1 hour ago, we_gotta_believe said:

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?

Again, we have a judicial process in this country. Just because Trump is a moron doesn't mean that we get to throw judicial process out the window and rule that a proposed provision that didn't even exist had caused harms to a state just because of what we think the provision will likely say. The rule has been published, and it has been challenged. And the plaintiffs now have a standing to challenge on as there's an actual provision in place and so they can point out the specific points of the provision that they feel violate the constitution.

Socialists cleaning house. And this all started over a tan suit.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

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).

I disagree that they put their nose in a place it didn’t belong. A judge ruled that a state had standing to claim they were harmed by a provision that didn’t exist. By this logic, the NFIB should have been able to sue the Obama administration while the ACA was being debated and claim they were harmed over what they THINK the final language of the ACA was going to include. By this logic, if a Democrat president writes an EO that instructs the DOJ to draft new provisions around gun regulations, they can be sued before those regulations are even drafted just based on what people THINK the regulation might say. Obviously, such cases would not stand muster. Because you can’t claim you’ve been injured by a provision that doesn’t even exist.

The rule has been published and it has been challenged by DSCC. California and their coalition is also going to file a new suit now that the rule is published. This is how the law works. Government proposes a new rule, they can be challenged on the new rule. Can’t challenge a rule that doesn’t even exist yet.

Now that the rule is published and challenges have been brought, and more will continue to be brought, an injunction will likely be granted to stop the rule from going into effect while the court decides on the merits of the case. And based on quick skimming of the proposed rule, I think it’s DOA. And even if by some miracle the government actually does somehow win and the rule is allowed to remain, that decision will be too close to the November election and it won’t apply until the next election.

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

And here I thought South Carolina was a better place to retire to compared with Florida. Why the F does every warm state seem to have imbeciles as the vast majority of their populous?

5 minutes ago, barho said:

And here I thought South Carolina was a better place to retire to compared with Florida. Why the F does every warm state seem to have imbeciles as the vast majority of their populous?

You do know that Pennsylvania has a senator who is an ettin?

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I disagree that they put their nose in a place it didn’t belong. A judge ruled that a state had standing to claim they were harmed by a provision that didn’t exist. By this logic, the NFIB should have been able to sue the Obama administration while the ACA was being debated and claim they were harmed over what they THINK the final language of the ACA was going to include. By this logic, if a Democrat president writes an EO that instructs the DOJ to draft new provisions around gun regulations, they can be sued before those regulations are even drafted just based on what people THINK the regulation might say. Obviously, such cases would not stand muster. Because you can’t claim you’ve been injured by a provision that doesn’t even exist.

The rule has been published and it has been challenged by DSCC. California and their coalition is also going to file a new suit now that the rule is published. This is how the law works. Government proposes a new rule, they can be challenged on the new rule. Can’t challenge a rule that doesn’t even exist yet.

Now that the rule is published and challenges have been brought, and more will continue to be brought, an injunction will likely be granted to stop the rule from going into effect while the court decides on the merits of the case. And based on quick skimming of the proposed rule, I think it’s DOA. And even if by some miracle the government actually does somehow win and the rule is allowed to remain, that decision will be too close to the November election and it won’t apply until the next election.

You're mixing up the ruling itself with ruling at all. There was no reason for them to expedite the ruling and take it in the shadow docket. Just the opposite.

15 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

You're mixing up the ruling itself with ruling at all. There was no reason for them to expedite the ruling and take it in the shadow docket. Just the opposite.

I’m not mixing anything up. They ruled to stay the injunction because the government was likely succeed in their appeal and because the government would face harm if a stay was not granted as the injunction interfered with internal operations of the executive branch. The injunction shouldn’t have been granted in the first place as the states had no grounds to claim harm over a provision that didn’t even exist yet.

If parties are allowed to sue the government over provisions that don’t exist yet on the grounds that they THINK that the provision will include language that violates that constitution, that would be a mess.

Anytime a president wrote an EO that instructed an agency to draft a proposed regulation, someone could get an injunction on the basis that they think the hypothetical regulation that doesn’t exist yet will violate the constitution.

Anytime congress is debating legislation, someone could sue and block congress from drafting said legislation on the grounds that they think the final bill will violate the constitution.

Anytime a DOT undertakes planning for a new roadway project, someone could sue and block the planning on the grounds that they think that their property might be impacted by the hypothetical project that doesn’t exist yet.

And on and on and on…

25 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

I’m not mixing anything up. They ruled to stay the injunction because the government was likely succeed in their appeal and because the government would face harm if a stay was not granted as the injunction interfered with internal operations of the executive branch. The injunction shouldn’t have been granted in the first place as the states had no grounds to claim harm over a provision that didn’t even exist yet.

If parties are allowed to sue the government over provisions that don’t exist yet on the grounds that they THINK that the provision will include language that violates that constitution, that would be a mess.

Anytime a president wrote an EO that instructed an agency to draft a proposed regulation, someone could get an injunction on the basis that they think the hypothetical regulation that doesn’t exist yet will violate the constitution.

Anytime congress is debating legislation, someone could sue and block congress from drafting said legislation on the grounds that they think the final bill will violate the constitution.

Anytime a DOT undertakes planning for a new roadway project, someone could sue and block the planning on the grounds that they think that their property might be impacted by the hypothetical project that doesn’t exist yet.

And on and on and on…

Round and round. I'm not arguing against the ruling on the technicality. I'm saying SCOTUS should not have expedited this to the shadow docket given the rest of the context. No precedence would be set one way or the other by them taking this on the normal timeline so your argument is mute.

3 hours ago, barho said:

And here I thought South Carolina was a better place to retire to compared with Florida. Why the F does every warm state seem to have imbeciles as the vast majority of their populous?

wtf, i am literally looking at a place in SC right now. 🤣

23 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.

Uhhhh no. You can read the EO. It clearly states that the US postal service (whose board of governors has been stacked with Trump loyalists) is the ultimate arbiter of who may or may not vote by mail (not the states (as written in the constitution)

Proposed provisions specifying that the USPS shall provide each State with a list of individuals (Mail-In and Absentee Participation List) who are enrolled with the USPS, pursuant to a process specified in the rulemaking directed by this subsection, for mail-in or absentee ballots

Once again this is a case is the powers that be just assuming Trump will follow the law and direct the postal service to put all eligible voters on the list. Spoiler alert: he doesn't follow the law.

19 hours 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. 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.

Sure they can. Any time the executive branch grants itself power that belongs to the states its a violation of the constitution whether or not that power has been used yet. You should be smarter than this. If you you aren't, you are exactly the kind of person this administration employs as a useful idiot.

19 hours ago, we_gotta_believe said:

k

Oh come on! Donald Trump could write an executive order stating that ICE can castrate any registered Democrat or independent. Until you have been castrated, you can't claim he broke the law. That's just common sense! Why can't you see that!

17 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.

You really can't be this stupid. The entire reason for laws is to restrict harmful and illegal behavior, not simply to correct said behavior once there is a victim. You've gone down some pretty ridiculous rabbit holes here in the past, but this one is really moronic. even for you.

7 hours ago, VanHammersly said:

Trumptards: We oppose all DEI hires!

Also Trumptards: Vote for this unqualified moron because she's a woman and shares DNA with our cuck who just died.

4 hours ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

wtf, i am literally looking at a place in SC right now. 🤣

Early congrats and welcome home!

48 minutes ago, Gannan said:

You should be smarter than this.

Exactly. I had thought so too. Apparently we were both wrong. Joke's on us, I guess.

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

Sure they can. Any time the executive branch grants itself power that belongs to the states its a violation of the constitution whether or not that power has been used yet. You should be smarter than this. If you you aren't, you are exactly the kind of person this administration employs as a useful idiot.

Again, the final rule can absolutely be challenged, and has already been. A state can’t claim they’ve been harmed over the instruction to draft a proposed rule. No provision existed at the time. You can’t claim you’ve been harmed over a hypothetical provision that doesn’t exist. I am not any type of person that this administration employs nor am I a useful idiot. I do want judicial process followed despite the fact that I think this president is an absolute moron.

2 hours ago, Gannan said:

You really can't be this stupid. The entire reason for laws is to restrict harmful and illegal behavior, not simply to correct said behavior once there is a victim. You've gone down some pretty ridiculous rabbit holes here in the past, but this one is really moronic. even for you.

There is no rabbit hole. We don’t get to disregard judicial process just because we can’t stand the president. That’s not how this works. A state can’t claim they’ve been harmed by a theoretical provision that doesn’t exist. Once the provision is published and there’s actual language to go on, file suit to our hearts content.

Again, by this logic, if President Shapiro were to instruct the DOJ to initiate the process of writing a new handgun regulation, then you believe that people would be able to successfully block this instruction over what they THINK this final provision might end up saying. That’s not how the law works.