Re: President Elect Biden
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 11:19 am
I thing you may be referring to those on here, particularly our legal types, who pointed out that she had lower qualification scores from groups that have regularly scored 'conservative' and/or GOP nominated judges 'highly qualified', when so deserved, same for liberal or Dem nominated judges. Lower does not mean 'unqualified', but when we're looking for the very best of the best, (for SCOTUS and other federal courts) regardless of leaning, it's fair to ask that the nominee actually fit that 'highly qualified' category. She does not.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:29 amThat is a fair analysis of Justice Barrett. She took a lot of heat from posters here that were of the opinion she was not qualified. I too am interested in seeing where her decisions land on the legal spectrum. It is an odd thing about the SCOTUS, depending on your political leanings there is probably no candidate that will ever be "qualified" for the SCOTUS in this day and age. The mail in voting was painfully slow. We have become use to knowing who the POTUS would be on election day. If mail in ballots are to be the new normal, I hope the process can be streamlined so it does not take so dog gone long to count them.MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 9:27 amActually, 75.2 million for Biden so far, with another couple million coming from CA, NY etc.cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Sun Nov 08, 2020 7:49 am I have to tip my hat off to POTUS elect Biden. He learned from all of the mistakes HRC made in 2016. He took the fight to the states he knew he had to win. He won what 71 million votes. That allows me to poke some fun at the folks here who thought conditions were making it too "tough" for folks to vote. Too bad you didn't give all the voters the credit they deserved. The people that were determined to vote did so, that is a great thing. It wasn't all that tough after all. The USA can now begin to sail in a different direction. If that is for better or worse that is TBD, it will be different. I am honestly happy for so many of the stressed out FLP folks on this forum. You are now free to concentrate your anger on the demure little Catholic woman that is the newest member of the SCOTUS. That has to make it easier to focus.
70 million for Trump.
Yes, people found a way to vote...huge # by mail...so didn't need to push everyone through same day.
But some politicians didn't want mail-in voting or early voting to spread it out. They also wanted fewer polling places.
Guess which ones.
But if you want to credit voter turnout and intensity to Trump, I'd agree.
Immensely passionate and consequential.
On Barrett, we'll see. But I don't blame her for the f'd up process of packing the Courts, at each level, with less vetted, highly ideologically conservative jurists. Nor do I blame her for the packing of the Supreme Court.
We'll judge Barrett on her decisions. Let's see.
But they also didn't rate her 'unqualified' as they've done with some of the actually ridiculously such nominees that have been pushed at lower levels.
But she's got the gig. Now we can measure her on how she handles the role, not her prior qualifications. Let's 'give her a chance'.
Re mail-in, we've discussed this ad nauseam, but mail-in voting happens very successfully and swiftly when the rules enable votes to be processed and counted as they come in ahead of Election Day. Quite straightforward solution.
And we'll note, yet again, that in those states where they were counted as they came in, there were no leaks of those counts to the public. Perhaps, in part, because they are done at the very local level and aren't reported into the state until Election Day, so quite meaningless on their own, and in larger part because the people in charge actually take the process very seriously.
The ballots that have come in after Election Day are not the issue on getting a count, they are de minimus in comparison to the backlog that built up due to so many voters deciding to vote by mail/dropbox. Similarly, the overseas ballots typically make little difference, yet get counted many days later, as they come in. We don't argue against counting them though...and in a super close situation they theoretically could make a difference. So, we count every vote.
And, it's also very helpful to have easy access to early in-person voting, spreading out the potential for long lines or difficult timing for those working, kids, etc. Make it easier, not harder.
Same for polling stations. Make them easily accessible to all, don't create situations that favor one or the other partisan interest.
Be American.
On the legal theory of the PA case and mail-in voting being accepted for the 3 days after Election Day, as I understand it, the issue is not the validity of accepting votes after Election Day but rather on whether the Supreme Court of the state has the authority to make such rules in contravention with the intent of a legislature, and in this case, in opposition of the Governor and Sec of State who did not agree with the legislature and wanted a longer arrival period. And who wanted an ability to pre-process votes as they came in! The SC of PA forced a compromise.
It makes zero difference to the outcome of PA, as apparently there are very, very few such 'late' arriving votes, but the principal does matter. A ruling against the Supreme Courts of states in a hardline ruling (PA's SC's ruling was eminently reasonable on its face, a compromise) would invalidate any Supreme Court oversight of the constitutionality of state legislature decisions. And that's a problem.