Frau Pelosi’s and Herr Schumer’s HR 4 will fail!

[BidudeinWi]

The entire “election integrity” Law that is the holy grail to perpetuate the Democrats power, will immediately fail in the Courts. It’s Unconstitutional AF!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...tional-effort-to-take-power-away-from-states/

 

[YDB95]

Using Nazi allusions with a Jewish senator...wow, even for you...

 

[CornusKousa]

Using Nazi allusions with a Jewish senator...wow, even for you...

Suddenly you're all pro-Jewish!!!

Wow...that's a 180 turn around on you, doesn't change the fact the guy is a fucking Nazi....just like you.

 

[Champakian]

I just read that a fellow Democrat would help sink it.

Elections must be getting close...

 

[Rightguide]

It would probably fail in court as well.

 

[Champakian]

To borrow from Musashi;

Put your trust in the courts and judges, do not rely upon them.

If you think that false, I have two words for you: John Roberts.

 

[Rightguide]

To borrow from Musashi;

Put your trust in the courts and judges, do not rely upon them.

If you think that false, I have two words for you: John Roberts.

To strip the states of their black letter constitutional rights on elections without an amendment might even be a bridge too far for Roberts. I think if passed it could literally separate the Union and put red states in open rebellion against federal authority. We're already seeing this on federal gun control authority.

 

[Champakian]

We were absolutely sure about him on Obamacare too...

:shrug:

... the cocktail circuit and his legacy are always foremost on his mind.

 

[ll74]

The entire “election integrity” Law that is the holy grail to perpetuate the Democrats power, will immediately fail in the Courts. It’s Unconstitutional AF!

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/...tional-effort-to-take-power-away-from-states/

It likely would survive SCOTUS, as it takes into account the previous law regarding pre-clearance which was struck down and accounts for the decision that struck it out. It also has Manchin's support, which is key.

I like that it prevents SCOTUS from reversing a lower court's decision via emergency order, as they shouldn't have the ability to favor restrictive laws over voter rights.

Federal oversight of elections is well established as acceptable by SCOTUS.

 

[Rightguide]

We were absolutely sure about him on Obamacare too...

:shrug:

... the cocktail circuit and his legacy are always foremost on his mind.

Hey I'm no fan of the SOB, but he's only one vote on the SCOTUS.

 

[Champakian]

The swing vote...

 

[BidudeinWi]

It likely would survive SCOTUS, as it takes into account the previous law regarding pre-clearance which was struck down and accounts for the decision that struck it out. It also has Manchin's support, which is key.

I like that it prevents SCOTUS from reversing a lower court's decision via emergency order, as they shouldn't have the ability to favor restrictive laws over voter rights.

Federal oversight of elections is well established as acceptable by SCOTUS.

You’re blinded by your partisan eyes. “Federal oversight” is vastly different than creating national election laws that all states must follow. The Federal Government simply doesn’t have nor should they have, power not explicitly articulated in the Constitution. The current, fraudulent occupier of the White House, better be careful and think about going that far.

 

[ll74]

You’re blinded by your partisan eyes. “Federal oversight” is vastly different than creating national election laws that all states must follow. The Federal Government simply doesn’t have nor should they have, power not explicitly articulated in the Constitution. The current, fraudulent occupier of the White House, better be careful and think about going that far.

"national election laws that all states must follow" - those are called guidelines and SCOTUS has upheld Congress' right to create them via the Elections clause of the Constitution. (Article I, Section 4.)

 

[pecksniff]

To strip the states of their black letter constitutional rights on elections without an amendment might even be a bridge too far for Roberts. I think if passed it could literally separate the Union and put red states in open rebellion against federal authority. We're already seeing this on federal gun control authority.

We're not going to have a civil war over either of those issues. It would be silly.

 

[BidudeinWi]

"national election laws that all states must follow" - those are called guidelines and SCOTUS has upheld Congress' right to create them via the Elections clause of the Constitution. (Article I, Section 4.)

You’re fucking delusional! Keep watching Moscow Maddow
!

 

[Rightguide]

We're not going to have a civil war over either of those issues. It would be silly.

Who said anything about a civil war? I said open rebellion against federal authority, like we see them doing with federal gun controls.

 

[CornusKousa]

We're not going to have a civil war over either of those issues. It would be silly.

Attempting to force these kinds of things along partisan lines is exactly the kind of shit that starts civil wars.

The bottom line is politicians govern at the consent of the governed, and they don't have the consent for stripping states of their rights to be states.

 

[ll74]

You’re fucking delusional! Keep watching Moscow Maddow
!

Unless somehow Maddow was on the Supreme Court, I don't see how she is relevant so historical record.