- 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: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 29
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:10 am to lionward2014
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:10 am to lionward2014
Lol... CNN apparently screwed up & reported the incorrect decided
0
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:10 am to rt3
quote:
Absentee ballots need to be postmarked by election day but can be received up to 5 days post-election day
Democrats will praise this as "preserving election integrity" even though what this actually does is enable theft of our elections.
Kicking the can to Congresspeople who rely on the fraud to be elected is ridiculous.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:11 am to imjustafatkid
Chatrie v US
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:11 am to rt3
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:12 am to rt3
quote:
Chatrie v US
6-3 with thomas, alito, barrett on the dissent
EDIT; this is the Geo fence and 4th Amendment case
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 9:14 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:13 am to lionward2014
While I’m disappointed with Watson, the narrow ruling does track with the consistency of the Court: They repeatedly decide to turn to Congress to change the law or amend the Constitution.
Any ruling would have been legislating from the bench and undermining 10th Amendment. It’s not the Court’s job to decide how states run their elections. Congress must act to define “Election Day.”
A candidate is going to have to sue California or another state demanding that the state produce chain of custody for every ballot to each candidate.
Any ruling would have been legislating from the bench and undermining 10th Amendment. It’s not the Court’s job to decide how states run their elections. Congress must act to define “Election Day.”
A candidate is going to have to sue California or another state demanding that the state produce chain of custody for every ballot to each candidate.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 9:15 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:14 am to rt3
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:15 am to bluestem75
quote:
Any ruling would have been legislating from the bench and undermining 10th Amendment. It’s not the Court’s job to decide how states run their elections. Congress must act to define “Election Day.”
It really is that simple. The court is giving this administration and Congress a blueprint to doing things right. Pass a law that defines election day and all this is solved.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:15 am to bluestem75
quote:
A candidate is going to have to sue California or another state demanding that the state produce chain of custody for every ballot to each candidate.
"No standing."
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:15 am to tigeraddict
quote:
6-3 with thomas, alito, barrett on the dissent
EDIT; this is the Geo fence and 4th Amendment case
Court says asking for Geofence data IS a 4th Amendment search
So police need a proper search warrant for that type of information
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:16 am to Ingeniero
quote:
It really is that simple. The court is giving this administration and Congress a blueprint to doing things right. Pass a law that defines election day and all this is solved.
"The people who were fraudulently elected have to fix fraudulent elections."
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:16 am to bluestem75
quote:
A candidate is going to have to sue California or another state demanding that the state produce chain of custody for every ballot to each candidate.
Can they sue a municipality within Cali to force this at a statewide level?
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:16 am to MFn GIMP
quote:Trumps worst mistake
Barrett
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:17 am to rt3
quote:
Court says asking for Geofence data IS a 4th Amendment search
So police need a proper search warrant for that type of information
Seems like a strange ruling, because they did obtain a warrant in this case.
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 9:24 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:17 am to rt3
Trump v Cook
Trump v Slaughter both out concurrently
Trump v Slaughter both out concurrently
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:17 am to imjustafatkid
Trump v Slaughter - firing of independent agency personnel
6-3 with Sotomayor delivering the dissent
6-3 with Sotomayor delivering the dissent
This post was edited on 6/29/26 at 9:18 am
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:18 am to rt3
quote:
Court says asking for Geofence data IS a 4th Amendment search
Huge win for the 4th Amendment.
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:18 am to tigeraddict
GAY
Give us the birthright ruling you cowards
Give us the birthright ruling you cowards
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:20 am to Ingeniero
Trump v Cook - Firing of lisa Cook from federal reserve 5-4
cook can stay in power while case is heard in lower courts.....
cook can stay in power while case is heard in lower courts.....
Posted on 6/29/26 at 9:20 am to rt3
Seems like both Cook & Slaughter can go back to the job Trump tried to remove them from?
Page 2 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News