C U N court
- Thread starter Diogenes
- Start date
Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Appeals Court Rules against Counting of Ballots Received after Election Day - Judicial Watch
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has issued an opinion reversing a lower court ruling on Mississippi’s election law that permitted absentee ballots to be received as late as five business days after Election Day.
www.judicialwatch.org
N.Y. Attorney General Letitia James filed a motion alleging selective prosecution as court staff fled the courthouse in fear of a lightning strike ... OK, I made up that last part, but James objecting to selective prosecution is like Jay Jones objecting to rage rhetoric ...
I listened to the oral argument in the Tariffs case from this past week before the SCOTUS.
I gotta laugh at all the prognosticators, including the Panicans, whose takeaway was "ZOMG! Trump faces questions, even from conservative Justices."
When the Solicitor General is the first to argue, raise your hand (Brad) if you think the inclination of the Justices is to stand up and applaud before he utters a word, and then say "We agree with you completely".
They are going to ask questions, even when they agree with a particular litigants position in a politically-charged case, it is always practice to pick at the threads and push to the boundaries to see where the extremes are and if the argument still holds up.
None of the arguments advanced by Wise Latina Sotomayor or Affirmative Action Jackson gained any traction with other Justices IMO, and Justice Barrett seemed to go out of her way to blunt any points Affirmative Action Jackson tied to make.
There are ill-informed people who think "their" Justices are aligned against Trump no matter what, and there are equally ignorant folks who presume that they will automatically side with him.
I did observe that think it shows the issues Justice Barrett had with Affirmative Action Jackson are still there. One feature of Affirmative Action Jackson's approach remains consistent; her questions almost always include her bias. DEI hire.
I gotta laugh at all the prognosticators, including the Panicans, whose takeaway was "ZOMG! Trump faces questions, even from conservative Justices."
When the Solicitor General is the first to argue, raise your hand (Brad) if you think the inclination of the Justices is to stand up and applaud before he utters a word, and then say "We agree with you completely".
They are going to ask questions, even when they agree with a particular litigants position in a politically-charged case, it is always practice to pick at the threads and push to the boundaries to see where the extremes are and if the argument still holds up.
None of the arguments advanced by Wise Latina Sotomayor or Affirmative Action Jackson gained any traction with other Justices IMO, and Justice Barrett seemed to go out of her way to blunt any points Affirmative Action Jackson tied to make.
There are ill-informed people who think "their" Justices are aligned against Trump no matter what, and there are equally ignorant folks who presume that they will automatically side with him.
I did observe that think it shows the issues Justice Barrett had with Affirmative Action Jackson are still there. One feature of Affirmative Action Jackson's approach remains consistent; her questions almost always include her bias. DEI hire.
