Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Cruz Backs Supreme Review
Ted Cruz came out last night with a highly cogent argument for the Supreme Court taking up the case in Pennsylvania that would disqualify the mail-in ballots.
“Today, an emergency appeal was filed in the U.S. Supreme Court challenging the election results in Pennsylvania. This appeal raises serious legal issues, and I believe the Court should hear the case on an expedited basis.
“The Pennsylvania Constitution requires in-person voting, except in narrow and defined circumstances. Late last year, the Pennsylvania Legislature passed a law that purported to allow universal mail-in voting, notwithstanding the Pennsylvania Constitution’s express prohibition.
“This appeal argues that Pennsylvania cannot change the rules in the middle of the game. If Pennsylvania wants to change how voting occurs, the state must follow the law to do so.
“The illegality was compounded by a partisan Democrat Supreme Court in Pennsylvania, which has issued multiple decisions that reflect their political and ideological biases. Just over a month ago, Justice Alito, along with Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch, wrote-correctly, I believe-concerning the Pennsylvania court’s previous decision to count ballots received after Election Day, that ‘there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Constitution.’
“In the current appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court dismissed the claim based on a legal doctrine called ‘laches,’ which essentially means the plaintiffs waited too long to bring the challenge. But, the plaintiffs reasonably argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has not applied that doctrine consistently and so they cannot selectively enforce it now.
“Even more persuasively, the plaintiffs point out that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has also held that plaintiffs don’t have standing to challenge an election law until after the election, meaning that the court effectively put them in a Catch-22: before the election, they lacked standing; after the election, they’ve delayed too long. The result of the court’s gamesmanship is that a facially unconstitutional election law can never be judicially challenged.
“Ordinarily, the U.S. Supreme Court would stay out of election disputes, especially concerning state law. But these are not ordinary times.
“As of today, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling, 39 percent of Americans believe that ‘the election was rigged.’ That is not healthy for our democracy. The bitter division and acrimony we see across the nation needs resolution. And I believe the U.S. Supreme Court has a responsibility to the American people to ensure that we are following the law and following the Constitution. Hearing this case-now, on an emergency expedited basis-would be an important step in helping rebuild confidence in the integrity of our democratic system.”
The initial lawsuit is summarized as follows:
Conservative Rep. Mike Kelly, R-Pa., and others contend state officials had no right under the Pennsylvania Constitution to expand mail-in voting in 2019, and the state Supreme Court was wrong to uphold that statute. The group called it “an unconstitutional, no-excuse absentee voting scheme.”
“Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election,” the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was “conducted illegally.”
The group seeks an emergency injunction from the nation’s highest court to block the completion of any remaining steps in the state’s certification of Pennsylvania’s 2020 election results, which took place last week. The petition was submitted to Associate Justice Samuel Alito.
This is not a fraud case – it is about the legality of the changes to voting law. It will be interesting to see what the Supremes do – especially Clarence Thomas, who is very much about states’ rights.
Published in General
How about because MAYBE Trump misspoke, but the media DEFINITELY lied about it.
You are lying again. No one said it was a treatment. Not even Trump in that quote.
Which was ultimately the point I was originally making in bringing it up.
This was published by the FDA in August 2020, 4 months after Trump’s statement:
I know my reading skills aren’t very sharp, but it should be noted that the FDA is only recommending that UV light be used on inanimate objects, not people. And even then, they say UV light efficacy in inactivating COVID is “unknown.” Perhaps they should have read up on Dr. Trump’s research in this area?
That point is asinine. Did you forget about the people?
Yes. Like in this election, cheating and lying go hand in hand.
Once more with feeling:
So what does he mean by “injection inside”? Again, at the very least he was imprecise and vague. And it’s also very easy to read those words and conclude he’s telling people to inject some sort of cleaning solution.
Have a nice weekend.
It’s an intertracheal device. Why don’t you educate yourself. It’s called Healight. Good luck. Google buried it right after the news you trust so much claimed disinfectant meant bleach. I found the info in yahoo finances because its required reporting for publicly traded companies.
My point was you have no right to criticize our news sources when yours are so thoroughly dishonest. My point stands.
You are making my point about the issues with the President shooting from the hip on this stuff. If citizens have to do a complicated search to figure out what the President is talking about, he’s failed in communicating his message.
I intentionally did not use a news source for this exercise. I used the President’s own words and then we had a 3 page debate about what he meant by the word disinfectant and whether or not he meant UV light.
Again, I don’t get the vehement defense of this. In this particular event, he wasn’t misquoted, he was misinterpreted. And sorry, but that’s on him.
Do you really think a significant number of people would have come up with “he’s telling us to inject bleach” on their own, if the media hadn’t been telling them that’s what he meant?
I answered this earlier: If Donald Trump — who has been dealing with the media for 40+ years and is not a rube at this– still hasn’t figured out that vague statements and free associating from the podium of the White House Press Room especially when the topic is potential COVID treatments are going to be extremely parsed and dissected, then he’s in the wrong job. If what he said had some basis in science or medicine, then it would have been easy for the White House to push back on the media and make them look foolish. Instead, this episode became a two week story and the basis for countless punchlines.
See, this is where I get off the reservation with you folks. You defend just about everything he says and does as if he is a perfect person and the rest of us are just too dumb (or not very good at reading. Or liars.) to see it. He mis-spoke. He was riffing from the podium and said something that was not correct. People in the public sphere do it all the time. It’s not that big of deal. Why not say that (he should too) and just move on? Digging in on everything leaves very little room for compromise.
I criticized AnonymousConservative.com for reporting the following about GA Governor Brian Kemp “Here’s the deal with Kemp: What they have for leverage over him is that he bribed Dominion to give him the win over Stacey Abrams. That means that Dominion owns him.”
Just want to get this on the record: are you defending that “reporting”?
TIme for some real talk: The Electors meet in 9 days on December 14th. After that, this is effectively over. No court is going to overturn an election once the Elector’s votes have been counted. Donald Trump himself has said as much.
Unless you are suggesting that there is going to be a revolution on a scale that this country has never before experienced, the courts are his only chance to turn this around.
Again, poor reading comprehension. BT quoted a commenter at AC, not AC.
Not everyone shuts down their commenting sections like the dishonest media does.
First, I did not ask you to source the author of the comment that Bob posted (but thanks!), I asked you if you believed what the comment reported. And thanks as well for critiquing my reading comprehension skills. Again.
Second, Hello! Allow me to introduce myself: I am a person who runs a for profit web business that commenting is an important part of. Perhaps you’ve heard of it?
Do you know why a lot of publishers shut down their comment sections? Because they can be held liable for what is published there. There have also been some cases –mostly on the Right– of being de-platformed or de-monetized (outrageously wrong IMO) because of comment sections. Ask our friends at The Federalist about it (I am assuming you don’t consider The Federalist “dishonest media”?). They shut their comment section down after Google cut off their Ad-Sense revenue and comments have not been restored.
So the point here is that regardless of who wrote it and what the context is, publishers are now being held responsible for every word that is published on their site (there is a long conversation to be had about YouTube comments, but that is a discussion for another day).
A lot of sites have just come to the conclusion that comment sections just aren’t worth the risks now associated with them. We do not believe that.
Local election officials and party hacks are the same people in some places. Not all locals are not under the control of the candidate and his campaign.
Tough. It’s unfair to the other candidate if there’s widespread fraud. Hopefully we both agree the fraudsters should be thrown under the jail . . .
The center right Trump voters have lost confidence in national institutions like the DOJ and the media. The obvious fraud is being ignored by RINO Republicans like Kemp who appointed Loeffler, no doubt for a nice envelope of $100 bills. I think it very unlikely that this confidence can be restored any time soon. Michael Barone puts it well.
https://nypost.com/2020/12/04/democrats-reaping-the-whirlwind-of-their-2016-election-resistance/
We knew that.
Obvious straw man argument. Come on. You are supposed to be smart.
I don’t have proof but they are both RINOs. Kemp is the worst but these guys are your kind of Republican. What else can I say?
I previously left Ricochet when I was punished for using the term “TDS.” I was suspended for two days and quit. Now I think I know who was the hall monitor.
We finally agree. The experiment, barring a huge surprise at the USSC, is over. You check to see who appointed the judge to figure out he/she will rule. Republican appointed judges sometimes “grow in office.” Democrat appointees never do.
That’s already been answered by others.
Do you not know about the “bloody 8th” CD in Indiana?
There is now a report about a form of nasal spray that inactivates the virus, if present. Sound familiar?
I think you are getting pretty far out on thin ice now. Do you know what photodynamic therapy is ? If not, time to change the subject.
I missed answering your question until I saw it again in@michaelkennedy‘s comment. Those two governors have been behaving much like what in my time were called “fellow travelers”. They have been giving aid and comfort to those taking us into the world of the Communist. If you cannot see the fatal danger presented by this fraudulent election, you are hopeless.
You should read the FDA advisory on UV light I linked to in my comment before reporting on the thickness of the ice I’m on.
FDA? Totally reliable and definitely not a bunch of government drones.
You were not suspended for using the term “TDS.” It was how you were using it that got you suspended. But you already know that.