- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So North Carolina can count ballots till the 14th and Pa. till the 6th
Posted on 10/29/20 at 7:28 am to HogBalls
Posted on 10/29/20 at 7:28 am to HogBalls
quote:
The court's public information officer said that Barrett did not participate because of the need for a "prompt resolution"
Ah, so illegality is upheld as long "we're in a hurry" and don't have time to look at it right now? First act as SC Justice is kind of shameful, to be honest. Do your fricking job.
This post was edited on 10/29/20 at 7:28 am
2
Posted on 10/29/20 at 7:49 am to BugAC
North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger, R-Rockingham, issued a statement regarding the high court's decision.
"This is the first of two similar, but not identical, cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the mid-election rewrite of North Carolina's election laws," Berger said. "The precedent set in this year's Supreme Court decisions will determine the future of America's elections. The question is simple: May unelected bureaucrats on a state panel controlled by one political party overrule election laws passed by legislatures, even after ballots have already been cast? If public confidence in elections is important to our system of government, then hopefully the answer to that question is no."
"This is the first of two similar, but not identical, cases pending before the U.S. Supreme Court involving the mid-election rewrite of North Carolina's election laws," Berger said. "The precedent set in this year's Supreme Court decisions will determine the future of America's elections. The question is simple: May unelected bureaucrats on a state panel controlled by one political party overrule election laws passed by legislatures, even after ballots have already been cast? If public confidence in elections is important to our system of government, then hopefully the answer to that question is no."
Posted on 10/29/20 at 8:09 am to BugAC
quote:
First act as SC Justice is kind of shameful, to be honest. Do your fricking job.
How exactly do you consider this her first act?
would it surprise you if it was simply a finalized yet unreleased opinion and she didn’t have the opportunity to participate? This thread was already made yesterday and it means nothing substantively—a Motion to Expedite was denied, the ballots will be separated for a later challenge, which she can participate in that decision in PA. She wouldn’t have made a difference in the NC vote either.
This post was edited on 10/29/20 at 8:12 am
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News