Could This Be The Next Shoe to Drop?

[LdyHoneybee]

Which is how the whole 50-year problem of Roe began.

There is no gaslighting. My knowledge of the events is superior to yours. All you have to do is refute the facts I just presented. In the attempt to do so you will be suitably educated. It is not my purpose to humiliate you in public, only to challenge you to seek the truth on your own by examining the "facts," not the propaganda. and the facts are as I stated them to be, my dear.

My dear, you took the bait but missed the point.

 

[Rightguide]

Not the point. Jeb stopped the recount that the FL Supreme Court ordered before it was complete, and the SCOTUS gave him the right to do it (before the result of the single and only recount was known) because states control their elections, the same right that they had in 2020. One man, the brother of the candidate and a Republican, is culpable for how he handled that situation.

You can go google all you want to. The commenter alleged that the division started with Obama and so on. Do you think that people were not furious because they did not attack the Capitol or pick up their guns and flags? If you don’t, you were not there. I was.

You have forgotten 3 USC 5, the 14th Amendment, and Article II Section I:

Majority opinion​

At oral arguments on December 11, Bush’s legal team asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its authority by ordering the manual recount of undervotes, while Gore’s team contended that the case, having already been decided at the state level, was not a matter for consideration at the federal level. In a per curiam ruling issued the following day, the Court found (7–2) that, owing to inconsistencies in manual recounting methods and standards between Florida counties, the Florida court’s order of a manual recount amounted to a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a smaller majority (5–4), the Court also ruled that no new recount could take place, because none could be finished by the “safe harbor” deadline—the date, set by federal law (3 U.S.C. §5), by which states were required to resolve any disputes regarding the selection of presidential electors in order to guarantee that their final determination “shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution.” Although failure to meet the deadline, which fell on December 12 (six days before the meeting of the Electoral College on December 18), would not have prevented Florida’s electoral votes from being counted, the majority argued that any court order for a new, “constitutionally proper” recount would violate a provision of Florida election law that empowered state courts to grant “appropriate” relief in response to legitimate challenges to certified election results. And that provision would be violated, according to the majority, because in drafting it the Florida state legislature presumably intended that any such relief be completed by the safe-harbor deadline. (The majority also argued that the Florida Supreme Court itself had recognized this intention when, in earlier related cases, it had referred to voters’ “participating fully in the federal electoral process” and to election statutes’ being “cognizant of the federal grant of authority derived from the United States Constitution and derived from 3 U.S.C. §5.”)

Concurring opinion​

In a concurring opinion joined by associate justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with the majority regarding the intentions of the Florida state legislature (“Surely when the Florida Legislature empowered the courts of the State to grant ‘appropriate’ relief, it must have meant relief that would have become final by the cutoff date of 3 U.S.C. §5.”) but also suggested that the safe-harbor provision itself imposed a strict deadline beyond which no recounts could proceed (“In Presidential elections, the contest period necessarily terminates on the date set by 3 U.S.C. §5 for concluding the State’s ‘final determination’ of election controversies.”). Rehnquist argued in addition that the recount order was invalid because it effectively created new election law in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves that power to the state legislatures.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

Here's some of the list that might have reigns pulled in
some need more pulling in than others

missing is AFT

• CIA (Central Intelligence Agency)
• CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)
• DHS (Department of Homeland Security)
• DoD (Department of Defense)
• DOE (Department of Energy)
• DOI (Department of the Interior)
• DOJ (Department of Justice)
• DOL (Department of Labor)
• DOS (Department of State)
• EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)
• FAA (Federal Aviation Administration)
• FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation)
• FCC (Federal Communications Commission)
• FDA (Food and Drug Administration)
• FHA (Federal Housing Administration)
• GAO (Government Accountability Office as of 2004; formerly the General Accounting Office from 1921 to 2004)
• GPO (Government Publishing Office as of 2014; formerly the United States Government Printing Office from 1860 to 2014)
• GSA (General Services Administration)
• HHS (Health and Human Services)
• HUD (Housing and Urban Development)
• ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement)
• IRS (Internal Revenue Service)
• NIH (National Institutes of Health)
• NPS (National Park Service)
• NSA (National Security Agency)
• OMB (Office of Management and Budget)
• OPM (Office of Personnel Management)
• SSA (Social Security Administration)
• TSA (Transportation Security Administration)
• VOA (Voice of America)

You have forgotten 3 USC 5, the 14th Amendment, and Article II Section I:

Majority opinion​

At oral arguments on December 11, Bush’s legal team asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its authority by ordering the manual recount of undervotes, while Gore’s team contended that the case, having already been decided at the state level, was not a matter for consideration at the federal level. In a per curiam ruling issued the following day, the Court found (7–2) that, owing to inconsistencies in manual recounting methods and standards between Florida counties, the Florida court’s order of a manual recount amounted to a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a smaller majority (5–4), the Court also ruled that no new recount could take place, because none could be finished by the “safe harbor” deadline—the date, set by federal law (3 U.S.C. §5), by which states were required to resolve any disputes regarding the selection of presidential electors in order to guarantee that their final determination “shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution.” Although failure to meet the deadline, which fell on December 12 (six days before the meeting of the Electoral College on December 18), would not have prevented Florida’s electoral votes from being counted, the majority argued that any court order for a new, “constitutionally proper” recount would violate a provision of Florida election law that empowered state courts to grant “appropriate” relief in response to legitimate challenges to certified election results. And that provision would be violated, according to the majority, because in drafting it the Florida state legislature presumably intended that any such relief be completed by the safe-harbor deadline. (The majority also argued that the Florida Supreme Court itself had recognized this intention when, in earlier related cases, it had referred to voters’ “participating fully in the federal electoral process” and to election statutes’ being “cognizant of the federal grant of authority derived from the United States Constitution and derived from 3 U.S.C. §5.”)

Concurring opinion​

In a concurring opinion joined by associate justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with the majority regarding the intentions of the Florida state legislature (“Surely when the Florida Legislature empowered the courts of the State to grant ‘appropriate’ relief, it must have meant relief that would have become final by the cutoff date of 3 U.S.C. §5.”) but also suggested that the safe-harbor provision itself imposed a strict deadline beyond which no recounts could proceed (“In Presidential elections, the contest period necessarily terminates on the date set by 3 U.S.C. §5 for concluding the State’s ‘final determination’ of election controversies.”). Rehnquist argued in addition that the recount order was invalid because it effectively created new election law in violation of Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves that power to the state legislatures.

• directors of which are approved by Congress,yeah? Except in the Trump administration so that he retained the power to fire them.

You have forgotten 3 USC 5, the 14th Amendment, and Article II Section I:

Majority opinion​

At oral arguments on December 11, Bush’s legal team asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had exceeded its authority by ordering the manual recount of undervotes, while Gore’s team contended that the case, having already been decided at the state level, was not a matter for consideration at the federal level. In a per curiam ruling issued the following day, the Court found (7–2) that, owing to inconsistencies in manual recounting methods and standards between Florida counties, the Florida court’s order of a manual recount amounted to a violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. By a smaller majority (5–4), the Court also ruled that no new recount could take place, because none could be finished by the “safe harbor” deadline—the date, set by federal law (3 U.S.C. §5), by which states were required to resolve any disputes regarding the selection of presidential electors in order to guarantee that their final determination “shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution.” Although failure to meet the deadline, which fell on December 12 (six days before the meeting of the Electoral College on December 18), would not have prevented Florida’s electoral votes from being counted, the majority argued that any court order for a new, “constitutionally proper” recount would violate a provision of Florida election law that empowered state courts to grant “appropriate” relief in response to legitimate challenges to certified election results. And that provision would be violated, according to the majority, because in drafting it the Florida state legislature presumably intended that any such relief be completed by the safe-harbor deadline. (The majority also argued that the Florida Supreme Court itself had recognized this intention when, in earlier related cases, it had referred to voters’ “participating fully in the federal electoral process” and to election statutes’ being “cognizant of the federal grant of authority derived from the United States Constitution and derived from 3 U.S.C. §5.”)

Concurring opinion​

In a concurring opinion joined by associate justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed with the majority regarding the intentions of the Florida state legislature (“Surely when the Florida Legislature empowered the courts of the State to grant ‘appropriate’ relief, it must have meant r

Like i said, you took the bait and missed the point.(That is essentially what i said but I didn’t have to google it. So what say let’s cut the mansplaining. I am glad you read up about it. Had to delete some of the words to get under the limit. )

 

[LdyHoneybee]

Like i said, you took the bait and missed the point.(That is essentially what i said but I didn’t have to google it. So what say let’s cut the mansplaining. I am glad you read up about it. Had to delete some of the words to get under the limit. ) And yeah, i know about the deadline, the same one as in 2020. But there was time. Jeb just decided to certify on his own….because he could.

 

[Rightguide]

Like i said, you took the bait and missed the point.(That is essentially what i said but I didn’t have to google it. So what say let’s cut the mansplaining. I am glad you read up about it. Had to delete some of the words to get under the limit. )

Look. The facts are the facts, as I stated them to be. You have yet to refute a single one of them. I have no desire to pile on and keep beating this dead horse from the past, but you brought it up and while doing so falsely defined the outcome of the issues involved. That said, I'm done with the subject unless you can refute what I said in detail. Meanwhile LHoneybee, have a great weekend and may you encounter many moist and dripping Stamens and/or Pistils whichever suits your fancy.

 

[Chobham]

Not the point. Jeb stopped the recount that the FL Supreme Court ordered before it was complete, and the SCOTUS gave him the right to do it (before the result of the single and only recount was known) because states control their elections, the same right that they had in 2020. One man, the brother of the candidate and a Republican, is culpable for how he handled that situation.

You can go google all you want to. The commenter alleged that the division started with Obama and so on. Do you think that people were not furious because they did not attack the Capitol or pick up their guns and flags? If you don’t, you were not there. I was.

Then what is the "point?" That the dem team failed to co-opt the election and you're still pissed off?

 

[Rightguide]

Then what is the "point?" That the dem team failed to co-opt the election and you're still pissed off?

Precisely.

 

[HisArpy]

The problem re. abortion is that those that support choice can't grasp what the issue is, that being the taking of a human life. They do not understand that the state has an interest in deciding who can make that decision and under what circumstances. They refuse to address the moral issues that surround the subject.

THE problem with this viewpoint is that it cedes to the government the decision on whether you can abort or not AS WELL AS the decision on whether you are REQUIRED to bear offspring (or not).

When gov has an interest, that interest will always tip toward whichever option grants the gov more power/money over the people.

 

[Rightguide]

THE problem with this viewpoint is that it cedes to the government the decision on whether you can abort or not AS WELL AS the decision on whether you are REQUIRED to bear offspring (or not).

When gov has an interest, that interest will always tip toward whichever option grants the gov more power/money over the people.

So true but now lawyers will have tools with which to interrupt that interest.