tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post7123316177908474964..comments2023-10-19T21:48:56.560-05:00Comments on meaning in history: UPDATED: Briefly Noted: Is The CJ Roberts Plan Working?mark wauckhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-47518389265293484032021-05-27T16:37:52.450-05:002021-05-27T16:37:52.450-05:00But you know he needs to be more diplomatic than t...But you know he needs to be more diplomatic than that. That's what pundits and elected legislators are for.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-82143387685876748662021-05-27T16:14:25.517-05:002021-05-27T16:14:25.517-05:00"For those state AGs and legislatures to have..."For those state AGs and legislatures to have taken no action to enforce their won voting laws...."<br />Particularly fair point, and I wish that Roberts' ruling on standing had rubbed their noses into this point, good and deep.aNanyMousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452492302514671882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-17113411400279848092021-05-27T12:23:09.694-05:002021-05-27T12:23:09.694-05:00Also please cf. my response to aNanyMouse, above:
...Also please cf. my response to aNanyMouse, above:<br /><br />https://meaninginhistory.blogspot.com/2021/05/briefly-noted-is-cj-roberts-plan-working.html?showComment=1622136098655#c3574681955583740075mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-66305754884785972672021-05-27T12:22:15.294-05:002021-05-27T12:22:15.294-05:00@ Anonymous, thanks, and please see my comment abo...@ Anonymous, thanks, and please see my comment above to aNanyMouse.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-35746819555837400752021-05-27T12:21:38.655-05:002021-05-27T12:21:38.655-05:00@ aNanyMouse: What you're asking the SCOTUS to...@ aNanyMouse: What you're asking the SCOTUS to do is to take on the role of commenting on the political situation we now find ourselves in--which is a situation with a long history and many complications that fall well outside what is found in the "constitution and laws" of this republic. That's a role for which the justices have no particular qualifications, and so they were mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-78268262478440698762021-05-27T12:10:46.381-05:002021-05-27T12:10:46.381-05:00Thank you especially for these last two paragraphs...Thank you especially for these last two paragraphs, and the reminder that those we are prone to criticize may well be the adults confronting a complex situation. Sometimes you have to muddle on through, and hope that we and the Nation will come out the better for it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-47024499793782380442021-05-27T12:08:31.143-05:002021-05-27T12:08:31.143-05:00Do me a favor and read what I write before comment...Do me a favor and read what I write before commenting. Is that too much to ask?<br /><br />I never argued that the SCOTUS "can be given leave to make political considerations in ruling on the Law". The SCOTUS is not required to accept any and all appeals. It accepts only a tiny number of petitions for review and it has long been established that it's prudent for the SCOTUS to wait mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-46494556997302666512021-05-27T11:50:21.324-05:002021-05-27T11:50:21.324-05:00"If the people don't insist on constituti..."If the people don't insist on constitutional government, there's *little* the SCOTUS can do in the long run."<br /><br />Even if there's *little* the SCOTUS can do, why couldn't the SCOTUS do that "little", when presented with strong evidence of systematic misconduct?<br />If Roberts ends up going the route theorized here, OK, but until he does so, in *aNanyMousehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14452492302514671882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-55086712317665224102021-05-27T11:40:33.032-05:002021-05-27T11:40:33.032-05:00I think it's interesting that the argument fo...I think it's interesting that the argument for seeing things on the other hand (and thereby giving CJ Roberts the benefit of the doubt) seems to hinge on this notion that since the nation is "sharply divided" - by what or on what terms one has to ask - The Supreme Court can be given leave to make political considerations in ruling on the Law, i.e. the Court is playing King or Mark Ackmannhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11304347524710804388noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-27128965795554391172021-05-27T11:37:14.587-05:002021-05-27T11:37:14.587-05:00The counter argument that Roberts might well make ...The counter argument that Roberts might well make is that it is, in fact, far less disruptive that "this" should "drag on" following the provisions in the Constitution and state law--as opposed to a judicially imposed solution. The judicial solution would never be able to ascertain the actual facts of the fraud, whereas this process may well establish the fraud beyond mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-40570758969270919652021-05-27T11:28:01.684-05:002021-05-27T11:28:01.684-05:00Too true, but isn't it unfortunate that in the...Too true, but isn't it unfortunate that in the weeks following the election none of the substantial allegations being made were addressed by the courts and legislatures, and the last minute appeal by Texas, the President and other States to the Supreme Court was not taken up. The longer this drags on the more devastating and disruptive the consequences are likely to be for the Nation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-45752818332530521072021-05-27T11:05:10.736-05:002021-05-27T11:05:10.736-05:00"the various State audits, as well as revelat..."the various State audits, as well as revelations of illegalities and irregularities unknown to us but that POTUS 45 may be able to document, will have a more marked effect on future elections and where this Country is headed than any of Roberts' legal strategies."<br /><br />Did it ever occur to you that Roberts may be of the same opinion? That he thinks that audits and mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-73179467475138521272021-05-27T10:47:30.255-05:002021-05-27T10:47:30.255-05:00What you have written is admirable, but it address...What you have written is admirable, but it addresses general considerations of election law, and points to future developments. But let us really get serious, first of all by acknowledging that the past election is not behind us. The Supreme Court was not asked to rule, but to issue a ruling on specific election irregularities. The law cannot eliminate election fraud, but should be able to Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-13608485577607749092021-05-27T09:26:36.373-05:002021-05-27T09:26:36.373-05:00"the Supreme Court takes the easiest way out ..."the Supreme Court takes the easiest way out under Roberts"<br /><br />I'm by no means a Roberts fan, but I'm willing to consider that an approach--in effect--of demanding that the Legislative and Executive branches bear their share of Constitutional burden. Whether or not that's Roberts' strategy for the long term, it is a federalist approach. My criticisms of Roberts&#mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-83792944557180799992021-05-27T09:22:39.158-05:002021-05-27T09:22:39.158-05:00"The law is someething of a safety valve. Lik..."The law is someething of a safety valve. Like diplomacy, it permits issues to be addressed before they escalate to war or its equivalent."<br /><br />Right--so you're really happy with what the SCOTUS has done with the law for the past half century. How did that "safety valve" to prevent escalation to war work during the years before the Civil War? Please get serious.<br mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-26709881952282533142021-05-27T09:18:53.677-05:002021-05-27T09:18:53.677-05:00Nobody said the courts would NEVER get involved. P...Nobody said the courts would NEVER get involved. Please read what I wrote, rather than just spinning off questions.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-45273985291598950162021-05-27T09:17:53.544-05:002021-05-27T09:17:53.544-05:00Probably the federal government. It's not as i...Probably the federal government. It's not as if the courts have eliminated election fraud, is it? You can't really be serious with these questions?mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-37229686778433931112021-05-27T08:52:38.166-05:002021-05-27T08:52:38.166-05:00The executive, the President himself, asked the Su...The executive, the President himself, asked the Supreme Court for a decision as to whether laws had been violated. They dropped the ball.<br />The law is someething of a safety valve. Like diplomacy, it permits issues to be addressed before they escalate to war or its equivalent. The Supreme Court not taking up the case brought to them by one third of the States and the President himself, it Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-71635394384696719472021-05-27T08:50:02.043-05:002021-05-27T08:50:02.043-05:00As a non lawyer, My take is usually the Supreme Co...As a non lawyer, My take is usually the Supreme Court takes the easiest way out under Roberts, and avoid controversy. I’m amazed this case was started 5 years ago. This case being know it’s was scotus bound, nicely explains why scotus avoided at all costs weighing in on the 2020 election.<br /><br />The easiest way out is put Election matters back in the state’s jurisdiction. <br /><br />On otherRay - SoCalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11293232996007277071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-73231421225873876482021-05-27T08:31:23.040-05:002021-05-27T08:31:23.040-05:00If even the executive branch drops the ball, are t...If even the executive branch drops the ball, are there no remedies through the courts?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-36205589606595554882021-05-27T08:22:49.966-05:002021-05-27T08:22:49.966-05:00So who handles clear violations of election law in...So who handles clear violations of election law in a timely manner if all elements of a State government are complicit?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-17814583065297812962021-05-27T07:36:34.189-05:002021-05-27T07:36:34.189-05:00"as long as the laws in question are not disc..."as long as the laws in question are not discriminatory on their face it's time for the federal courts to more or less butt out."<br /><br />If the laws are racially neutral the SCOTUS would back off and leave handling that to the enforcement branch, the executive. The examples you give are of non-neutral laws or of clear violations of laws.mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-69825815290799062492021-05-27T06:27:37.433-05:002021-05-27T06:27:37.433-05:00Sounds good. States Rights. But if some White Su...Sounds good. States Rights. But if some White Supremacy state were to count all votes from a white area five times over, wouldn't it nullify the 15th Amendment? Or perhaps a corrupt State government could count five times over the votes from a black area, or even substitute fabricated votes, and claim racism and voter suppression if any questions were raised. Since money talks, it would Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-72042360133194558052021-05-26T13:49:58.237-05:002021-05-26T13:49:58.237-05:00Good timing on revisiting this, we should be seein...Good timing on revisiting this, we should be seeing a ruling in the next several weeks. <br /><br />It's very difficult to give benefit of the doubt anymore where an federal institution restores constitutional powers back to a lower entity. From everything I understand about elections the end all be all seems to be each state's Senate, not the courts. It would be nice to see the hammer devilmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00256049667739001018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1608697421187043479.post-69261588602832213952021-05-26T13:47:20.383-05:002021-05-26T13:47:20.383-05:00Nope. Didn't mean "that."
SWC's...Nope. Didn't mean "that."<br /><br />SWC's theory works well with the PA case. Under that theory Roberts--as I explained--would be trying to remove the SCOTUS from all of these last minute election cases. He would be putting the onus on the state legislatures to flex their constitutional muscles and exercise the control that is in their authority. If the states do that Roberts mark wauckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08247066866195200890noreply@blogger.com