Headlines “Politics” [read the OP before posting]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bughouse

Like ships in the night, you're passing me by
is a Site Content Manageris a Forum Moderator Alumnusis a CAP Contributor Alumnusis a Tiering Contributor Alumnusis a Contributor Alumnus
Just so we're entirely clear about what happened here:
These 8 petititions were all requests to expedite review (of cases that SCOTUS was most likely not going to review anyway). By declining to expedite review, virtually all of the cases became moot as soon as the electoral college votes were certified, and if not then, then certainly after inauguration. And now that they've done this action today to decline to expedite review, they won't act on any of these again until after inauguration anyway.

Two other related cases may still eventually get heard, both from Pennsylvania, however they are about issues that all parties have already acknowledged would not affect enough votes to change the presidential election. This case has already come up to the US Supreme Court once and Justice Alito, who handles emergency petitions from the circuit court that contains Pennsylvania, ordered Pennsylvania to segregate the ballots in question so they could be counted separately if needed, subject to later litigation. Pennsylvania in turn complied and ordered all of its clerks, etc to do so, so the number of ballots that arrived late is known and is (far) less than the margin by which Biden won the state. A bit under 10,000 votes came in that would be in question per these cases, and Pennsyvlania has determined that aside from the presidential race (where 10,000 is clearly not enough to change anything since Biden won by around 80,000) no other federal races were impacted either. So in terms of 2020 itself the case is moot.

If SCOTUS agrees to hear those it would purely be advisory for future elections, and even though courts don't really like hearing cases about things that are no longer relevant, they also really hate election lawsuits under tight timelines. So they might hear a case about these PA issues, just so they can opine about the issues at hand and clarify things for 2022 and beyond. In my opinion, these cases are pretty bad examples for SCOTUS to use to set any case law so I think it is more likely that they pass, but who knows.

The gist of the PA case is:
The Pennsylvania state supreme court, interpreting Pennsylvania state law and the Pennsylvania state constitution, required the state to count absentee ballots that arrived up to three days late as long as they were not clearly postmarked after election day (based on evidence from the post office that delays would occur in such a way that Pennsylvania's statutory deadlines would result in some people who followed all the rules and deadlines that were intended to help them vote by mail end up with their votes not getting counted due to circumstances that were unforeseen when the state's election law was enacted). Article I of the Constitution places the power for setting the "time, place, and manner" of elections in the hands of state legislatures, subject to laws made by the US Congress, which has enacted a law setting a uniform day for these elections, which we know as Election Day - whichever day between November 2 and November 8 is a Tuesday in a given year.

Pennsylvania republicans are challenging that 1) the state Supreme Court had the authority to do anything with respect to the "time, place, and manner" since they say that's a power of the legislature, and/or 2) whether what the result of what the court did (ie allowing the counting of mail in votes that arrive up to 3 days late) violated the federal statute that sets one election day nationwide.

Both arguments have serious issues with them.

The first argument more or less says "because the US constitution says it is the state legislatures responsibility that means it is 100% the state legislature's responsibility and there is no mechanism for a state court reviewing whatever the legislature says". Obviously that's not the case otherwise there wouldn't be lawsuits in state courts related to elections, which there have been long before 2020... The purpose of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision was to interpret the constitutionality of the voting system that was going to be used, per the Pennsylvania State Constitution. There is ample case law that says that state election law MUST comply with state constitutions, so there really should be no argument here that a state court could review. All state legislation is subject to state constitutional law. There's no special carveout for elections. Ultimately the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that the unforeseen postal delays impacted the existing voting law so much that they became unconstitutional because of how it would disenfranchise voters whose ballots would fail to arrive on time, even though they would request a mail in ballot on time and maybe would even put them back in the mail on time, through no fault of their own. So in summary, the Article I provision that gives power to state legislatures very clearly does not give it solely to them - it is still subject to review for constitutionality under the state constitution. So it is pretty much guaranteed that SCOTUS would not agree with the main argument and say that the PA supreme court wasn't allowed to review. If we then assume that the PA supreme court was within their rights to review, what SCOTUS could instead say here to overturn on these grounds would be "yes you could review, but you reviewed incorrectly" ...but that is also not a plausible thing for SCOTUS to do here, since the PA Supreme Court said the election law was an as-applied violation of the Pennsylvania State Constitution, not the US constitution, and SCOTUS is highly unlikely to step in and say no actually we're the experts on your constitution and you interpreted it wrong. As a matter of law and policy, SCOTUS does not review state court judgments in cases that only have to do with state law. The only way SCOTUS could review therefore the PA court's decision as pertains to the state constitution is if the state court ruling violated the US constitution, but the plaintiffs haven't articulated clearly how that could be so. If the state court is authorized under the US constitution to review, then surely no decision they reach is inherently unconstitutional. It could be that this particular decision is unconstitutional if it created an unconstitutional system itself, i.e. the PA Supreme Court couldn't decide that everyone named Steve's votes would count double, since that violates one-person one-vote. But it's hard to say what the violation would be here in allowing mail in votes to arrive late, since it was applied equally to all voters statewide. All in all, this argument doesn't seem very likely to succeed to me.

The second argument that the federal statute designating one day as Election Day somehow forbids counting mail in ballots postmarked before but received after election day has its whole own other set of issues. The general interpretation (and there is no real division among courts on this...) is that votes must be cast on or before election day. This is why early voting is a thing, this is why mail in voting is a thing (no one can have a mail in vote that is both cast and received on election day... the mail doesn't work that fast!). No one has ever won a case to my knowledge that the federal law designating one single day as election day means that votes received by mail after, but postmarked before, Election Day cannot be counted when a state has decided that they would like to do so. Indeed, Pennsylvania is not the only state that accepts such ballots. A number of states have allowed this even before 2020, and some more began doing so for this cycle due to the increased amount of mail in votes and expected postal delays related to COVID. Nor is 3 days in any way unusual or "generous". Some states allow votes that arrive even 2 weeks after election day. If Pennsylvania isn't allowed to do this, then neither are like 20 other states. Even beyond the 20 or so states that accept ballots received by mail after election day, there's all kinds of other votes that are accepted after election day, such as cases where an absentee ballot received on or before election day and is "cured" after election day or cases where military/oversees voters might have deadlines that allow them to have their votes counted late, even if other absentee votes are not, etc. There's just no way that SCOTUS takes the bite here and throws general chaos into the world by requiring that ALL votes must be received by election day, when the current state election law patchwork has been working "fine".
This seems to have been generally true that SCOTUS would not take up any further challenges to PA. They declined to hear appeals in two consolidated Pennsylvania cases with only Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch dissenting from the denial of certiorari. It would have taken 4 votes to grant certiorari and hear the case.

Essentially, the foregone conclusion has now concluded.
 

SupremeFashion

Banned deucer.
Center-Left liberals are Maga-Lite. Defend children in cages, bombing syria, and denying a 15$ min wage all because their favorite democratic politician is in office! Very nice.
$15 and hour minimum wage is something I support but it’s a bad solution to an important problem in my opinion. State-based minimum wages make a lot of sense and although raising minimum wage to $15 would provide a net benefit overall, the downside is that places such as Los Angeles, Houston and New York would not have to raise their minimum wage again even when inflation increases. I believe a better solution should be pushed and proposed.
 
$15 and hour minimum wage is something I support but it’s a bad solution to an important problem in my opinion. State-based minimum wages make a lot of sense and although raising minimum wage to $15 would provide a net benefit overall, the downside is that places such as Los Angeles, Houston and New York would not have to raise their minimum wage again even when inflation increases. I believe a better solution should be pushed and proposed.
Just say you hate poor people
 
Just say you hate poor people
What an incredibly bad post. I agree that 15 an hour min wage at a federal level is good but a lazy yOu jUsT hAtE tHe PoOrS knee jerk reaction isn't going to convince anyone you're right. 15 an hour is a bandage but doesn't really address inflation or cost of living.

Individual states have the power to set their own min wages. Even California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts don't have 15 an hour min wage. Why aren't people angry about this? Or what about the fact that southern states have incredibly low cost of living and a switch to 15, even over a couple years, will decimate small business and create "Walmartvilles" where the only source of work is big business? Also what happens when the cost of living just inflates? What is the solution? Just a back and forth between people and companies forever?

He's right, min wage increases aren't a solution. Yes we should set min wage to 15 because it's long fucking overdue but that doesn't address a lot of issues either. Things like rent price control at a local level is also important. Something like a complicated Federal min wage that accounts for cost of living in different areas, and that is updated annually to account for inflation and other changes would be better. Maybe 20 in California, 12 in Mississippi. Or a simpler federal min wage that accounts for inflation but that doesn't really account for cost of living and risks a feedback loop that would cause inflation / cost of living to skyrocket.

Yes we need 15 an hour min wage but that isn't the end all solution.
 
What an incredibly bad post. I agree that 15 an hour min wage at a federal level is good but a lazy yOu jUsT hAtE tHe PoOrS knee jerk reaction isn't going to convince anyone you're right. 15 an hour is a bandage but doesn't really address inflation or cost of living.

Individual states have the power to set their own min wages. Even California, Washington, New York, and Massachusetts don't have 15 an hour min wage. Why aren't people angry about this? Or what about the fact that southern states have incredibly low cost of living and a switch to 15, even over a couple years, will decimate small business and create "Walmartvilles" where the only source of work is big business? Also what happens when the cost of living just inflates? What is the solution? Just a back and forth between people and companies forever?

He's right, min wage increases aren't a solution. Yes we should set min wage to 15 because it's long fucking overdue but that doesn't address a lot of issues either. Things like rent price control at a local level is also important. Something like a complicated Federal min wage that accounts for cost of living in different areas, and that is updated annually to account for inflation and other changes would be better. Maybe 20 in California, 12 in Mississippi. Or a simpler federal min wage that accounts for inflation but that doesn't really account for cost of living and risks a feedback loop that would cause inflation / cost of living to skyrocket.

Yes we need 15 an hour min wage but that isn't the end all solution.
Thanks for writing all of that to say you hate poor people
 
For the record I'm not going to engage in any 15$ min wage debate there's no debate to be had. The federal min wage hasnt increased in years. Whether it's in the 5 year plan or a flat out raise it just needs to be happen. The fact that it hasn't and isn't apart of the initial covid relief bill is a failure in the biden adminstration.
 
For the record I'm not going to engage in any 15$ min wage debate there's no debate to be had. The federal min wage hasnt increased in years. Whether it's in the 5 year plan or a flat out raise it just needs to be happen. The fact that it hasn't and isn't apart of the initial covid relief bill is a failure in the biden adminstration.
You should re-read my post because I, and SupremeFashion both stated we are in favor of 15 an hour. But there are very real issues with min wage increases that need to be addressed. If you refuse to find solutions to these issues all you're going to to is wipe out small businesses in poor areas, lead to rent skyrocketing, and in ten years when inflation reduces 15 to today's equivalent of 7.25 you'll be in the same position you were in right now. You need permanent solutions. 15 will help and should be passed but you absolutely need to think long term unless you want to be stuck in infinite loops of fighting for a livable wage every decade or so.

Screeching about Biden isn't really fair because he himself has been fighting for 15 since he entered office. However he needs congressional support and getting it isn't easy when he needs to convince other Dems and even Republicans to vote for it. Biden isn't a dictator and can't sign away everything with executive orders. Congress has as much, if not more power than him and needs to be on board with anything of as grand a scale as a min wage increase. Don't blame Biden for something that isn't his fault.

Also if all you can say is "Thanks for writing all of that to say you hate poor people" you probably shouldn't get involved in political discussion. You add nothing and if anything hurt your side by acting this way.
 
Last edited:
We knew exactly who Biden was and what we were going to get once he won the nomination. It's true that he's certainly better than trump, but don't expect much from him. Not forgiving student loans from kids who went to Harvard, Yale, and Penn should tell you everything; there's alot to unpack in that statement, actually.
 

SupremeFashion

Banned deucer.
You guys need to actually read and think about posts that are longer than tweets. It’s really not that difficult.

In what universe is trying to advocate for a more permanent solution to poverty and minimum wage hating poor people? That is idiotic plain and simple. If you read my original post, you would even see that I was making the case that the minimum wage for certain states should be higher than 15 and hour.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BIG ASHLEY

ashley
is a Community Contributor
We knew exactly who Biden was and what we were going to get once he won the nomination. It's true that he's certainly better than trump, but don't expect much from him. Not forgiving student loans from kids who went to Harvard, Yale, and Penn should tell you everything; there's alot to unpack in that statement, actually.
this isn't an attack on you personally (unless it applies to you ig) but i find it really interesting just how quickly all the cries of "we can hold biden's feet to the fire and push him left!!!" have evaporated. wonder what that says.
 

Wigglytuff

mad @ redacted in redacted
is a Tiering Contributoris a Dedicated Tournament Host Alumnus
You guys need to actually read and think about posts that are longer than tweets. It’s really not that difficult.

In what universe is trying to advocate for a more permanent solution to poverty and minimum wage hating poor people? That is idiotic plain and simple. If you read my original post, you would even see that I was making the case that the minimum wage for certain states should be higher than 15 and hour.

I think it’s telling that Nui is a discord leader. They fit the discord mod stereotype to aT.
The idea behind nui's post is that whatever discussion about the more long term aspects of solving poverty should take place after $15/hour wage is established and that $15/hour min wage should be established immediately because the situation is dire enough and honestly has been for many Americans even before the nightmare of a pandemic happened.

I would agree that in an ideal world we'd have a 50 step plan to solving poverty and the political willpower to make them happen in a timely fashion, but we live in a not ideal world where we have neither. Wages have not been raised federally since 2009 and it's definitely in part because of politicians bringing up the same issues that you are (this isn't a permanent solution, we need a better plan etc ec). You might be saying them in good faith, but bad actors have used the same arguments to stall something that has been vitally needed for over a decade, which is why your position has been (perhaps abruptly) conflated with hating poor people.
 
yeah the point of people bringing up $15 minimum wage here is that it was a promised bare minimum action that biden is not following through on. when you reply to that by saying 'oh but there are better solutions anyway,' it comes off as dismissive of the legitimate frustrations people have.

it's like if i promised my mother i would wash the dishes, but then i never did it. if she got upset about that, it would be dismissive, not helpful, to say 'well just get a dishwasher.'
 
I'm not involved in american politics that much since I'm brazilian and I already have to deal with the pestilence that is Bolsonaro but I though people were "going to make biden's life hell" or something. Not defend American bombings.

I'm manifesting that 15$ wage for yall though, hoping it actually passes, along with the stimulus check, and as soon as possible.
 

TheValkyries

proudly reppin' 2 superbowl wins since DEFLATEGATE
Yeah my bad, Democrats out here doing the important things like bombing foreign countries and opening new detention centers for immigrant minors. I’m sure once they’ve finished all the high priority stuff they’ll get together and make something happen for COVID prevention and the myriad immediate problems it has created and is still creating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 0)

Top