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
Yes, this is the standard reply we get whenever one of you don’t have an actual answer. That <insert name of publication, agency, expert, etc> is BS (or RINO, or Deep State, or owned by someone we don’t like, etc., etc,.).
It’s a weak way to debate and just so you know, we interpret it as you know we’re right and you can’t actually refute our position. 👍
WOW. Doug Ducey and Brian Kemp are….Communists sympathizers? Well, that’s a first.
BRB, I need to revise my previous comment.
yeti. So you helped a team because — why? You don’t think they post enough?, or comment enough?, or make lengthy enough comments?, or are not brazen enough? When the management plays sides, they open themselves up to rightly being called biased toward their members.
I stand by what I wrote but I’m also on the side my conscience is on. How about you?
In terms of bias, this is a comment site. We don’t do journalism. Everyone here has a bias about every issue. That includes the editors, the podcasters, and yes, even me, although it’s pretty rare for me to be this active.
Opinions are the gasoline for the engine that powers this site. That’s the point of this place. What we do try to do is to make sure the rules are applied equally despite what opinions are being expressed.
I just read your comment #244 and I understand and agree with everything your stated there. You and I are probably a couple of generations apart so likely have very different views on what we think is communist behavior and what we would call a fellow traveler. I think there are communists trying to take over our government and we have others who may not think that way but are doing little to prevent that result. That’s not the way we approached it in my time. I hope it all works out and we can keep our Constitutional republic (what’s left of it). By the way, we have several state governors who are operating very outwardly in a tyrannical mode already.
Fair enough. For the record, there are absolutely Socialists trying to push their agenda (one of them ran pretty successfully for President this year) both inside and outside of state and federal governments. I just don’t think Ducey and Kemp are members of that group.
And you don’t have to tell me about tyrannical state governors. I am a long suffering, tax paying resident of the People’s Republic of California. I dare anyone (that includes you, NY state residents) to say their governor is more tyrannical than mine.
How about me? Are you now questioning my integrity? That’s completely uncalled for.
Postal clerk drones in white lab coats.
I’m not questioning your integrity. I don’t know you, so I have no idea what your level of integrity is. I assume you have integrity to burn. I’m asking how invested you are in this theory of massive fraud? Are you at all open to the possibility that perhaps it’s not correct?
Thank you for making my point. <Chef’s Kiss.gif>
I know you don’t care, but I’m cancelling my membership as of the end of this monthly billing cycle. Thanks for making this site just a little bit better.
Well done @blueyeti! Your weeks of trolling have paid off.
I got banned from Ricochet for (I think) a week several years ago. I had come up with a couple of creative acronyms that were figured out. It had been a tough day at the end of of a tough few weeks at the end of a tough few years. And I crossed a few lines.
Don’t remember impugning someone’s integrity.
I care. Of course I care. I would prefer you not cancel your membership, especially at (apparently) my doing.
OK, I’m going to put it all on the table here. You may want to sit down and have a bite to eat before you read this as it may be a bit verbose.
In these discussions, I’ve tried to remain dispassionate and only traffic in facts or rely opinions from people I know to be reputable and reliable. The issue we no longer agree on facts and who is reputable and reliable. So if I quote or post a piece from the WSJ, I get a slew of responses claiming it’s a RINO organization or worse, that it’s part of some vast conspiracy to take down the President. Never mind that the paper (and it’s Op-Ed page) supported Trump through most his term, and never mind that they share an owner with Fox News (yes, apparently their loyalties are suspect too).
But this is not about me. At all. I booked a staunch Conservative talk radio host who also lives in Georgia and has deep relationships in the Republican conservative community there, but because he won’t take the line you all want to hear, he’s now some sort of delusional Deep State Stooge. Same with John Yoo. The man literally wrote a book entitled Defender In Chief: Donald Trump’s Donald Trump’s Fight for Presidential Power and has defended the President all over the media including on shows on this network for 4 years. He has extensive experience with election law and knows the Pennsylvania court system extremely well. He had the audacity to say publicly that he didn’t think Trump’s legal team was doing an effective job and my inbox filled up with vitriol that cannot be published on this site. I could go on and on with examples like these. Most of the people I have asked to appear on our shows or do events with us have turned us down. They don’t want the anger rained down on them. Can’t say I blame them.
I understand that losing an election is hard. I understand that Joe Biden will attempt to move the country leftward and that’s scary. I also understand that there was a certain amount of fraud, shenanigans, malfeasance, and shady behavior. There always is. I do not agree and have seen no evidence of “massive fraud” at the scale that the Trump legal team is alleging. And neither have the courts, , many state legislators, most members of Congress (despite what some of them may be saying publicly), most local officials, and let’s face it; most of the American public.
Yes, it’s possible that they are all wrong and you are right. Many of us (including me) have been willing to be convinced –really! But it’s incumbent on your side to make that case. It does not appear that the evidence is there to support that case.
It is not my intention or goal to piss anyone off or to use my position (such as it were) to intimidate or silence anyone. On the site over the past few weeks, I’ve been called a liar, stupid, bad at reading comprehension, a RINO, a Democrat, Rob Long’s lackey (the deepest cut), and even a meany. That’s OK. Comes with the job, I suppose. Other than the occasional joke or very mild comeback, I’ve made a concerted effort to not push back on any of that. Yes, I am aware that this is a subjective standard and text is a poor way to communicate tone. I acknowledge that often people can read what I wrote and not “hear” it in the way I intended. That said, sometimes I do get frustrated with the arguments and pure partisanship that has been thrown at me over the past month and I probably wrote a few lines that would make me wince a bit now. I’m flawed and there are hundreds of you and only one of me. I humbly request grace for those moments.
On my side of this, I can report that no one has been suspended for anything they have written when interacting with me. Within reason, all of us PTB types (oh, do I hate that phrase) believe that the rules should be different when engaging with us vs other members on the site. That’s why we don’t take down the terrible personal comments directed at many of our podcasters, our editors, and our founders. Those make me wince too.
I’ll end (FINALLY!) with this: As I said above, I know losing an election is hard. But in the long run, I believe the country will be fine. We’ve had Democratic Presidents before. We’ve had truly awful Democratic Presidents before. Because we are stronger than one person, even a President. Our institutions are stronger than a President. Our Constitution is stronger than a President. There will be many unpleasant moments over the next four years. No question about that. But there is no question in my mind that this predicament can be turned around, starting with a Republican Senate in ’21 and ending with a Republican President in ’24. And it would not surprise me (or sadden me — really) if that President was Donald J. Trump. I think it is a very real possibility, He knows more about comebacks than anyone and as we have learned the past weeks, his supporters are indefatigable. That’s most of what you need to win elections in this country.
Earlier today, I agreed to do a live Q&A session with @torywarwriter and @dontillman later this week (exact day and time tbd). I invite you all to attend and bring your questions and complaints. I’ll take every one you have.
@blueyeti How many is a “slew”? Asking for a friend
@blueyeti. In what world do you think you’re dealing with people who don’t know how to lose an election? For God’s sake – we are experts.
The FDA is famous for being incredibly slow and indecisive. Like postal clerks in lab coats.
Put me on that list, too.
I think it might be a good idea to specify which list you mean.
Now, this is a perfect example of the type of comments that have raised the ire of so may these past few, troubled, weeks;
BY has no idea of the “you all” to whom he is referring. I guess there’s a chance that BY has been reading all of our comments for the past four years without commenting. I call that #doubtful.
So … he’s making a claim about people that he literally doesn’t know.
Only relating what I read in several comments and PMs. In terms of making claims about people I literally don’t know, perhaps take another look at this comment?
I’m not planning to cancel yet, but I think next month I’ll drop down to the level where I can still comment on non-podcast posts, but doesn’t allow for creating my own posts. I don’t think I need that anyway, and it’s, what, $6 a year that I don’t have to worry about Ricochet mis-using.
Would have been appropriate for you to include your comment :
”I stand by what I wrote but I’m also on the side my conscience is on. How about you?”
Now, BY, you’re not a regular. So I’ll cut you some slack.
But that is NOT how we roll.
yeti, please leave me out of it until my time is up. That is, speak to the argument and don’t bring up disputed back-and-forth arguments between us. I for one take your first sentence as questioning my integrity, and your response to be evading responsibility for questioning my integrity. That’s the end of it.
Don’t drag me specifically back into a general arguments, such as, that you make claims about people that you don’t know. Leave me out if it please. Okay?
Are you comfortable questioning the integrity of those who disagree with you?
We here on Richochet try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.
Ke, you really have made this site better. And thanks for sympathizing.
I’m glad you think so.
Pretty funny from a guy with no humor.
There is just too much evidence for those of us who respect evidence. Plus there is the furious resistance to investigating the evidence. I have have forgotten the term for “consciousness of guilt” but Democrats and fellow travelers (I mention no names) seem very unwilling to look. You would think Biden’s team would be eager to prove he won fairly.