13 hours ago, worgeordie said:

Elsewhere ? , He says America is the only country doing mail in ballots,

would he be lying ....

regards Worgeordie

He is wrong, of course.

14 hours ago, Schoggibueb said:

Your statement is ridiculous.

Switzerland:

Fill out the ballot paper, sign the voting card, and place both in the envelope. Then, simply drop it into the nearest mailbox—that is what voting and casting a ballot usually looks like today. In many votes, more than 90 percent of voters opt for postal voting rather than going to the polling station. This proportion has risen further due to the coronavirus pandemic.

History facts:

As early as the 17th century, for instance, sick people in the city of St. Gallen were permitted to vote by mail. At the federal level, the topic was repeatedly discussed starting in the 1870s. Another precursor was the fact that soldiers on active duty during the Second World War were able to vote by mail.

At the federal level, this step was taken in 1994.

The introduction of universal postal voting resulted in an increase in voter turnout of approximately 4 percent in each case.

It seems that you don't want to have an increase of voters in the US.

Ah, I guess forgot why you write this - the US under Trump shall become a confirmed banana republic.

Not an American, I would say that some postal voting systems are secure, others less so. My regrets you find this 'ridiculous'. Have a nice day.

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Hilliard, a Purple Heart recipient, began by saying, "Well, as you just heard, next week I'll be 101 years old. In February 1944, when I was 18 years old, I was inducted into the Army, and they sent me for basic training to Camp Blanding, which is near Jacksonville, Florida."

"And what they taught me to do there was to kill people who had set up detention camps in Germany," he continued. "Can you imagine how I felt earlier this year when they announced that one of the future detention camps would be at that same Camp Blanding in Florida? What remarkable irony."

"We in this country have seen a remarkable change. And in Washington right now — and forgive me, I’m gonna use the 'f' word — we have a fascist, a fascist government that allows innocent people to be put in detention camps and incarcerated."

I'm sure the conscripted soldiers he fought were the die-hard Nazis who ran the internment camps. Yes, the USA has detention camps for people who are in the country illegally. How do these compare to FDR's internment camps? Or even the German death camps.

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

hey do seem to be highly compromised, and they seem to be anything but Supreme at this stage.

Compromised in what way? Like in a Kelo v. City of New London kind of way?

He made money while the overall crypto value went down. Completely illegal, of course. Please don't waste my time asking me why because you are in one of three categories:

1. You understand the emoluments clause concept and know it's illegal.

2. You understand the emoluments clause concept but are MAGA and therefore deny it.

3. You don't understand the emoluments clause concept - get educated is all I can say cuz it's costing us ALL.

House Speaker Mike Johnson suffered a bruising setback after a rebellion within his own Republican ranks derailed an effort to force through President Donald Trump's flagship election bill, exposing deep divisions inside the GOP.

The failed strategy has left the House in legislative limbo and raised fresh questions over Republican unity on one of Trump's top political priorities.

Republican Revolt Sinks Strategy

The dispute centred on the SAVE America Act, which would introduce stricter proof-of-citizenship requirements for voter registration. Supporters argued the measure was needed to strengthen election integrity, while critics warned it would make voting more difficult for millions of eligible Americans.

Conservative lawmakers led by Rep. Anna Paulina Luna sought to attach the legislation to a must-pass defence spending bill, hoping the Senate would face pressure to accept both measures rather than risk disruption to Pentagon funding.

Johnson's Warning Falls Flat

The plan unravelled when 14 House Republicans joined Democrats in opposing the procedural rule needed to advance the package.

According to CNN, Johnson confronted Luna and Rep. Tim Burchett on the House floor, warning they were making a mistake and risking political embarrassment. Neither lawmaker changed position, with Luna later insisting she would continue fighting for what she described as the interests of the American people.

Trump's Agenda Hits Another Obstacle

Even if the measure had cleared the House, it faced uncertain prospects in the Senate, where it lacked sufficient support.

The setback also coincided with reports that the Trump administration is abandoning a Department of Homeland Security proof-of-citizenship database following a court order. The database had been expected to play a central role in implementing key provisions of the legislation, adding further uncertainty to its future.

Pressure Mounts on GOP Leadership

The defeat marks another difficult moment for Johnson as he attempts to hold together a narrow and often fractious Republican majority.

With internal divisions increasingly spilling into public view, Republican leaders now face the challenge of advancing Trump's legislative priorities while managing a conference that has shown a growing willingness to defy its own leadership.

Mike Johnson chewed out hardliners as their MAGA plot imploded around them: report

Legal Scholar Accuses Supreme Court of Quiet Radical Shift

A Stanford legal scholar has launched a scathing attack on the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing its conservative majority is reshaping American law while presenting sweeping changes as routine legal interpretation.

The criticism follows a series of major rulings that largely favoured President Donald Trump's agenda, intensifying debate over the court's direction and the future of long-standing legal precedent.

Conservative Majority Expands Its Reach

In recent decisions, the Supreme Court backed Trump's authority to remove members of independent regulatory agencies and overturned a precedent dating back to the 1930s. However, the justices also declined to hear Trump's appeal against the $5 million civil judgment awarded to E. Jean Carroll and blocked his attempt to remove Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook.

The mixed outcomes nevertheless reinforced the court's central role in defining the limits of presidential power.

Scholar Warns of 'Decadent' Jurisprudence

Writing in The Atlantic, Stanford Law School scholar Duncan Hosie argues the court's conservative majority is pursuing a "radical" agenda while cloaking fundamental legal changes in the language of continuity.

Hosie contends the justices frequently rely on lengthy references to precedent even as they weaken or overturn established legal principles. He argues the approach masks the true scale of the court's transformation of constitutional law.

Battle Over Legal Precedent

At the centre of Hosie's criticism is the doctrine of stare decisis—the principle that courts should generally follow earlier decisions to preserve stability and predictability in the law.

He argues the court increasingly sidesteps that tradition by reviving older legal theories while avoiding explicit acknowledgements that previous rulings are being discarded. According to Hosie, this risks undermining confidence in the judiciary and blurring the boundaries between interpretation and judicial activism.

Debate Over the Court's Future Intensifies

Supporters of the court's conservative majority argue it is restoring the Constitution's original meaning after decades of judicial overreach. Critics counter that the justices are fundamentally rewriting American law while insisting they are simply applying precedent.

With the Supreme Court continuing to issue decisions on executive power, immigration, regulation and civil rights, the battle over its legitimacy and long-term direction shows no sign of easing.

Stanford legal scholar lays bare 'decadent' Supreme Court’s 'radical' agenda

A former senior Republican official has warned that President Donald Trump's aggressive use of executive power risks creating a blueprint that future Democratic administrations could exploit against conservatives.

Kim R. Holmes, a former Assistant Secretary of State under President George W. Bush, argued that short-term political victories could carry long-term consequences by weakening the legal and institutional constraints that traditionally limit presidential authority.

Conservative Warning From Within

Holmes said Trump's governing style relies too heavily on executive orders, directives and presidential memoranda rather than legislation passed by Congress.

While such actions allow rapid policy changes, he argued they are equally vulnerable to reversal by the next president. That, he warned, leaves supporters celebrating gains that could quickly disappear after a change in administration.

'Rules Broken Today Will Be Used Tomorrow'

Holmes cautioned that every legal norm or constitutional convention weakened by one administration becomes available to its successor.

He argued Republicans may lose the ability to criticise future Democratic presidents for exercising the same expanded powers if they defend similar actions now. In his view, durable reforms require legislation rather than executive action that can be undone with the stroke of a pen.

Civil Service Fears Intensify

The debate follows recent court rulings expanding presidential authority over parts of the federal government, prompting renewed concern about the future independence of the civil service.

Former federal prosecutor and legal analyst Barb McQuade argued the decisions could make it easier for incoming presidents to remove large numbers of career government employees, potentially reviving a political patronage system that previous reforms sought to eliminate.

Executive Power Takes Centre Stage

Holmes's remarks gained support from several prominent conservative commentators, highlighting unease within parts of the Republican movement over the long-term implications of expanding presidential authority.

The dispute reflects a broader constitutional debate extending beyond Donald Trump's presidency. As both parties increasingly rely on executive action to advance policy, critics warn each new expansion of White House power creates precedents that future administrations—regardless of political affiliation—may be tempted to use, further reshaping the balance between the presidency, Congress and the courts.

Ex-Bush official says Trump is handing Democrats a loaded weapon — and MAGA will regret it

13 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

Compromised in what way? Like in a Kelo v. City of New London kind of way?

Justices of the Supreme Court have repeatedly claimed that the decisions about what cases to decide and how to decide them are not affected by politics. Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing that he is like an umpire, not a batter. Justice Neil Gorsuch said that justices are not like “politicians with robes.” Shortly after her confirmation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett told an audience that her goal was “to convince you that this Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

The justices are not convincing the American people. Favorable ratings of the Court have declined dramatically, according to numerous polls. This fall, a Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans “disapprove” of the job the Court is doing, which aligns with the 60% who disapproved of overruling Roe. A substantial majority have lost faith in the Court’s vaunted impartiality and believe it is too affected by “politics.” A Quinnipiac poll conducted after the Dobbs leak in May of last year found that 63% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics. A Yahoo poll around the same time found that 74% believe the Court is “too politicized.”

The Court’s wounds are entirely self-inflicted. It has a far-right agenda and the scholarship informing its decisions is often questionable. Worse, new details have come to light of relationships some justices have had with wealthy ideological soulmates, including those with interest in cases before the Court. The Court’s credibility and the public’s acceptance of its decisions depends upon trust that it is not subject to outside influence. While lobbying may be common and acceptable in the legislative and executive branches, it is not — nor ought not to be — conceivable in courts.

Similarly, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn v. Bruen, the Court twisted the text of the Second Amendment and misrepresented the history of firearm regulations in England, the colonies, and this country to justify invalidating virtually all state regulation of gun possession. The decision entirely ignored the harm to human life that it will cause, as well as the relevant history of firearms regulation and outright prohibition, but it was a victory for conservatives as well as for the gun lobby, which had donated multiple millions to the cause. None of them complains about hypocrisy.

The Supreme Court is running the risk that it will lose its credibility and its decisions will no longer be accepted by the majority of Americans. In an interview last year, Professor Laurence Tribe put it succinctly. The danger, he said, is that if the court “becomes so headstrong and so out of touch with modern reality and so unwilling to listen effectively to counterargument and so agenda-driven and so committed to its, really, alternative facts,” then it’s likely people will eventually “start defying what it says.” He warned that point is getting closer..

https://afj.org/article/how-the-supreme-court-is-destroying-its-own-legitimacy/

14 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Justices of the Supreme Court have repeatedly claimed that the decisions about what cases to decide and how to decide them are not affected by politics. Justice John Roberts said in his confirmation hearing that he is like an umpire, not a batter. Justice Neil Gorsuch said that justices are not like “politicians with robes.” Shortly after her confirmation, Justice Amy Coney Barrett told an audience that her goal was “to convince you that this Court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

The justices are not convincing the American people. Favorable ratings of the Court have declined dramatically, according to numerous polls. This fall, a Gallup poll found that 58% of Americans “disapprove” of the job the Court is doing, which aligns with the 60% who disapproved of overruling Roe. A substantial majority have lost faith in the Court’s vaunted impartiality and believe it is too affected by “politics.” A Quinnipiac poll conducted after the Dobbs leak in May of last year found that 63% of Americans believe the Supreme Court is mainly motivated by politics. A Yahoo poll around the same time found that 74% believe the Court is “too politicized.”

The Court’s wounds are entirely self-inflicted. It has a far-right agenda and the scholarship informing its decisions is often questionable. Worse, new details have come to light of relationships some justices have had with wealthy ideological soulmates, including those with interest in cases before the Court. The Court’s credibility and the public’s acceptance of its decisions depends upon trust that it is not subject to outside influence. While lobbying may be common and acceptable in the legislative and executive branches, it is not — nor ought not to be — conceivable in courts.

Similarly, in New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn v. Bruen, the Court twisted the text of the Second Amendment and misrepresented the history of firearm regulations in England, the colonies, and this country to justify invalidating virtually all state regulation of gun possession. The decision entirely ignored the harm to human life that it will cause, as well as the relevant history of firearms regulation and outright prohibition, but it was a victory for conservatives as well as for the gun lobby, which had donated multiple millions to the cause. None of them complains about hypocrisy.

The Supreme Court is running the risk that it will lose its credibility and its decisions will no longer be accepted by the majority of Americans. In an interview last year, Professor Laurence Tribe put it succinctly. The danger, he said, is that if the court “becomes so headstrong and so out of touch with modern reality and so unwilling to listen effectively to counterargument and so agenda-driven and so committed to its, really, alternative facts,” then it’s likely people will eventually “start defying what it says.” He warned that point is getting closer..

https://afj.org/article/how-the-supreme-court-is-destroying-its-own-legitimacy/

Seriously? You referenced an article from a progressive group backed by George Soros that has an agenda against the Supreme Court. Progressives dislike the Court because it doesn't rubber-stamp all their ideas. The left has waged a war on the Supreme Court since the Obama years and now wants to pack the Court to push their ridiculous agenda through without opposition. Essentially, they want the judicial branch to become a wing of the Democratic National Committee. The issue with the progressive left is that they undermine every institution they take over. Lets talk the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Let me ask you this,: where in the U.S. Constitution does it state that anyone has the right to an abortion? They essentially fabricated that right out of thin air. Progressives are the same individuals who believe you have an imagined right to an abortion, while the right to bear arms is the second amendment in the Bill of Rights does not exist. The original ten amendments are not one collective right and nine individual rights. The Bill Of Rights are ten individual rights.

https://afj.org/

Alliance for Justice (AFJ) stands as the premier nonprofit organization committed to fortifying the progressive movement through its unwavering focus on federal and state courts and building power by providing unique resources to maximize nonprofits’ advocacy capacity. Headquartered in Washington, DC, AFJ uses a distinct and unique combination of technical and content expertise, deep reach in movement advocacy and legal networks, and trusted decades-long experience to transform our courts through judicial nominations and ensure everyone has the power to shape the policies that affect our lives. With a membership of over 135 partner organizations, AFJ represents a diverse and powerful array of groups united in their dedication to progressive values and the transformative goal of reshaping the judiciary for the betterment of all. The recent election has only underscored the critical nature of AFJ’s mission, highlighting the urgent need for a fair and impartial court system and progressive nonprofit sector that upholds the rights and freedoms of all Americans.