“@LindseyGrahamSC also asked whether Raffensperger had the power to toss all mail ballots in counties found to have higher rates of nonmatching signatures, Raffensperger (Republican Secretary of State) said.”
Lordy, if there are tapes...
3/ @washingtonpost:
Raffspenger said he was stunned Graham seemed to suggest he find a way to toss legally cast ballots. Absent court orders, Raffensperger doesn’t have the power to do what Graham suggested.
“It sure looked like he was wanting to go down that road,” he said.
4/ Just to be clear, what is contained in the Washington Post does not amount to a felony of election fraud conspiracy. The question is what Raffensperger means in these quotations, and whether there was a more overt act. The quotations still raise significant questions.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Threading on the ACA California v. Texas SCOTUS case.
The Justices asked Cal's Michael Mongan (defending the ACA) mostly about standing. Little on severability -- which is the threat to the whole ACA. Odd.
We won't get a sense of the Court until the challengers face questions.
Breyer was asking his first question, focusing on severability, and Roberts just cut him off and called on Alito (who has less seniority). This is very weird. Probably a technical glitch, but not a good look.
Breyer was actually asking a tough question for the ACA on non-severability:
"ACA supporters told us that the individual mandate was necessary for the entire ACA balance of costs. Isn't that a relevant fact for interpreting the statute?"
I hope he gives Verrilli a chance.
I'm seeing that Fox News just called Arizona for Biden.
Big, if right.
Biden now has a clear path to 270 without waiting for Pennsylvania.
This is the map with Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan, but not Pennsylvania or ME2 or NE2:
Biden 279 (a win)
Trump 249
(leaving PA undecided).
I am getting a ton of questions about why Michigan and Wisconsin look red right now.
Those counts right now are part of the infamous "red mirage" we've been talking about since August, because we knew they wouldn't count any Dem-dominated mail/absentee votes.
The 8th Cir ruled 2-1 last night that Minnesota must set aside any ballots postmarked on time but arriving after election day.
One of the 2 is viciously anti-gay Trump appointee Leonard Grasz, whose ABA panel unanimously declared "not qualified." americanbar.org/advocacy/gover…
The majority claims to rely on "state legislatures" as the Constitution's rule, but invents a reason to ignore MN legislation delegating power to MN Sec of State to adopt "alternatives" in case of an order like the state court order here.
Here's the majority, then the dissent:
Here's the dissent.
Folks, this decision is a joke. This 2-1 majority purports to defer to state legislatures, but ignores state legislation and the state legislature, as well as a state court.
This "federalism" is really just federal judges' partisan judicial activism.
In case you missed it, Gorsuch:
* Celebrated legislative supremacy as a Founding principle
* Praised legislators over judges for their fact-finding, judgment, & consensus
* Criticized judges who "sweep in" to address problems
Gorsuch is going to love the next Congress.
Who am I kidding. Gorsuch just likes this Republican legislature restricting voting access.
Phony originalism. Just reading a single clause how he likes. Not a single historical source.
Kagan hits Kavanaugh hard in this footnote, after Kavanaugh puts the Trump Party Line on mailed ballots into a Supreme Court opinion. You can't make this stuff up.
The Court question should be disentangled into at least 2 questions: 1) What is the right size for a Supreme Court?
(Is it 9? No.) 2) What is the right method for judicial selection?
(The current model? Hell no.)
If we are going to change one, change both in a balanced way.
I have concerns about the @danepps@GaneshSitaraman 5/5/5 proposal, because I think the existing conservative Justices will play hardball harder.
But it moves the debate forward by thinking creatively about both questions, and I haven’t seen anything better that addresses both.
For what it’s worth, I suggest: 1) President nominate 1 Justice every 2 years (2 per 4 yr term)...
Let size increase. No term limits.
2) But with a statutory merit model of bipartisan House committee (perhaps with input of governors, the bar...) creating a short list/slate.