[Hoot Gibson]

Hoot, Jet,  I didn't realize what a refreshing experience blocking vector could be. It's kind of like a sewer line. You know it's down there in the ground and that's where it needs to stay.


Joe Manchin and Tulsi Gabbard are the only two Democrats with any form of remaining conscience in the entire Congress.

I am sorry to say that I fell off the wagon last night but I'm not expanding any more of his replies today.

I am with you on Gabbard but I am not so sure that Manchin won't capitulate if Democrats put enough goodies on the table. It bothers me that not a single Democrat has voiced concern over the fact that Congress has no jurisdiction over the details of how states run their elections. Obviously, other constitutional rights would come into play if a state banned a certain class of citizens from voting, etc., but Congress has no authority to set rules for absentee ballots, early voting, or requiring a voter ID.

Manchin is right about the Democrats' bill being divisive, but it would be great if he would go on record saying that it is unconstitutional. I would have more confidence that he would not flip-flop if he had made such a statement.

As if the Constitution even means anything to them. They are doing exactly what I expected them to do, seize power by any an all means necessary.

I find it funny the 3 GQP members on here saying the federal have no say in what states do. But the first time they don't like election results they turn to the federal courts. They boast about leaving everything to the states but every time they don't like what a state does they run to the federal courts. Examples they sued in federal courts i believe it was 15 states got together and didn't like the results of the election in other states Dammm. I mean which one is it leave it to the states or does the federal have to step in ?

I'm trying to stay out of this one due of mixed feelings, plus not enough knowledge on the matter to know what I'm talking about.  That being said, Vector makes a very valid point concerning the irony of the response of some of the membership on here.

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.