Folks, assume Biden loses Florida. Fine, whatever. If that happens, he still merely needs to win one of these beige states. Literally any one of them.
From the replies, it seems there are three personality types:
1) Biden will win this ("glass half-full")
2) you're assuming Biden wins Michigan and Wisconsin ("glass half-empty")
3) it's not beige, it's taupe / olive green / coffee ("who drank half my water?")
😁
... and BTW if you're maniacally refreshing Pennsylvania county results, you should know (a) Republicans blocked early counting of mail-in, it all just started today, it'll take awhile, and (b) some counties aren't even trying to count them until tomorrow: penncapital-star.com/election-2020/…
Yep. Seems unlikely we get the quick, decisive win. But the game here is the same thing all of us decent people actually believe: the election is decided by who gets the most votes, not who is leading on election night.
This decision is ludicrous, as the dissent explains. The ballot receipt extension arose by consent decree on August 3, 2020. The plaintiffs, two Republicans who will be electors if Trump wins, dithered until September 22, when they filed this lawsuit. /1
Neither of the plaintiffs have standing. The lawsuit was filed too late, so laches apply. The 8th circuit decision is too late, so Purcell applies. The 8th circuit decision ignored Minnesota law, which specifically authorizes the Secretary of State to abide by court orders. /2
And the majority's interpretation of "legislature" in the Constitution's electors clause (1st pic) is wackadoodle nonsense, as explained by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th pics, from the dissent.
The federal courts need to be completely overhauled.
Let's talk for a minute about the Pennsylvania election case.
It's a win for now, because a 4-4 tied SCOTUS vote means the lower court (here, PA Supreme) order stays intact.
But it's terrifying that 4 Justices thought otherwise, and might soon be joined by a 5th (Barrett). /1
Two basic, longstanding principles of law:
first, states control their own elections, though Congress can impose conditions;
second, state courts interpret their own state laws, including state constitutions.
That should've ended this case. Excerpt from PA Dems' brief.
/2
5 Republican Justices already blasted a hole in Congress's power to regulate elections in Shelby County v Holder, invalidating Congress's reauthorization of the VRA. Pics 1 & 2 from Ginsburg's dissent.
In the PA case, the Republicans' brief sang a different tune. (Pics 3 & 4) /3
I was wondering if this was one of those "applying precedent leads us to this unfortunately result..." cases but, no, the reality is that Barrett plowed through state law and a jury's factual findings to cheat the plaintiff out of her fair compensation. /1
The facts are recounted on pages 16-21 of the PDF. They're awful. The guard repeatedly raped her at the prison.
The issue was whether the county had to pay for the $6,700,000 jury verdict. /2
Consistent with Wisconsin law, the jury had already heard ample evidence about whether the rapes were within the guard's "scope of employment," and they had decided the answer was yes. Excerpts from plaintiff's brief. /3
A good article about the openly activist nature of Barrett's "originalism." We've already seen it in practice from her circuit court opinions, where she uses it—like all "originalists"—to produce the result she wants. For example, let's talk about the Second Amendment.
/1
In DC v Heller, the "originalists" faced a problem: during the constitutional convention, there were several proposals (like from NH's delegation and minorities in MD, PA & MA) to protect individual gun ownership. They were all rejected.
Excerpts from Stevens' dissent. /2
Scalia's response, writing for the majority, was that it was stupid to look at rejected constitutional proposals. Further, the *rejected* NH/MD/PA/MA proposals actually somehow represented a prevailing view of an essential legal right the Framers didn't bother to write down.🤷♂️ /3
Putting aside the 15-year-old on TikTok, yes, Trump's condition is still quite worrying. COVID's course is slow compared to the flu. Dyspnea often develops 4 to 10 days after symptom onset, and patients can still deteriorate after that. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…
/1
In the most recent remdesivir trial (which involved early-stage patients with SpO2 >94%, which it seems Trump went below), one-third of patients who took the drug were still hospitalized 11 days later. Around 10% were still there a month later. jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/…
/2
The decision to give dexamethasone is still a big mystery. Either Trump had 'severe' COVID-19, or he has jumped the gun and might suffer for it, including the known effect of immunosuppression. Neither speaks well for his course going forward. /3
I quibble with that, too. Trump's finances from 2008 onward aren't "mundane." He defaulted on the only bank lending him money, then obtained >$500m in credit despite inadequate collateral, then liquidated >99.5% of his stocks & bonds. That's unusual. /1
Litigation is common in business. The surprising part here is how, as of 2008, Deutsche Bank was the only bank that would loan him money (and only with a personal guarantee), but he nonetheless defaulted. Standing alone, it makes little business sense. /2 chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-20…
The 2008 sale of Trump's Palm Beach home to the bad guy from TENET has always been odd, but perhaps Rybolovlev is just bad with money. 🤷♂️ Either way, it coincides with a sharp rise in Trump condos being bought through shell companies and/or with cash. /3 buzzfeednews.com/article/thomas…