4 minutes ago, impulse said:

Texas, 17 other states and over 150 congressmen agreed that there were enough irregularities to delay confirming that election until the courts got to hear their arguments. That's in the history books.

Help me out here. Were those 17 states and congressmen all GOP by any chance?

Help me out here. Were those 17 states and congressmen all GOP by any chance?

Does it matter?

43 minutes ago, Srikcir said:

It would be insignificant with Republicans likely leading the list.

"The percentage of fraudulent votes was a minuscule .0000845%, and no election outcome was altered by ballot fraud throughout that time period." https://www.brookings.edu/articles/how-widespread-is-election-fraud-in-the-united-states-not-very/

Ironically, many of the states where GOP/MAGA has claimed voter fraud had Republican Secretary of State responsible for secure voting not finding any significant or zero voter fraud. Georgia case in point!

If this is the case why did the blue states sue Trump's EO requiring proof of citizenship. If there's no problem then what's the problem. Why is it that the blue states don't want proof of citizenship? Not sure if there's anywhere else in the world that you don't have to prove citizenship to enroll to vote.

(dealt with earlier legislation versus executive order)

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Gotta love the way they frame it as "permanently blocks". As if it can't be overturned on appeal.

The injunction is permanent as opposed to the temporary injunction (last April 2025) and it can be appealed. And, for now, it only applies to the states who were joined in the suit:

On April 3, 2025, Plaintiffs, Attorney Generals representing nineteen states, California,

Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine,

Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont

and Wisconsin, (collectively, the “States”)

22 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Are you stupid !! of course there are bad apples in every walks of life, and as i said as-long as he/she keeps to the judicial oath, we don't live in a perfect world

Judges are required to be non-political. There's been a litany of activist district court and federal judges ruling against Trump. This is another one. A district court judge that thinks she has the power to control how federal elections should be run. I expect the Court of Appeals or the Supreme court will slap this down. Apart from this the American public overwhelmingly support voter ID. It's only those running the blue states that are against it. Why?

4 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

I expect the Court of Appeals or the Supreme court will slap this down.

From the current ruling:

As the Supreme Court has noted, “the President’s power to see that the laws are faithfully executed refutes the idea that he is to be a lawmaker.”

7 minutes ago, dinsdale said:

Judges are required to be non-political. There's been a litany of activist district court and federal judges ruling against Trump. This is another one. A district court judge that thinks she has the power to control how federal elections should be run. I expect the Court of Appeals or the Supreme court will slap this down. Apart from this the American public overwhelmingly support voter ID. It's only those running the blue states that are against it. Why?

As i said there are always bad apples !! but 99% are doing there job correctly, "litany of activist district court and federal judges ruling against Trump." And i wonder why!!! as a MAGA you will not understand, American public overwhelmingly support voter ID Correct ! but there is a difference, in your mind is a Drivers license ok as ID !!! or do you need a passport ?? if it a passport do you know more than 50% of Americans don't have a passport for various reasons so that means according to you they cannot vote !! are you in favor of the SAVE act !!!

1 hour ago, Scouse123 said:

I am British obviously, but if I were an American, I am certain I would be a Republican.

The Democrats over there seem to be like the UK Labour Party.

Rudderless, full of great ideas, but they want the wealthy to pay for it all, and then tax the wealthy so much, they quit the country.

Same in the UK.

Yeah, but you guys get to boot'em more often than us. What is it 7 in 10 years now?

4 minutes ago, lou norman said:

Yeah, but you guys get to boot'em more often than us. What is it 7 in 10 years now?

And i bet you wish you could do the same,

In an earlier forum news item it was reported that Trump said he would not approve the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (that had already passed both chambers of Congress with support from Republicans and Democrats) until lawmakers passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

When a leader holds a popular or vital bill hostage to force unrelated demands, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (Act 4, Scene 1) perfectly captures the transactional, uncompromising nature of the situation:

"I stand here for law"!

9 minutes ago, Jim Waldron said:

In an earlier forum news item it was reported that Trump said he would not approve the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act (that had already passed both chambers of Congress with support from Republicans and Democrats) until lawmakers passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act.

When a leader holds a popular or vital bill hostage to force unrelated demands, Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice (Act 4, Scene 1) perfectly captures the transactional, uncompromising nature of the situation:

"I stand here for law"!

Where i come from that is called blackmail and is a crime !!!

29 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

And i bet you wish you could do the same,

The problem is they just keep getting worse. On both sides of the pond.

Does permanent mean permanent?....or is that a legal term meaning we have to wait for Roberts to come to Trump's rescue (again).

1 hour ago, impulse said:

Does it matter?

You should consider a job as standup comedian, bet you would be good.

10 minutes ago, lou norman said:

The problem is they just keep getting worse. On both sides of the pond.

Agree but in the uk its easy to get rid of !! not like the yanks they have a moron for life !!

It happens on both sides sadly, need a court order go to so and so!

Need a warrant go to so and so, elections has consequences this is one of them judge being appointed it is the process l

On the merit it will be thrown out.

40 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

On the merit it will be thrown out.

The current ruling involves the PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS Executive Orders March 25, 2025 Executive Order.

The SAVE SAct (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility America Act) was introduced:

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

They are largely duplicative. The current case involves whether federal election procedures nominally controlled by the states can be enacted by presidential exec order. If SAVE legislation is passed the exec order would be largely moot.

9 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The current ruling involves the PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS Executive Orders March 25, 2025 Executive Order.

The SAVE SAct (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility America Act) was introduced:

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

They are largely duplicative. The current case involves whether federal election procedures nominally controlled by the states can be enacted by presidential exec order. If SAVE legislation is passed the exec order would be largely moot.

In the end it goes to Supreme court like everything else, Anything this administration comes to voting it is going to be challenge no point in citing what you cited it is just words cited by one side to justify the challenge.

It is written in a manner to support the opinion it is fact.

This is why we have 3 branches off government!

20 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

In the end it goes to Supreme court like everything else

In the end, the Supreme Court may not take it because they have sufficient prior rulings as to what can and cannot be done by Executive Order.

3 hours ago, lou norman said:

We should make a list of all the documented federal elections where the outcome has been affected by voter fraud in the last 20 years.

As well as all the foreign elections that the US has interfered with.

39 minutes ago, JerryM said:

The current ruling involves the PRESERVING AND PROTECTING THE INTEGRITY OF AMERICAN ELECTIONS Executive Orders March 25, 2025 Executive Order.

The SAVE SAct (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility America Act) was introduced:

To amend the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes.

They are largely duplicative. The current case involves whether federal election procedures nominally controlled by the states can be enacted by presidential exec order. If SAVE legislation is passed the exec order would be largely moot.

"to require proof of United States citizenship to register an individual to vote in elections for Federal office, and for other purposes." The SAVE Act would require all Americans to prove their citizenship with documentation unavailable to millions and upend the way every American citizen registers to vote.

15 minutes ago, JerryM said:

In the end, the Supreme Court may not take it because they have sufficient prior rulings as to what can and cannot be done by Executive Order.

We will see.

11 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

We will see.

Sure. Right now Trump has in the fire the Executive Order and SAVE Act and it may be that he doesn't get either.

And he is seething -- the SAVE Act takes a 60 vote majority in Senate and he hasn't got it. And the Exec Order may be scuttled on a procedural non-merit basis

55 minutes ago, JerryM said:

Sure. Right now Trump has in the fire the Executive Order and SAVE Act and it may be that he doesn't get either.

And he is seething -- the SAVE Act takes a 60 vote majority in Senate and he hasn't got it. And the Exec Order may be scuttled on a procedural non-merit basis

The world turns doesn't it.

Well said & thanks,

Nothing is permanent until it goes through the appeals process .

The good guys ( Trump admin has had many good results when it ends up goin to the arbiters of truth(SCOTUS).

"During the first year of this Trump presidency, the Supreme Court overwhelmingly sided with the Trump administration".

https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/looking-back-at-2025-the-supreme-court-and-the-trump-administration/

4 hours ago, dinsdale said:

Judges are required to be non-political. There's been a litany of activist district court and federal judges ruling against Trump. This is another one. A district court judge that thinks she has the power to control how federal elections should be run. I expect the Court of Appeals or the Supreme court will slap this down. Apart from this the American public overwhelmingly support voter ID. It's only those running the blue states that are against it. Why?

36 minutes ago, thailand49 said:

The world turns doesn't it.

FoxNews headline now:

Rogue' Obama judge's smackdown of Trump election rules provokes ominous warning from White House deputy

Judge Denise Casper ruled the president has no direct constitutional authority over the election process

Trump has no constitutional authority over federal election administration. Rather, state and local officials are charged with administering elections, serving voters, and counting ballots to determine who the people chose to represent them.

The U.S. Constitution gives both states and Congress responsibility for regulating federal elections. Known as the Elections Clause, Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution empowers states to determine the “Times, Places and Manner” of holding federal elections, while Congress has the power to “make or alter” such rules. Congress has exercised its constitutional authority to pass laws that impact elections in all states, from creating a nationwide Election Day to setting minimum standards for the electronic systems that count votes and baseline rules for voter list maintenance. But beyond limited examples like these, election administration falls primarily to states and localities

There you go.

Outstanding news, just one more way of reinforcing Democratic rule and prohibiting a wannabe tyrant from manipulating elections.