is if someone showed up at their polling place before it officially closed but — due to long lines — didn’t get to cast their ballot until after midnight.



    This quote is in the context of an argument for moving ~several~ dates up in the timeline – request dates, dates to begin processing — not just the receipt deadline. WI hasn’t moved up those other dates, and its request and processing timelines among the latest in the country.


    Again, it’s hard to argue that an election day receipt deadline is justified for the purposes of turning around quick results when Wisconsin’s legislature has resisted calls to its tweak processing timelines in a way that will deliver quick results.


    In Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the court said that it was “declin[ing]” to review the very question Kavanaugh is queuing up. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/70/


    Another analogy that makes no sense! The IRS April 15 deadline is a submission deadline, not a receipt deadline.


    There is actually a widespread fear that voters will assume mail moves quickly enough to match the request deadlines. That’s why USPS sent all those states those letters telling them they should change their deadlines!


    Again, Kavanaugh is conflating a receipt deadline with a submission deadline.


    This back up plan really isn't a good failsafe.
    1. it assumes voters will actually be able to get in touch w/election officials to tell them they want to spoil the mail ballots already in the mail on their way back to elections offices


    2. In other states, like PA, the voter in the scenario Kavanaugh describes will have to vote provisionally... which will further delay the process of tabulating the results.

    One final gripe: this is a very rich way to describe how the shadow docket has operated during the pandemic. Only occasionally have the justices explained why they voted to put on hold lower court orders making voting easier and not always as part of majority/per curium opinion
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  3. #138

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Sahil Kapur
    @sahilkapur

    This thread highlights factual errors by a Supreme Court justice that would compel a series of corrections and clarifications if they ran in a serious news outlet.
    Tierney Sneed
    @Tierney_Megan
    Kavanaugh's concurrence in the Wisconsin case is sloppy AF.

    (A thread.)

    Merrill II is a weird citation here, as the Supreme Court intervened to allow a state election official to unilaterally implement a voter restriction — a ban on curbside voting — that was ~no where~ in the state’s code.


    Wrong! Vermont has made a major change: it’s mailing everyone a ballot! There’s almost no risk of someone receiving a ballot when it’s too late to mail it in, as is the case in Wisconsin.
    https://twitter.com/srl/status/1320914198378020864

    Vermont Secretary of State’s Office
    @VermontSOS
    Replying to @srl and @AmberMcReynolds
    Mailing every voter a ballot by 10/1 factored into our decision to stick with an election day receipt deadline instead of postmark. We also authorized ballot processing 30 days out. Those are our VT specific solutions, but other states needs are different. Count. Every. Vote.
    This analogy makes no sense. The WI deadline is receipt deadline, not a submission deadline. The in-person voting equivalent is if someone showed up at their polling place before it officially closed but — due to long lines — didn’t get to cast their ballot until after midnight.



    This quote is in the context of an argument for moving ~several~ dates up in the timeline – request dates, dates to begin processing — not just the receipt deadline. WI hasn’t moved up those other dates, and its request and processing timelines among the latest in the country.


    Again, it’s hard to argue that an election day receipt deadline is justified for the purposes of turning around quick results when Wisconsin’s legislature has resisted calls to its tweak processing timelines in a way that will deliver quick results.


    In Bush v Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., the court said that it was “declin[ing]” to review the very question Kavanaugh is queuing up. https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/531/70/


    Another analogy that makes no sense! The IRS April 15 deadline is a submission deadline, not a receipt deadline.


    There is actually a widespread fear that voters will assume mail moves quickly enough to match the request deadlines. That’s why USPS sent all those states those letters telling them they should change their deadlines!


    Again, Kavanaugh is conflating a receipt deadline with a submission deadline.


    This back up plan really isn't a good failsafe.
    1. it assumes voters will actually be able to get in touch w/election officials to tell them they want to spoil the mail ballots already in the mail on their way back to elections offices


    2. In other states, like PA, the voter in the scenario Kavanaugh describes will have to vote provisionally... which will further delay the process of tabulating the results.

    One final gripe: this is a very rich way to describe how the shadow docket has operated during the pandemic. Only occasionally have the justices explained why they voted to put on hold lower court orders making voting easier and not always as part of majority/per curium opinion
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  4. #139

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    I mean Squee proof read it and said it was fine so...
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




  5. #140

    Re: Supreme Court Watch

    Vermont Secretary of State’s Office
    @VermontSOS
    We have formally requested that #SCOTUS correct the erroneous claim by Justice Kavanaugh that #VT has not changed voting procedures for the #2020Elections due to #COVID19. When it comes to issuing decisions on the voting rights of American citizens, facts matter.



    Justice Kavanaugh issued a rare public "correction" to his false claim by changing ONE word. Are we satisfied? In a word, NO. We won't sit by while he uses mistruth about the Green Mountain State as cover to erode voter rights. #FactsMatter Full statement: https://sos.vermont.gov/secretary-s-...rrect-opinion/

    southpaw @nycsouthpaw
    Kavanaugh did that thing where he tried simply to make the change look minimal in the document rather than reflecting on and reworking his language to actually account for the screw up—even though everyone watching could see clearly he messed up in a big way.



    (the light yellow box is covering the word “not,” which still appears in the official revised opinion; just some quirk of the court’s track changes software I suppose.) https://supremecourt.gov/opinions/20...0a66w_bqm2.pdf

    John Panzer
    @jpanzer
    Replying to
    @nycsouthpaw
    “It now reads: "Other States such as Vermont, by contrast, have decided not to make changes to their ordinary election-deadline rules”

    ...because they made OTHER compensating changes that also mitigated the impact of COVID, he fails to add.

    His “fix” renders his argument unintelligible. It’s not true that some states took no action, they took different actions — ones not longer available to states due to the proximity of the election, which is the thing that SCOTUS is supposed to use to keep from messing w things.
    “No matter how cynical I get, I just can't keep up.” – Lily Tomlin.




Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 678910

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •