It is sickening how republicans continue to fight to suppress voters. Who cares if someone accidentally wrote the wrong date on their mail in ballot? As long as the ballot was received by the due date it means nothing. In fact I don't have to write the date on my ballot when I vote early in person. And don't even get me started on Wisconsin's conservative justices whining about this challenge being brought after the make up of the court changed to liberal control. Conservatives didn't seem to mind when it worked for them in NC.
Thanks for the lightening round. I watched Fani Willis on tv during a court hearing, I think yesterday. She is powerful. I have even more respect for her after seeing her in action. A real superwoman and defender of the rule of law.
Thank you Jay. Some of the lesser headline stories such as the ones you mentioned in Pennsylvania, the latest Georgia RICO case bail ruling, and the Wisconsin gerrymandering case being heard by their Supreme Court get lost in the biased weeds of MSM.
This is how I feel. The MSM thinks America doesn’t care about some gerrymandering case in WI or how the GOP is suppressing votes in PA, but it’s so important to keep our eyes and brains on these cases and urge support of the litigants in these cases.
Thank you Jay! Keyboard kraken is my new favorite name for the tangerine toddler. Happy Thanksgiving! I hope that your weekend brings you peace, love, and happiness!🫶🏼
“Everybody knows that the reason we’re here is because there was a change in the membership of the court. You would not have brought this action, right, if the newest justice had lost her election,” conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley said to Mark Gaber, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
It's always interesting how the same words can be viewed completely differently by two different people. I'm sure Justice Bradley thought she was making a (judiciously) scathing and disparaging comment about the plaintiffs "obvious" attempt to game the system now that they have a ringer on the bench. I'm equally sure Attorney Gaber was thinking (and biting his tongue to keep from saying) "Well duh! There's no way we'd have got a fair hearing with conservatives' thumbs on the scales of justice".
How is it that MY Democratic Governor can work with both sides of the aisle without a problem? Keep forgetting it's a very Blue State!! But Ned did have to work with Republicans in the beginning! God Bless and keep America from the crazies.
So, Justice Rebecca Bradley, if it is not legitimate to bring a new suit once the court balance has changed, should North Carolina's Supreme Court rethink also be illegitimate? That court didn't even have a new case: they just changed their minds.
It also ignores the fact that the last ruling was an entire travesty. Litigants were right to wait to file when they had a court that was receptive to reason and fairness.
Aren’t the Judges voted in? Aren’t, “we the people”, the stewards of our own destiny? Isn’t that the purpose of a democracy? Oh right, the GOP are trying their damndest to turn us into an autocracy!!
Right! And framing it in a way that voters don’t have a right to reject their autocratic policies by voting them out is the precursor they want to set the stage for their tyrannical takeover!!
Don't you love it when the GOP gets the taste of its own medicine?! They can thank Moscow Mitch for the special "timing" of court appointments and subsequent suits.
So helpful, Jay. I do fear that our judiciary is starting to buckle under the enormous pressure. The Colorado decision is incomprehensible on its face, leading us voters to believe that the courts are not up to this challenge. That is a frightening situation. Your take?
Jay posted about that yesterday or so, and I liked the take. The factual findings are still very harmful, and unlikely to be overturned on appeal. The question whether Trump is disqualified from running is where the CO judge punted, out of an over-abundance of caution. Basically, she said that there was a tiny bit of ambiguity in the 14th Amendment, and that as a mere district judge, she has to rule in favor of allowing the person to run.
Indeed! I find it disheartening to be cheered a bit by a 67% agreement with something so obvious. In this case, 1/3 of the minds applied to a foundational principle of democracy apparently believe intentional subversion of the population’s voice to be acceptable.
“In this case, 1/3 of the minds applied to a foundational principle of democracy apparently believe intentional subversion of the population’s voice to be acceptable.”
I would say that statement has been proven repeatedly at least since 2016.
As I have posted elsewhere, I believe that these finding of fact are very valuable but that there is an interesting question as to if the clause applies to primary candidates. Why? Because they are not being elected to an office. Primaries are the way the parties select their candidate for office. It used to be different and the constitution does not describe or proscribe the primary process. In fact, primaries are a construct of the parties and are not always elections and have exclusionary rules (in many cases, only party members can participate, for example)
The fact that the judge got the findings of facts into the record and then did not exclude him from the primary ballot is, I claim, perfectly justified and very valuable as when it comes to the actual election, when Trump is on the ballot for an actual office, then the constitution should end up barring him.
As a primary candidate, Trump is not on the ballot for an office but just for the party to potentially select him as their candidate for an office. There is no honorific, no oath, no office won in the primary.
THIS right here. In this instance, primaries are irrelevant. Anyone who thinks the GQP will nominate anyone else, regardless of the primaries, has not been paying attention. We need him to be barred from the NOVEMBER ballot.
It is sickening how republicans continue to fight to suppress voters. Who cares if someone accidentally wrote the wrong date on their mail in ballot? As long as the ballot was received by the due date it means nothing. In fact I don't have to write the date on my ballot when I vote early in person. And don't even get me started on Wisconsin's conservative justices whining about this challenge being brought after the make up of the court changed to liberal control. Conservatives didn't seem to mind when it worked for them in NC.
It's because they can't win fairly that they must cheat, so they lie, cheat and steal, that is what Republicans do...Vote 💙.
“Conservatives” are the snowflakes they accuse everyone else of being.
Exactly right, every accusation is a confession.
Nailed it, Mr. Foxx!
Thanks for the lightening round. I watched Fani Willis on tv during a court hearing, I think yesterday. She is powerful. I have even more respect for her after seeing her in action. A real superwoman and defender of the rule of law.
I would not bet against her in GA.
Coffee shot through my nose and on to my keyboard when I saw the term, "Black Voices for Trump." I need to file for damages. Happy Thanksgiving, Jay.
"[Voices may be provided by ChatGPT]"
Thank you Jay. Some of the lesser headline stories such as the ones you mentioned in Pennsylvania, the latest Georgia RICO case bail ruling, and the Wisconsin gerrymandering case being heard by their Supreme Court get lost in the biased weeds of MSM.
This is how I feel. The MSM thinks America doesn’t care about some gerrymandering case in WI or how the GOP is suppressing votes in PA, but it’s so important to keep our eyes and brains on these cases and urge support of the litigants in these cases.
Great summary - I’ve not had time to keep up lately so this was perfect.
Thank you Jay! Keyboard kraken is my new favorite name for the tangerine toddler. Happy Thanksgiving! I hope that your weekend brings you peace, love, and happiness!🫶🏼
Lisa
“Everybody knows that the reason we’re here is because there was a change in the membership of the court. You would not have brought this action, right, if the newest justice had lost her election,” conservative Justice Rebecca Bradley said to Mark Gaber, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
It's always interesting how the same words can be viewed completely differently by two different people. I'm sure Justice Bradley thought she was making a (judiciously) scathing and disparaging comment about the plaintiffs "obvious" attempt to game the system now that they have a ringer on the bench. I'm equally sure Attorney Gaber was thinking (and biting his tongue to keep from saying) "Well duh! There's no way we'd have got a fair hearing with conservatives' thumbs on the scales of justice".
How is it that MY Democratic Governor can work with both sides of the aisle without a problem? Keep forgetting it's a very Blue State!! But Ned did have to work with Republicans in the beginning! God Bless and keep America from the crazies.
So, Justice Rebecca Bradley, if it is not legitimate to bring a new suit once the court balance has changed, should North Carolina's Supreme Court rethink also be illegitimate? That court didn't even have a new case: they just changed their minds.
It also ignores the fact that the last ruling was an entire travesty. Litigants were right to wait to file when they had a court that was receptive to reason and fairness.
Aren’t the Judges voted in? Aren’t, “we the people”, the stewards of our own destiny? Isn’t that the purpose of a democracy? Oh right, the GOP are trying their damndest to turn us into an autocracy!!
if they can figure out a way to gerrymander the state supreme court, they will. Right now it is a statewide election.
Right! And framing it in a way that voters don’t have a right to reject their autocratic policies by voting them out is the precursor they want to set the stage for their tyrannical takeover!!
The holiday hiatus coupled with a tenuous ceasefire in Gaza may allow us to inhale deeply minus that substernal tightness for at least a day....
Biden and his administration are working hard and achieving some success.
Don't you love it when the GOP gets the taste of its own medicine?! They can thank Moscow Mitch for the special "timing" of court appointments and subsequent suits.
Thank you for adding to my understanding. I may be taking the bar exam soon (not seriously but I’m feeling very lawyerly).
So helpful, Jay. I do fear that our judiciary is starting to buckle under the enormous pressure. The Colorado decision is incomprehensible on its face, leading us voters to believe that the courts are not up to this challenge. That is a frightening situation. Your take?
Jay posted about that yesterday or so, and I liked the take. The factual findings are still very harmful, and unlikely to be overturned on appeal. The question whether Trump is disqualified from running is where the CO judge punted, out of an over-abundance of caution. Basically, she said that there was a tiny bit of ambiguity in the 14th Amendment, and that as a mere district judge, she has to rule in favor of allowing the person to run.
Indeed! I find it disheartening to be cheered a bit by a 67% agreement with something so obvious. In this case, 1/3 of the minds applied to a foundational principle of democracy apparently believe intentional subversion of the population’s voice to be acceptable.
“In this case, 1/3 of the minds applied to a foundational principle of democracy apparently believe intentional subversion of the population’s voice to be acceptable.”
I would say that statement has been proven repeatedly at least since 2016.
And Justice Bradley has conveniently forgotten that Wisconsin's Constitution explicitly states that districts must be contiguous!
"Floyd’s attorneys noted that defendant Trump had also posted about witnesses in the case but had suffered no consequences for it."
Shhhhh...... were they supposed to say the quiet part out loud???
More people need to!
As I have posted elsewhere, I believe that these finding of fact are very valuable but that there is an interesting question as to if the clause applies to primary candidates. Why? Because they are not being elected to an office. Primaries are the way the parties select their candidate for office. It used to be different and the constitution does not describe or proscribe the primary process. In fact, primaries are a construct of the parties and are not always elections and have exclusionary rules (in many cases, only party members can participate, for example)
The fact that the judge got the findings of facts into the record and then did not exclude him from the primary ballot is, I claim, perfectly justified and very valuable as when it comes to the actual election, when Trump is on the ballot for an actual office, then the constitution should end up barring him.
As a primary candidate, Trump is not on the ballot for an office but just for the party to potentially select him as their candidate for an office. There is no honorific, no oath, no office won in the primary.
THIS right here. In this instance, primaries are irrelevant. Anyone who thinks the GQP will nominate anyone else, regardless of the primaries, has not been paying attention. We need him to be barred from the NOVEMBER ballot.