- Joined
- Nov 16, 2017
- Messages
- 9,384
- Reaction score
- 0
He's not being taken away, he's choosing to keep himself off by not disclosing what is lawfully required. Follow the laws if you want to be on the ballot, it's not that hard. Thought you Republicans were all for "States Rights."Yeah... we should make laws that if Candidates don't share their Education documents, they cannot appear on the ballots. Or, hey how about their religious affiliations? Or perhaps their gun ownership records? What charities they donate to should be known? Maybe they should include Medical Records too? How about a DNA test for their heredity? I can't see how this could be abused.
Don't you worry about Voter's having ID being "disenfranchisement", the Democrats have found a whole new level of taking away a citizen's candidate of choice. You can't even write him in.
He's not being taken away, he's choosing to keep himself off by not disclosing what is lawfully required. Follow the laws if you want to be on the ballot, it's not that hard. Thought you Republicans were all for "States Rights."
I’m way more concerned over their vote harvesting law.
Basically saying “let the Democratic Party vote for you”
On what grounds? Under the US Constitution, states are supposed to administer elections as they see fit. With few exceptions, the federal government has no say in how states run their elections.Meh, that'll get challenged and struck down
I think Thomas and Gorsuch will side with California here. If I'm right, this would be another in a long list of examples of people including @Jack V Savage mistakenly labeling Thomas's jurisprudence as "right-wing".i guess we'll see what the supreme court says. lol, soon to be a 6-3 split, imo
Yes, because that specific candidate has any chance of winning the state election in that state....if this was actually a popular vote and not an electoral one, then it would have actually mattered. But in reality if Trump is on the ballot in CA or not, he's still receiving the same number of votes that's going towards the Presidential election which is 0. It's targeted at all Presidential candidates not just the ones the state doesn't want. I'm sure whoever the democratic representative is, he/she will be releasing his/her tax returns to appear on the ballot. I'm all for a law making governors and Congressmen having to show their tax returns in order to run for office as well. So if you start with the President, I consider that a step in the right direction.Yes.... yes... make restrictive laws, targeted at specific candidates a state does not want and remove them from the ballots. Where is Pelosi and Feinstein's tax returns?
Stalin would have loved you. They had terms for people like you in the Soviet Union... "useful idiot".
Yep. It's an open door to abuse. That is exactly how they flipped OC. It's just too bad we don't have a functional GOP in this state. They can't grab their own ass with two hands these days.
How is siding with State rights not considered "Right Wing"?On what grounds? Under the US Constitution, states are supposed to administer elections as they see fit. With few exceptions (e.g., 15th Amendment), the federal government has no say in how states run their elections.
I think Thomas and Gorsuch will side with California here. If I'm right, this would be another in a long list of examples of people including @Jack V Savage mistakenly labeling Thomas's jurisprudence as "right-wing".
On what grounds? Under the US Constitution, states are supposed to administer elections as they see fit. With few exceptions, the federal government has no say in how states run their elections.
I think Thomas and Gorsuch will side with California here. If I'm right, this would be another in a long list of examples of people including @Jack V Savage mistakenly labeling Thomas's jurisprudence as "right-wing".
The position of @Jack V Savage and other Thomas critics, as I understand it, is that Thomas almost always chooses a "right-wing" outcome and reasons backward from that conclusion. This would be another example in which that hypothesis would be proven wrong, similar to Gonzales v Raich or Kelo v New London.How is siding with State rights not considered "Right Wing"?
May be they’re looking for a moral victory to energize their baseCame here to say this, States have almost infinite rights when it comes to regulating their elections and ballot requirements.
I'm not sure how it would actually get struck down.
I think a more likely scenario is that Trump simply doesn't appear on the ballot in California, and other states that might pull this, since he wasn't going to win anyway.
Because I don't think someone's tax returns should matter unless they were a paid public servant at the time.Why just from their time in office?
Well, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer certainly didn't agree with the bolded when it came to gerrymandering. Shame on them, but that's another discussion.Came here to say this, States have almost infinite rights when it comes to regulating their elections and ballot requirements.
I'm not sure how it would actually get struck down.
I think a more likely scenario is that Trump simply doesn't appear on the ballot in California, and other states that might pull this, since he wasn't going to win anyway.
Yeah... we should make laws that if Candidates don't share their Education documents, they cannot appear on the ballots. Or, hey how about their religious affiliations? Or perhaps their gun ownership records? What charities they donate to should be known? Maybe they should include Medical Records too? How about a DNA test for their heredity? I can't see how this could be abused.
Don't you worry about Voter's having ID being "disenfranchisement", the Democrats have found a whole new level of taking away a citizen's candidate of choice. You can't even write him in.
Because I don't think someone's tax returns should matter unless they were a paid public servant at the time.
Well, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer certainly didn't agree with the bolded when it came to gerrymandering. Shame on them, but that's another discussion.