halcyoncmdr

So we get around the pardon. Finish the process, sign the Rome Statute like we should have back under Clinton and Bush, and let the ICC handle the war crimes Nuremberg 2.0: Mar-A-Lago edition.

I only care heading into a game. Once the game has started the its locked for the game.

I have no team spirit outside of any specific game.

A lot of arbitration clauses are thrown out by courts once they manage to get it in front of a real judge and not a paid stooge. The feeling you get when the arbitrator goes against the company paying them though.

My moral philosophy is to side with the underdog.

I go into every sportsball game with this worldview. I don’t care who’s playing, I just like seeing the fallow with an upset victory and the response from the people that care way too much about something that ultimately doesn’t really matter.

He’s not going to pardon anyone that isn’t paying him for the pardon.

The only reason he pardoned the Jan 6ers was because his handlers and their cronies were mixed up in it, and it was easiest to cover the entire thing up and give it an air of bullshit credibility at once. His other pardons are always in response to a payment of some sort because he doesn’t care about anyone but himself.

I been a proponent of moving the US Marshall Service under the Judicial. Give them an enforcement mechanism that isn’t reliant on the Executive cooperating. Because they clearly aren’t following court orders currently.

If he needs the ballroom for the bunker under it to do that. Let him have it.

I still think Congress should have a mandatory age limit at whatever they set Social Security at.

They chose when that age should be, they need to adhere to it. Not sure what the mechanism would be to prevent them from raising that just to let them stay longer though, gotta think of some sort of negative that would balance it out.

While we’re at it, they get the same Medicare coverage as anyone else, not the super special cover everything plan they do now. Again, they get what they determined is good enough for everyone else.

They can call it whatever the fuck they want.

Ideally it covers everyone for everything your doctor seems medically necessary. But I’ll take whatever stepping stone we can get.

I’m pretty sure that’s just the right thing to do accepting the inevitable and showing sportsmanship, it has no actual legal bearing on the election. Even if everyone else concedes, they still have to finish counting and certify the election officially.

Yes, but very limited. Basically, only if you’re disabled, old (basically the retired), or temporarily residing elsewhere (aka rich people with multiple homes).

Who is entitled to vote absentee by mail?

1. Any person who is temporarily residing outside of their county of residence, and the ballot must be mailed to an address outside the municipality.
2. Any person who has a temporary or permanent physical disability and who, because of such disability, is unable to vote in person without substantial hardship to himself, herself or others, or whose attendance at the voting place could reasonably cause danger to himself, herself or others.
3. The parent, spouse or dependent of a person with a temporary or permanent physical disability who is hospitalized outside of his or her county of residence or more than fifty (50) miles distant from his or her residence, if the parent, spouse or dependent will be with such person on election day.
4. Any person who is sixty-five (65) years of age or older.
5. Any incarcerated individual who has not been convicted of a disenfranchising crime. Residency of incarcerated individuals is determined by the residence of the person prior to his/her incarceration.

https://www.sos.ms.gov/yall-vote/absentee-voting-information

Better ways to handle it though i.e. send ballots out x weeks beforehand and demand they are returned by polling day.

because each State sets how their elections are handled. Many states do this, but mail-in voting isn’t universal. Some states as soon as you register they’re automatically going to send you a ballot you can mail back or drop off, others you can register for permanent early ballots. I bet you can guess which States those tend to be, and which political party tends to govern them. There are states that don’t allow it at all, and some only allow you to request an early ballot if you can prove you’re going to be out of the city/county/state on election day. And that requires that you weren’t purged from the voter rolls without being notified after the registration deadline (which can be months before election day).

places with mandatory voting (e. G. Oz) work just as hard and manage to do their duty.

That requires that voting is made easily and readily available. Something not true across much of the US since there is a party that historically does better when fewer people vote. So they do everything they can to prevent people from voting as much as possible (legally or not). Things like shortening hours the polls are open, or removing polling locations entirely, even making it so there’s only 1 location for an entire county with millions of people. Or not allowing people to vote after the polls close, even if they are already in line. And purging voter rolls days before the election so people have no idea they’re no longer registered to vote.

Not to mention that while employers are usually required to give you time to vote, the requirement is often only an hour or two, while the lines at the polls can be multiple hours long. And that doesn’t take into account people having to work multiple part-time jobs where neither is required to give that time because there should be off hours to vote, but with the other job/jobs that time doesn’t actually exist.

Keep in mind when this election system spanning what was effectively over a dozen separate countries was developed, much of the world were still governing Monarchies.

Remember that NONE of the results in any state are certified yet. Everything at this point is just projected wins based on statistical probability. Until all votes are counted, and potentially recounted depending on each state’s voting laws, there are no official winners yet anywhere. Some states have mandatory recounts if results are within a certain range. Some the candidates can request recounts if within certain ranges. That sort of thing.

Most states allow mail in votes as long as they are postmarked by election day. Usually the race isn’t close enough to where the likelihood of ballots arriving more than a day or so after would change the outcome. Mississippi is unusually close, it is extremely rare for any election to be this close.

It’s not a big deal really, the entire electoral system timeframe in the US is still based on needing to travel by horse to deliver notifications of counts and things like that. It was never updated for modern technology so there is plenty of time built into the system to count and adjudicate normally.

They’re fleeing because they’re willing to make a deal.

You want to be the first offered a deal, and leaving immediately signals you know things, and aren’t totally incompetent.

Have to double check each one because half of them can’t read. /s

I’m not sure why you seem to think that this is a show stopper?

I never said it was.

The US Congress isn’t where the difficulty lies at the moment. The Compact still only has 222 Electoral Votes, so more States have to pass the Compact before it even gets to that point, and by the time that happens, a majority in both side of Congress may no longer exist.

so I’m not sure what you mean when you say that they’ve ignored every state election issue this year.

That was not really a State election issue, it was the Constitution and the federal Voting Rights Act conflicting in a way SCOTUS ignored for 30 years, just making an assumption for simplicity (the exact thing SCOTUS exists to determine and shouldn’t be ignoring). Since States handle the redistricting maps, a State was involved, but the actual issues at hand were federal, so SCOTUS has jurisdiction.

There is very little in common between determining conflicts with race-based limits and requirements for drawing maps, and reinterpreting part of Article 1 of the Constitution. One of the easiest to read parts

Article I, Section 10, Clause 3:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

That is pretty clear cut. And unlike the above situation where we are talking about a newer federal law conflicting the Constitution, there is no conflict here. If Congress consents, then the Compact is approved.

If you think the actual text of the Constitution matters then you don’t understand how the current Supreme Court has been ruling. 😅

Quite the contrary. SCOTUS hasn’t thrown out the rulebook, and they don’t show any sign they intend to. They’ve ignored every State election issue that’s come before them this year. Hell, the only time SCOTUS has meddled with State elections was Bush v Gore.

But SCOTUS doesn’t really matter here… we already know the Compact is not allowed, by itself. The Constitution explicitly says so. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3… The Compact Clause. It explicitly says they States cannot enter a compacts with another State, without the Consent of Congress.

It is very clear. There is zero room for interpretation. SCOTUS has never tried to worm their way through something so fundamentally explicit in its wording. Almost nothing legal is ever phrased so clearly as this clause. Definitely nothing this SCOTUS has ever come close to hearing.