[TheRealThing]

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.

vector did not make the point but the point isn't valid whether it was him or Cardfan. Since the Obama administration, everything that qualifies as 'moving the country forward, or froward depending on one's point of view, seemed to wind up in the 9th Court of Appeals. The tactic as I see it, was to proactively litigate any matter of liberal interest in the friendly confines of the 9th court, to include injunctions against the former President, in order to establish precedent which would heavily influence the other districts or possibly even the SC. And the liberal media certainly used it to influence the opinions of their viewership.

But the author of vector's point addressed election law as it applies to state jurisdiction. Kentucky is not a swing state and not involved where the 2am election miracle took place. Even if it were, it would have been the 6th US Court of Appeals to have heard any challenge to any lower court finding on last minute changes to election law. That's federal court for your sake there vector Cardfan.

The Supreme Court does have jurisdiction as I understand the structure of the court in a matter such as a state changing election law after voting has started or when involving federal elections when such changes are challenged in court. The Supreme Court can choose not to hear such challenge IMHO, to their own and the people's detriment.