Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

SCOTUS: John Roberts Joins Liberals To Permit PA To Count Non-Postmarked Ballots 3-Days After Election Day

SCOTUS: John Roberts Joins Liberals To Permit PA To Count Non-Postmarked Ballots 3-Days After Election Day

4-4 SCOTUS split leaves PA Supreme Court alteration of election law in place. Another example of how important Amy Coney Barret confirmation is.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Official_roberts_CJ.jpg

How important is the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett? I wrote on September 19, 2020, that it was important to fill the Ginsburg vacancy prior to Election Day in order to neutralize the unreliable vote of Chief Justice John Roberts:

Filling the vacancy now is protection against … John Roberts. From Obamacare to the recent religious liberty lockdown cases, the Chief Justice has shown himself to be unreliable and subject to pressure campaigns. Particularly when the 2020 election cases (which there will be) make their way to the Supreme Court, a rogue Roberts could result in a 4-4 deadlock, which means the appeals court decision stands. A 6-3 Supreme Court nullifies Rogue Roberts.

My point was just proven. Roberts joined the three liberals to reject a stay (in two cases, here and here) of a Pennsylvania Supreme Court Order that permits mail-in ballots to be counted if received three days after Election Day — even if the envelope has no postmark. That’s right, even if there is no postmark. Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have granted the stay.

The Petition for a Stay argued, in part:

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority acknowledged that there is “no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly”: to be counted, absentee and mail-in ballots “‘must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.’” A.34 (quoting 25 Pa. Stat. § 3150.16(c)). Nonetheless, on a 4-3 vote, the majority ordered “a three-day extension” of that deadline for the imminent general election—and even imposed a remedy that creates a serious likelihood that election officials will count ballots that are cast or mailed after Election Day. A.63. Specifically, the majority required election officials to presume that any ballot received by its judicially extended deadline that lacks an intelligible postmark was “mailed by Election Day unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.” A.64. Thus, under the majority’s judicially created presumption, ballots without intelligible postmarks (hereinafter, “non-postmarked ballots”) will be counted even if they are cast or mailed after Election Day, except in the extraordinarily rare case where proof of the untimely casting or mailing can be adduced. See id….

The majority’s judicial extension and non-postmarked ballots presumption are preempted by a trio of federal statutes that set a uniform nationwide federal Election Day. See 3 U.S.C. § 1, 2 U.S.C. §§ 1, 7. The majority, moreover, gave insufficient regard to—and, in fact, usurped—the General Assembly’s plenary authority to “direct [the] Manner” for appointing electors for President and Vice President, U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and broad power to prescribe “[t]he Times, Places, and Manner” for congressional elections, id. art. I, § 4, cl. 1; Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Bd., 531 U.S. 70, 77 (2000) (per curiam). As the three dissenting justices explained, the decision below is incompatible with the General Assembly’s “clear legislative intent” to ensure that “a timely vote could be cast before the only meaningful milestone [in the legislative scheme], Election Day.” A.87–88 (Donohue, J., concurring and dissenting); A.91 (Saylor, C.J., concurring and dissenting). And with courts around the country weighing similar extensions of received-by deadlines that could push voting past Election Day in numerous states, the issues presented are important, recurring, and in need of this Court’s immediate resolution.

Applicant Republican Party of Pennsylvania (“RPP”) thus respectfully requests that the Court follow the rule it set forth earlier this year and enter a modest stay of the majority’s non-postmarked ballots presumption pending disposition of RPP’s forthcoming petition for a writ of certiorari….

Because the Supreme Court split 4-4, the PA Supreme Court order stands.

Axios gets the significance.

Why it matters: It’s a major win for Democrats that could decide the fate of thousands of ballots in a crucial swing state that President Trump won in 2016. The court’s decision may signal how it would deal with similar election-related litigation in other states.

The state of play: A Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision moved the deadline for absentee ballots to be counted from 8 p.m. on Election Day to 5 p.m. the following Friday, Nov. 6. If the U.S. Supreme Court had granted a stay, it would have resulted in a return to the original deadline.

The big picture: The deadlock underscores the importance for Republicans of confirming Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, who the president himself has said could be a deciding vote in an election-related dispute.

This is a prescription for conflict.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Roberts wants to be like Souter and will be increasingly so.

October PSA: If anyone happens to see John Roberts having a seizure in the swimming pool, please remember to throw in a box of soap and a load of laundry.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to TRF. | October 19, 2020 at 9:07 pm

    Yes. The Tide is turning. Give this your All so the nation can Gain some perspective. Don’t use half measures; be Persilstent in your efforts. Then, a new Dawn will bring us great Joy.

    In short, everything will be just Fab, man. Easy Duz it.

    /someone had to…

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to TRF. | October 20, 2020 at 6:11 am

    PS: add a plugged-in space heater or toaster, for faster agitation.

We have a swamp SC chief justice.

Roberts can go to hell. Not saying he should. Merely emphasizing the possibility thereof.

Who knew Roberts is an Obama judge? This decision creates a special class of voters whose votes will be counted after the election in violation of PA law and potentially deprives the rest of the country of the certainty of timely results. And how does this comport with the decision in the case from South Carolina that said unelected judges shouldn’t be rewriting election law close to an election — a case decided less than two weeks ago? Will all of the circuit court decisions dependent on that ruling be overturned by the unelected SCOTUS in the two weeks before the election? The U.S. has become a third-world country, and Roberts must absolutely hate Trump.

So does every other state get the same extension or just a battleground state which has tens of thousands of misdirected ballots? Sarcasm

So SCOTUS has endorsed the PA Supreme Court’s usurping the power and responsibility of the PA legislature to make law.

Everyone please vote. No matter where you are, no matter if NY or CA or another deep blue state. Go vote, bring folks with you to the polls.

Roberts has become an established tradition from the dregs of W’s era.

It sucks that W’s most meaningful legacy was preventing Gore and Fonda-Kerry. Instead, we get this sort of stuff along with TSA and Homeland Hassles.

Trump has been such a blessing as an outsider who never played into the “role” of POTUS. In his second term, I look forward to some heavy handed downsizing of government. Better that those government “agencies” might be relocated to low population areas such as the deserts, decommissioned military installations, and EPA sanctuaries.

How do we know how ACB would vote here, based on what she already said?

    See “rabid” comment a little later quoting the General Assembly. ACB was unambiguous that she would follow the wording and of the view that it would be up to the legislature to change the rules, not the courts.

smalltownoklahoman | October 19, 2020 at 8:59 pm

Robert’s just enabled a whole lot of post election shenanigans! Don’t expect to be able to trust the numbers from Pennsylvania for possibly months after the election, if we even can make a final determination on which ballots are legit and which aren’t.

    What would be the standing for suing the SCOTUS? For violation of their oaths and violation of the law?

    Just tossing that out there for folks to tear apart and say why.

The United States Supreme Court endorses a recipe for civil chaos in America. Stunning

I don’t know.
But, as there are 3 co-equal branches of Government, I would assume the Supreme Court can be challenged.
??

    Terence G. Gain in reply to snowshooze. | October 20, 2020 at 7:19 am

    Are you suggesting that on questions of law there are three coequal branches of government? Isn’t that a prescription for chaos and an invitation for a strong man to take over? Surely you jest.

Why was this voted on now? Why not wait for ACB (if confirmed)?

    Because it would have gone the other way…

    Gary Mac in reply to alohahola. | October 20, 2020 at 9:36 am

    Recall the timing of Justice Scalia’s “natural causes” departure and the rulings that went down between then and his replacement – a key Union dues case which kept the millions flowing to the democrats. Had Scalia been there to vote, that valve would have been turned off. Gotta rush this one thru – Roberts understood his important role here.

If the full court is seated, maybe the issue is re-visited. Seems like an Equal Protection argument.

“ The Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority acknowledged that there is “no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly”: to be counted, absentee and mail-in ballots “‘must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.’”

And this is ambiguous – how?

    Milhouse in reply to rabid wombat. | October 20, 2020 at 2:08 am

    It says there’s no ambiguity.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | October 20, 2020 at 8:31 am

      They even admit there is no ambiguity and state that acknowledgement clearly, and yet…. I love you Milhouse and your quaint notions of jurisprudence. You think the written law actually means something – that is, by itself it exerts some sort of force that compels or binds prosecutors, judges and juries. In fact, the law is what a prosecutor, judge, and jury says it means. It “lives and breaths,” and is becoming nothing more than a raw exercise of arbitrary power. What were once anonymous abuses are now the law of the land.

      Edward in reply to Milhouse. | October 22, 2020 at 9:34 am

      It does exactly that, and then proceeds to ignore the “black letter” of the law, replacing it with the wish of the majority to enable chaos post election.

MoeHowardwasright | October 19, 2020 at 9:17 pm

What did you expect from a Justice who found a tax wrapped inside a penalty?

the_last_l3oyscout | October 19, 2020 at 9:39 pm

I’m not a lawyer. I come here to read what lawyers think. But this a stay, not an upholding, correct? Does that mean it could be revisited on further appeals?

    Further appeals only help if the late ballots are held, uncounted, until the final ruling. The lack of a stay makes that unlikely and, once counted, the votes really can’t be withdrawn from the total without violating the secret ballot.

    You are correct. While it is less common, the USSCT does overrule itself and in this case where the full court was unavailable due to Ginsburg going belly up grounds exist for a plausible rehearing do the issues should it be filed. Of course, it would have to be given cert again – another hurdle.

Once ACB is on the Court, look for Roberts to move even further left.

SCOTUS has already ruled that the election of officials to federal offices is subject to the jurisdiction of Congress. (Someone out there probably knows the citation. The opinion was issued when some states tried to put term limits on congressional offices.) Late votes for local (state) offices may be counted, but DOJ should be able to stop the counting of the votes for federal offices, because federal election laws have jurisdiction over the votes for candidates for federal offices.

Comments? I’m basically speculating, but based upon what I know SCOTUS has said in the past about the limits of the States’ authority over elections for federal offices.

    Milhouse in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 20, 2020 at 2:12 am

    You misremember. Term limits were struck down as inherently unconstitutional, which means Congress can’t enact them either.

    In any case there’s no federal law that contradicts this ruling, and this Congress is certainly not going to enact one now, so the question is moot.

    CommoChief in reply to DaveGinOly. | October 20, 2020 at 11:41 am

    Dave,

    3 USC 1 sets the first Tuesday after the first Monday in Nov as the election day for selection/appointment of Presidential electors for President and Vice President.

    2 USC 7 sets the same day as election day for Senate and HoR.

    So, yes Federal law sets the date of election for Federal offices.

    Can states count beyond the date? Absolutely. The question about PA was accepting ballots passed the Federally enacted date for Federal offices. Will that ultimately stand? Probably not.

    States get to wholly control state elections for state offices. As.is proper in our system. Can a State court expand that to include federal offices when Congress has set an explicit date for the end of balloting? IMO not only no but hell no. You would potentially have every state setting different rules for when the ‘end’ of federal elections are.

    Not only is it directly in opposition to existing Federal law it is horribly bad policy. Federal law is Supreme, especially when dealing with Federal issues. Certainly the election of Federal offices qualifies as a Federal issue.

    I have been wrong before. SCOTUS makes odd decisions. This is 2020 after all. So take my opinion for what it’s worth.

Would res judicata preempt a similar suit right before election day in case of an ACB confirmation?

    Milhouse in reply to filiusdextris. | October 20, 2020 at 2:16 am

    I don’t think so. 4-4 means no decision was made, thus leaving things as they were. So 5 justices could decide to make a decision.

    CommoChief in reply to filiusdextris. | October 20, 2020 at 10:23 am

    SCOTUS tradition might preclude ‘changing’ the decision.

    However, two important factors:
    1. A new Justice will be seated very soon.
    2. The 5th Circuit just delivered a very well reasoned opinion shutting down d shenanigans in TX on this very point: the legislature gets to legislate; make law and the judiciary should not be involved in creating new law.

    So there is a split in circuits.

This as other news says PA is ripe for voter fraud. Gee, imagine Trump wins the popular vote on election night, then surprise, a Haul is found at a post office with just enough votes to give Biden the win. Lets just hope Trump wins PA and other swing states by such a margin that there is no way the Democrats can steal it. I’m losing hope either way that chaos is coming. If Trump wins, Democrats reach the final stage of TDS and Antifa/BLM go for the suburbs. If Biden wins, Antifa/BLM will be so emboldened that they will go Nazi style SS on anyone deemed a Trump supporter. Buckle the EF up.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Blue Collar Todd. | October 20, 2020 at 8:36 am

    But they will see the results posted on election night, and know how many votes they need to submit, and have three days to organize and submit them. And then, they will continue to count and recount, and find new votes, until they have more votes counted, then they stop counting.

I said it long before this ruling, but I will say it again: Roberts is chomping at the bit to stick it to Trump and the hated Deplorables. Roberts was enraged by criticism of his wackadoodle Obamacare ruling, and has been lusting for revenge ever since.

    Yep. Roberts is nothing but a sleazy Bush family hack who promised he would “get” Trump every possible opportunity.

    . . . And simply — but most significantly, acceptingly — abused w/r/t the High Court’s then-only week-old Citizens United decision* while he sat captively among his Associates before BHO at the new president’s first State of the Union address in January 2010.

    When the boss has your ass in a sling, you sit and take it. If he doesn’t, you get even, like against the generally civil and relatively far more decent Republicans, as you point out.

    Roberts is really thus not much more classy than a two-bit punk, a low and nasty, effete degenerate.

    Nice judicial leadership, that. I’d love to see the guy investigated and impeached, if all the facts finally warrant.

    Weiner. Toobin. Roberts?
    ______________________
    * Citizens United v Federal Election Commission
    “Citizens United was the plaintiff in a Supreme Court case that began as a challenge to various statutory provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA), known as the “McCain-Feingold” law. The case revolved around the documentary ‘Hillary: The Movie,’ which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.

    “The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations. After that hearing, the Court requested re-argument specifically to address whether deciding the case required the Court to reconsider those earlier decisions in Austin v Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v FEC.

    “The case was re-argued on September 9. On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court overturned the provision of McCain-Feingold barring corporations and unions from paying for political ads made independently of candidate campaigns. A dissenting opinion by Justice Stevens was joined by Justice Ginsburg, Justice Breyer, and Justice Sotomayor.”

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization)#Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

    It’s easy to see how, soon after, John McCain kind of, well, switched off his safety mechanism against those — what, out-of-line and upstart? — Freedom-Caucus Republicans, who later came around to support both C and PDJT, and, never switching the safety back on, thumbed down, in his last public-office action before his unfortunate death, the deciding, tie-and-thus-win-precluding vote so as not to pass, once and for all, congressional repeal of the ACA, with 49 Yea v 51 Nay.

    So, Mccain 1 v Trump 0. Up yours, pal, and all that Citizens United and Freedom Caucus bunch with you! it’s easy to imagine him thinking as he returned to his senate seat satisfied, content, a matter now put paid and finally avenged.

    In this last, official action, McCain can be seen as laying the path for the present Speaker to follow: Anything, even so vain as to deny the American people their just due to live and love, stay healthy, and be well, in order to prevent that terrible, awful, hate-filled man, among other diabolical things — Trump — from gaining any credit, deserved or otherwise.

    (The stuff of a thin-skinned, mean and bitter soul — too full of himself, evidently, to successfully oversee the ailing and haunted Veterans Administration that was effectively killing too many of his fellow veterans. It’s poetic justice for PDJT that he not only promised, but demanded, and eventually oversaw the wholesale redesign and refit of the VA, now more faithful than ever to its founding purpose, observers and veteran-patients far more usually than not agree.)

    Maybe Senator-Captain McCain is now R’ingIP. Or maybe not, for, until the end, he was quite fond of refusing what a better man would have more readily, wholeheartedly and wisely accepted.

    John McCain: A hero? Maybe. A man at peace with his own contributions and thus, overall, himself? Not a likely chance.
    At best, his was a very hurt and emotionally sick heart.

The Al Franken ‘found ballots’ exemption to Minnesota election law has just been certified by Chief ‘The law is what I say it is’ Justice John Roberts acting on is own behalf.

Bad Justice renders bad law.

    randian in reply to stablesort. | October 20, 2020 at 4:54 am

    Don’t forget the “found ballots” exemption in Washington State election law that stole the election from Dino Rossi in 2004.

to be counted, absentee and mail-in ballots “‘must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.’”

I have a magic time machine, and I can predict with 100% certainty what will happen immediately after the election day if PA doesn’t go Biden.

1) As they come in, any ballots from Democrat controlled areas will be *immediately* opened and tossed in with the ballots received before, then mixed up so they can’t be separated.
2) The same Republican area ballots will be boxed for later examination. If there’s a chance they will push the vote to Trump or any Republican candidate, the signatures will be painstakingly examined by microscopes and the ballots rejected.
3) The (D) count will grow faster than the (R) count on every single day after election. If they still lack the votes to jam the (D) tally, there will be another extension and even more magic (D) votes will appear.

P O S. LARGE P O S. LARGEST P O S. HE IS THE SUPREME P O S.

Thanks John for boning me up the ass again.

    Skip in reply to Skip. | October 20, 2020 at 3:12 am

    Why only 3 days? Why not just make it Christmas so the Leftists in Philadelphia can produce more fraud ballots?

As I predicted elsewhere, John Roberts just voted FOR Civil War.

A Possible Preview of a Judicial Event on the High Court

From the opening sentence of the USSC panel’s argument to stay the PASC decision:

“The Pennsylvania Supreme Court majority acknowledged that there is ‘no ambiguity regarding the deadline set by the General Assembly’: to be counted, absentee and mail-in ballots ‘must be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight o’clock P.M. on the day of the primary or election.’” A.34 (quoting 25 Pa. Stat. § 3150.16(c)

Yet the same PASC usurped the PA Legislature’s constitutionally designated, rightful responsibility and read into the law in question the presumption of its 3-day extension of election-ballot receipt and what is deemed a timely and valid election ballot.

So, unless I’m completely mistaken, this ain’t over . . . Ask Amy. The about-to-be new 9-member USSC, based on an about-to-be later and newly filed petition with fresh electoral facts with respect to the election, will decide on staying the PASC decision by a vote of 5-4 (with CJ Roberts still siding with the now-minority), and thus reversing its previous 4-4 error. The earlier decision was, with respect to the PA
and US Constitutions, and the PA Legislature’s clear and certain intent in the law’s relevant language in relation to election-ballot receipt, wrongly decided and, thus, no good precedent.

In authoring the majority’s opinion, ACB might argue along the lines that USSC justices fulfill, and do not eschew, their judicial duty when they decide what existing, unambiguous, PA law the PASC’s justices are to correctly apply to this case’s facts, rather than what the same PA justices opined by their nuanced, gratuitous, legally groundless, arbitrary and capricious preference for a 3-day allowance-clause — which was certainly never intended, in that it was clearly omitted by PA lawmakers.

A law’s text counts for everything here. There is no message in the PA law’s margins — or even beyond its four corners — from which any justice, be he or she a state or US appointee, may presume to divine an inferable and, thus, an allowable, subtle but sure rule, embedded neatly and tidily in the statute.

All this, just in case such a constitutional issue on the separation of powers matters — and it does, and so it will to her, as well as the other High Court members that will likely concur entirely with her.

Crush the infamy!

    Gary Mac in reply to GatorGuy. | October 20, 2020 at 9:17 am

    That would be nice but there just isn’t time to get that done before the election. I’d love to be wrong – in fact I’ll eat a whole lemon if I am.

      GatorGuy in reply to Gary Mac. | October 20, 2020 at 12:12 pm

      Well-taken; but maybe, just maybe. . . .

      (Very BTW, as was clearly indicated by the author of the present piece, rather than a pro-stay, USSC panel of 4 justices who found the PASC’s majority opinion in error, as I write incorrectly below, submitting at 5:59 AM, it was the Intervenor-Applicant, the RPP, who argued unsuccessfully for the granting of a USSC-issued administrative stay of the PASC’s 4-3 decision, pending the former’s decision whether or not to grant a writ of certiorari to the Intervenor-Applicant.

      (Might the writ, I wonder, still pend?

      (I regret such an obviously too-early-in-the-AM — yet, I feel, an ultimately inexcusable — misreading of the text.)

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Gary Mac. | October 20, 2020 at 3:12 pm

      Be careful. A Fiat 500 is bigger than it looks.

I’ve had it with mail-in voting and early voting, which are transparently recipes for lawfare chicanery and mischief, and, are inequitable, besides. Why should the voting period be prolonged, for certain citizens? With the exception of mail-in ballot use in extremely limited circumstances (e.g., ex-pats living abroad; U.S. military), I believe that everyone else living stateside should vote on Election Day, period. Folks should be able to get to the polls on a specified day, for the purpose of voting. Basic rules of civic engagement that citizens should be capable of adhering to.

I say fight fire with fire at this point
Republicans need to be productive and start making up possible voting rolls and get marking

At some point, Robert’s will need to be dealt with

Is he trying to cause a civil war? Because making an entire state’s vote completely non-credible is a *really* good way to get it on hot.

    Gary Mac in reply to Voyager. | October 20, 2020 at 9:12 am

    And a SWING state to be more exact. Roberts knows precisely what he is doing, just as he did w odumbocare.

      Voyager in reply to Gary Mac. | October 20, 2020 at 11:20 am

      If he does, he is an idiot. He has to be exceptionally stupid to think the Supreme Court would get to hover above a hot civil war. This won’t be people standing in nice little lines that he can watch from his picnic on the hill; this is going to be citizens murdering eachother in big and small lot batches.

      This idiot is flicking matches while we are all swimming in gasoline.

Why is it democrat administrations never seem to appoint an accidental conservative or at least someone who changes sides to benefit important conservative issues? Hey, while we are at it, THANKS so much for closet liberal David Souter, Geo HW Bush, and thanks for closet liberal John Roberts, Geo W Bush!! The Bush family is that disgusting stench of a bad gift that keeps giving. The sooner we can rid our country of the remnants and reminders of that filthy RINO family, the better.

on a 4-3 vote, the majority ordered “a three-day extension” of that deadline (emphasis added)
On what basis did they “order” such a thing? They have no authority to “order” anything other than what’s written in the law and in the constitution (local, state or federal).

Can we get to the direct, personal, extreme consequences yet? Every single judge that voted in favor of violating law to “ease” voting needs to be dealt with drastically. This is the revolt we truly need.

Evenly divided Supreme Court backs Democrats rule of man instead of rule of law, lets Pennsylvania ballots count if…
Fixed it for him.

ToolsforLiberty | October 20, 2020 at 12:07 pm

Roberts, has been corrupted by the swamp. A man of no character or integrity. If, and that’s a. It “If” the man ever held any conservative values, he fell prey to the siren call of the swamptocrats who have drained him of his former self, leaving the husk of a soulless man behind.

BierceAmbrose | October 20, 2020 at 1:45 pm

Well, the odds say if we get Trump in for a second terms he’s likely to have another nomination to the supremes.

That’s without “court packing.” Sadly for the Screaming-D’s the competent-just-ask-them Obama administration didn’t do the nominating and appointing all up and down the federal courts. They didn’t do it during their first 2 years with massive legislative majorities. They didn’t adjust their rejected policies and priorities after their midterm “shellacking.”

Elections have consequences. If you can’t bring yourself to do the job you were elected to, who’s that on?

One could imaging that Pres Obama was not so focused on things that put other people’s names forwared vs. his own. But, let’s not psychologize.

BierceAmbrose | October 20, 2020 at 1:48 pm

Well, if you speak for “the people” you’ll get legislative majorities n can pass laws with policies to your liking.

When our Screaming-D’s get all wee-wee’d up about constructivist judges who tag back to the law as written, they’re just admitting they really, really like their policies (no surprise), and don’t care if the people inflicted upon agree with them.

Was thinking on way to work can I get 3 extra days for a tax deadline? Promise I will have it in by then.

empiricallyobvious | October 20, 2020 at 7:16 pm

Simply put, he is an embarrassment to our republic.

He sure does look like Whitmer. Unclean.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend