2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh come on. It's clearly intended to slow down and impede the process of getting mail-in ballots to voters. You already know this, so what's the point of this? Are you just doing that contrarian thing again like when you tried (and miserably failed) to claim Fauci sowed mistrust in the vaccine because he failed to predict the increase in transmissibility of Delta and Omicron? I don't know if it's a few after-dinner drinks that leads you into stuff this, or boredom, or what, but we can just call a spade a spade here.

Not being a contrarian at all. This is how the law works. You can’t claim an injury has occurred based on a hypothetical of what you think might happen 3 steps down the line. When the post master general develops a final rule for mail in ballots and the government instructed to enforce it, that’s when a state can then bring a suit. They can’t file suit over what they think might ultimately happen when the draft provision hasn’t even been created yet.

If President Elizabeth Warren wrote an EO that directed the head of the IRS to initiate a process to draft a proposed draft provision for a wealth tax, there would be no grounds to sue. At the point at which an actual final wealth tax provision was created and the IRS instructed to start enforcing said tax, THAT’S when there would be grounds to sue.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Not being a contrarian at all. This is how the law works. You can’t claim an injury has occurred based on a hypothetical of what you think might happen 3 steps down the line. When the post master general develops a final rule for mail in ballots and the government instructed to enforce it, that’s when a state can then bring a suit. They can’t file suit over what they think might ultimately happen when the draft provision hasn’t even been created yet.

If President Elizabeth Warren wrote an EO that directed the head of the IRS to initiate a process to draft a proposed draft provision for a wealth tax, there would be no grounds to sue. At the point at which an actual final wealth tax provision was created and the IRS instructed to start enforcing said tax, THAT’S when there would be grounds to sue.

Three steps down the line? Don't play dumb, you specifically asked how the post master general initiating a rule for requiring a list of voters from each state, and then cross checking that list before delivering mail-in ballots, would harm a state. So that leaves only two possibilities for why you'd ask such a ridiculous question...

A) You're not intelligent or informed enough to understand the logistical cluster-F that would ensue for an already understaffed and underfunded agency that can barely deliver regular mail on time as it is, let alone when a surge of mail occurs in the weeks leading up to a major question.

B) You're drunk and bored on a Tuesday night just like you were for that whole Fauci conversation.

You really want to torch your credibility by dying on these hills, dude?

6 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Three steps down the line? Don't play dumb, you specifically asked how the post master general initiating a rule for requiring a list of voters from each state, and then cross checking that list before delivering mail-in ballots, would harm a state. So that leaves only two possibilities for why you'd ask such a ridiculous question...

A) You're not intelligent or informed enough to understand the logistical cluster-F that would ensue for an already understaffed and underfunded agency that can barely deliver regular mail on time as it is, let alone when a surge of mail occurs in the weeks leading up to a major question.

B) You're drunk and bored on a Tuesday night just like you were for that whole Fauci conversation.

You really want to torch your credibility by dying on these hills, dude?

A state can’t claim that they’ve been injured by a provision that hasn’t even been drafted, let alone finalized. No need for insults. I have little doubt that when this provision is ultimately made final, it will be in violation of the constitution. When the provision is actually drafted and made final, states can then file a suit against the federal government. It will then ultimately go up to the Supreme Court, and will get struck down. Just like pretty much every other thing Trump tries to do.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

A state can’t claim that they’ve been injured by a provision that hasn’t even been drafted, let alone finalized. No need for insults.

Oh FFS.

Is the EO legal or not?

If your entire argument is that the EO is illegal but no harm can be proven until someone attempts to carry it out, then that is absolutely asinine given the fact we're almost 60 days out from a major election and some states have already begun mailing out ballots.

And if you're saying the EO is not illegal, then you're even more far gone than I could've ever imagined.

Pick your hill...

21 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh FFS.

Is the EO legal or not?

If your entire argument is that the EO is illegal but no harm can be proven until someone attempts to carry it out, then that is absolutely asinine given the fact we're almost 60 days out from a major election and some states have already begun mailing out ballots.

And if you're saying the EO is not illegal, then you're even more far gone than I could've ever imagined.

Pick your hill...

The EO is legal as it’s not a violation of the constitution to instruct an agency of the federal government to craft a draft provision. The final provision that is ultimately written could end up being in violation of the constitution, at which point states would have grounds to sue the federal government as there would actually be a written provision to base their claim on.

Just because Trump is a moron doesn’t mean that judicial process goes out the window and we’re allowed to say that provisions that haven’t even been drafted yet have caused injury.

I have little doubt that when this provision is ultimately made final, it will be in violation of the constitution. When the provision is actually drafted and made final, states can then file a suit against the federal government. It will then ultimately go up to the Supreme Court, and will get struck down. Just like pretty much every other thing Trump tries to do.

29 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh FFS.

Is the EO legal or not?

If your entire argument is that the EO is illegal but no harm can be proven until someone attempts to carry it out, then that is absolutely asinine given the fact we're almost 60 days out from a major election and some states have already begun mailing out ballots.

And if you're saying the EO is not illegal, then you're even more far gone than I could've ever imagined.

Pick your hill...

If a Democrat president writes an EO that instructs the head of the IRS to create a draft provision of a wealth tax, would this EO be illegal? And could someone claim that this EO has caused an injury based on what they think the final language of the provision might say?

7 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

The EO is legal as it’s not a violation of the constitution to instruct an agency of the federal government to craft a draft provision. The final provision that is ultimately written could end up being in violation of the constitution, at which point states would have grounds to sue the federal government as there would actually be a written provision to base their claim on.

Just because Trump is a moron doesn’t mean that judicial process goes out the window and we’re allowed to say that provisions that haven’t even been drafted yet have caused injury.

I have little doubt that when this provision is ultimately made final, it will be in violation of the constitution. When the provision is actually drafted and made final, states can then file a suit against the federal government. It will then ultimately go up to the Supreme Court, and will get struck down. Just like pretty much every other thing Trump tries to do.

k

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

k

Once again, just because Trump is a moron doesn’t mean that a state can claim they have been injured by a provision that hasn’t even been written yet.

I’m working on a project right now in which a resident is likely going to sue the FHWA once the FHWA gives us environmental clearance to proceed into final design. By your logic, the resident can sue FHWA right now based on what he thinks MIGHT happen.

I worked on another project in which an environmental group sued PADEP for their decision to grant the applicant NPDES approval. Why did the environmental group have to wait until DEP issued the NPDES approval? Why couldn’t they sue before hand based on the theoretical possibility that DEP would grant the applicant NPDES approval?

15 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

If a Democrat president writes an EO that instructs the head of the IRS to create a draft provision of a wealth tax, would this EO be illegal? And could someone claim that this EO has caused an injury based on what they think the final language of the provision might say?

@we_gotta_believe so you laughed at the post, why not answer it?

Just now, Phillyterp85 said:

@we_gotta_believe so you laughed at the post, why not answer it?

Because you're a clown, dude. The EO is absolutely illegal when the intent of ordering an agency to break the law is clear as day given the wording in the EO, and the fact that it uses the words "proposed" when referring to the rules which are ordered to be implemented doesn't make it any less illegal. It's literally mind-numbing that you think it does.

So the reason I laughed is because I've already humored you during the Fauci discussion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured maybe you were just having off night or something. But I'm not gonna spell it out for you again like I did then. If you want to poorly regurgitate right-wing talking points and continue to make a fool out of yourself yet again, who am I to stop you?

1 minute ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Because you're a clown, dude. The EO is absolutely illegal when the intent of ordering an agency to break the law is clear as day given the wording in the EO, and the fact that it uses the words "proposed" when referring to the rules which are ordered to be implemented doesn't make it any less illegal. It's literally mind-numbing that you think it does.

So the reason I laughed is because I've already humored you during the Fauci discussion. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and figured maybe you were just having off night or something. But I'm not gonna spell it out for you again like I did then. If you want to poorly regurgitate right-wing talking points and continue to make a fool out of yourself, who am I to stop you?

So I’m a clown for thinking that a state can’t claim they’ve been harmed by a provision that doesn’t exist yet? But you won’t answer a simple yes/no question providing you with an example of an analogous situation? Again, not sure what’s with the insults. I’ve always gotten along with you well. I don’t think it’s outrageous to say that a state has to wait to see what the actual language of a provision is before they can file suit and claim they’ve been injured by it. Have there been other cases in which a plaintiff has been able to successfully file an injunction against the government over provisions that have not yet been created?

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

So I’m a clown for thinking that a state can’t claim they’ve been harmed by a provision that doesn’t exist yet? But you won’t answer a simple yes/no question providing you with an example of an analogous situation? Again, not sure what’s with the insults. I’ve always gotten along with you well. I don’t think it’s outrageous to say that a state has to wait to see what the actual language of a provision is before they can file suit and claim they’ve been injured by it. Have there been other cases in which a plaintiff has been able to successfully file an injunction against the government over provisions that have not yet been created?

Oh right, attempted murder isn't illegal if no one is actually murdered. And ordering someone to commit murder is still legal so long as the person being given the order hasn't attempted it yet and only if you say the magic word "proposed" before the word "murder". Solid argument, terp. My apologies for not understanding this point so much earlier.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh right, attempted murder isn't illegal if no one is actually murdered. And ordering someone to commit murder is still legal so long as the person being given the order hasn't attempted it yet and only if you say the magic word "proposed" before the word "murder". Solid argument, terp. My apologies for not understanding this point so much earlier.

Well no, attempted murder is illegal because there is a statute that makes attempted murder a criminal offense. So that’s not really an analogous situation.

There are also statutes against ordering someone else to murder someone, so again, not an analogous situation.

Why aren’t you answering the comparable situation I provided of a president instructing the head of the IRS create a draft provision of a wealth tax and if that would be illegal and if a state could sue over that?

2 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

Well no, attempted murder is illegal because there is a statute that makes attempted murder a criminal offense. So that’s not really an analogous situation.

There are also statutes against ordering someone else to murder someone, so again, not an analogous situation.

Why aren’t you answering the comparable situation I provided of a president instructing the head of the IRS create a draft provision of a wealth tax and if that would be illegal and if a state could sue over that?

"There's no statute that says the post office can't interfere with a state's election process!"

Grab a new shovel, that one you're using is pretty beat up.

10 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Oh right, attempted murder isn't illegal if no one is actually murdered. And ordering someone to commit murder is still legal so long as the person being given the order hasn't attempted it yet and only if you say the magic word "proposed" before the word "murder". Solid argument, terp. My apologies for not understanding this point so much earlier.

Why wasn’t Obama and Kathleen Sibelius sued over the ACA while the bill was being crafted? Everyone and their mother knew that the legislation was going to include the individual mandate and that there was going to be a question over whether that part of the law was constitutional. By your logic, it would seem you think that it would have been possible for someone to successfully sue the government before legislation was even written and base their injury on what they think the final law will say.

But in reality, plaintiffs had to wait until there was an actual approved provision to base their suit on. Because you can’t sue the government over a provision that doesn’t exist yet.

2 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

"There's no statute that says the post office can't interfere with a state's election process!"

Grab a new shovel, that one you're using is pretty beat up.

If the federal government enacts a provision that instructs the post office to interfere with a state’s election process, then the states will have grounds to sue the government. A state can’t sue the government over a provision that does not exist. When the government writes a provision that instructs states to do x, y, z, states can then sue the government over the language of the provision.

9 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

If the federal government enacts a provision that instructs the post office to interfere with a state’s election process, then the states will have grounds to sue the government. A state can’t sue the government over a provision that does not exist. When the government writes a provision that instructs states to do x, y, z, states can then sue the government over the language of the provision.

Enough already. The executive order is literally ordering an agency to create an illegal provision. You won't admit it, but you know that's absolutely the intent of the wording when you read it. That it may not have been acted upon yet, when we're almost 60 days out from the midterms and several states are about to start mailing out ballots, is a ridiculous argument to lean on.

You know damn well that the damage will have already been done under this scenario you're saying must play out first. Look, I apologize for the insults, but this shtick of yours with the Fauci conversation and now this ridiculous line of reasoning is wearing thin. I don't know what happened to you, but it's pretty sad, to say the least.

5 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Enough already. The executive order is literally ordering an agency to create an illegal provision. You won't admit it, but you know that's absolutely the intent of the wording when you read it. That it may not have been acted upon yet, when we're almost 60 days out from the midterms and several states are about to start mailing out ballots, is a ridiculous argument to lean on.

You know damn well that the damage will have already been done under this scenario you're saying must play out first. Look, I apologize for the insults, but this shtick of yours with the Fauci conversation and now this ridiculous line of reasoning is wearing thin. I don't know what happened to you, but it's pretty sad, to say the least.

There is no schtick. There is a judicial process in this country. You can’t claim you’ve been injured by a provision when that provision doesn’t even exist yet. Period. Which is why you know very well that a person couldn’t successfully file a suit against the government over an EO that instructs the head of the IRS to draft language of what a wealth tax would look like. It’s also why NFIB couldn’t file a suit against the Obama administration over the ACA until after the ACA was signed into law. You can’t file a suit over a provision that doesn’t exist yet. Again, are there previous examples of a person successfully filing suit against the government over a provision that doesn’t exist yet?

The final rule was actually just published, and so it can now be challenged as there’s actually a provision to which a state can file suit against.

If President Shapiro were to write an EO instructing the DOJ to write a rule that creates stipulations for hand gun ownership, people wouldn’t be able to successfully sue the government over such an EO. They’d have to wait until there was an actual provision that was written, otherwise, what are you suing over? How can someone claim they’ve been injured by a provision that doesn’t even exist?

Again, just because Trump is a moron doesn’t mean we can disregard judicial process.

8 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

The EO does not allow the post office to decide who can receive mail in ballots and who can’t. The EO directed the post master general to initiate a proposed rule making for provisions regarding mail in ballots.

How is a state injured by the post master general initiating a proposed rule making for provisions regarding mail in ballots?

If the Final rule ends up containing provisions that would cause an injury to a state, then a state would have grounds to sue. They can’t sue based on what they think the final rule provisions are going to be.

"If I pass a law allowing rape and murder to be legal, we shouldn't have to actually wait for someone to be raped or murdered for it to be struck down.”

That’s not analogous to this situation as the EO isn’t making a new law. It’s not even making a final regulation.

The USPS final 95 page rule was issued prior to the SCOTUS ruling so there was "meat" out there for SCOTUS to review. By placing a "stay" SCOTUS ignored that USPS final rule and went on the letter of the law from a timing and procedural perspective based on when the original suit was filed. They could have just as easily punted on this one which is what they should have done instead of weighing in. The good news is that there is a 2nd suit that prevents USPS from moving forward at this point.

2 hours ago, DrPhilly said:

The USPS final 95 page rule was issued prior to the SCOTUS ruling so there was "meat" out there for SCOTUS to review. By placing a "stay" SCOTUS ignored that USPS final rule and went on the letter of the law from a timing and procedural perspective based on when the original suit was filed. They could have just as easily punted on this one which is what they should have done instead of weighing in. The good news is that there is a 2nd suit that prevents USPS from moving forward at this point.

And that rule has been challenged in DSCC v Trump and that case will decide if the rule violates the constitution. The case the SC ruled on yesterday was a request by the government to lift the injunction that was placed in California v Trump. They can't review something that isn't part of the case. The SC can't change the merits of a case. Just like how the injunction placed on the USPS from the League of Women Voters v Trump is still in place. It's a separate case with separate claims.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

And that rule has been challenged in DSCC v Trump and that case will decide if the rule violates the constitution. The case the SC ruled on yesterday was a request by the government to lift the injunction that was placed in California v Trump. They can't review something that isn't part of the case. The SC can't change the merits of a case. Just like how the injunction placed on the USPS from the League of Women Voters v Trump is still in place. It's a separate case with separate claims.

No but they shouldn't have taken it at all. That's the point.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

No but they shouldn't have taken it at all. That's the point.

They could have refused to take it, but there is precedent in claims not having standing because action hasn’t taken place yet and therefore injuries haven’t occurred. The other side of it is that if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and just let the first circuit appeal play out, even if the government wins on the grounds that the states didn’t have standing to bring suit, it will be too late for the government to do anything in time for the election.

4 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

it will be too late for the government to do anything in time for the election.

Oh noes, I hope the long standing manner in which states have carried out elections per the authority given to them in the Constitution doesn't cause irreparable harm to the widdle helpless federal government. Thankfully there's no chance of the inverse occurring based on the timing of the EO and the legal games being played by an authoritarian administration. Whatever shall we do if the post office isn't allowed to refuse delivery of ballots to voters?

28 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

They could have refused to take it, but there is precedent in claims not having standing because action hasn’t taken place yet and therefore injuries haven’t occurred. The other side of it is that if the Supreme Court refused to hear the case and just let the first circuit appeal play out, even if the government wins on the grounds that the states didn’t have standing to bring suit, it will be too late for the government to do anything in time for the election.

They took it on the shadow docket and when they could see the final ruling and when they know that the election is just a few months away and that any changes like this so late are never allowed. It was just not a good thing to take at all in any way shape or form. All they had to do was ignore it for now but they decided to put their nose in where it doesn't belong (yet).