re: SCOTUS Opinion Day - June 29

quote:

---

You can buy a postmark machine and fake it.

---

I don’t think that’s the problem vis-à-vis election integrity. To me, the big problem has to do with the fact that the Democrats essentially run the post office. This was one of the concerns in the 2020 election, I.e., weather the local postal employees were colluding with the Democrat party to “back“ postmark ballots to make them valid. I remember videos of Republican operators following around mail trucks showing how corrupt postal workers were "back dating" fraudulent ballots after the election.

quote:

---

It is not the same.

---

Yes. It is.

Alito outlines it perfectly in his dissent:

quote:

---

The geofence procedure in this case did not violate Chatrie’s Fourth Amendment rights under these 20th-century precedents. These precedents hold that a defendant does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records that a company generates by virtue of the defendant’s use of its services. This rule has come to be known as the third-party doctrine. The Court articulated this rule in United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435 (1976), holding that the police did not violate a defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights when they obtained transaction records from his bank. In reaching this conclusion, Miller emphasized that a bank is not merely a neutral custodian of its customers’ financial information, but rather a party to an ongoing business relationship with them. Id., at 440–441. Thus, when the defendant “voluntarily conveyed” his financial information to a bank by depositing money or cashing checks, he assumed the risk that the bank would create a paper trail of that information for its own business purposes. Id., at 442. The defendant likewise assumed the risk that the bank might share that information with others, including the police. Ibid. The Court therefore held that the defendant had no Fourth Amendment rights in the bank’s records of his transactions. What was true about the bank records in Miller is true about Location History here. Chatrie voluntarily conveyed his location information to Google, and Google created a digital paper trail of that information. Like the bank in Miller, Google was no neutral custodian in this arrangement. Id., at 440. In exchange for allowing Chatrie to use its Location History service, Google could use his location information for its own business purposes, such as sending Chatrie location-targeted advertisements from third parties. 590 F. Supp. 3d, at 907–908. So, by giving Google his location information for its own use, Chatrie assumed the risk that Google might disclose location information to others, including the police. Miller, 425 U. S., at 443. Indeed, Google advises its users that the company could use their location information for its own advertising purposes and could share that information with law enforcement. E.g., 1 App. 69–70. Thus, like the defendant in Miller, Chatrie cannot now claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in those data. The police therefore would not need a warrant to perform the geofence procedure under our 20th-century precedents.

---

quote:

---

Not really. They used publicly-available livestream video and camera video from around the capitol building. In that instance, most of the information used to investigate individuals was available to everyone.

---

So you are saying they carefully vetted the tape and did not arrest anyone who was escorted into the capitol by the police?

bullshite

quote:

---

Absentee ballots need to be postmarked by election day but can be received up to 5 days post-election day

---

Because of this ruling, get ready for vote this- in a country of 330 million people, vote tallies of 500 million to 476 million. They’ll just keep piling on ballots until the end.

quote:

---

You support vaccine mandates from the government. You think a person should not have the right to choose to not be injected with drugs by the government.

---

Oh I said those things on here? Either you have a link or dementia.

quote:

---

Lol, we lose on mail-in ballots

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

Tomorrow, they probably catch a throat-punch via the ending of birthright citizenship

---

quote:

---

Tomorrow, they probably catch a throat-punch via the ending of birthright citizenship

---

I don’t think you all should expect birthright citizenship to be ended. I think you’re setting yourselves up for disappointment. I think it’ll be 9-0 or 7-2 upholding BRC.

quote:

---

So the thousands upon thousands of Chinese whose mothers came over specifically for birthright citizenship and who turned around and immediately were carried back to China are "citizens" just like any of us?

---

Take a breath and read it again...the win today was mail in ballots and hopefully tomorrow the BRC will be nuked. Trump can always change the mail in situation as was said in the post.

quote:

---

I don’t think you all should expect birthright citizenship to be ended. I think you’re setting yourselves up for disappointment. I think it’ll be 9-0 or 7-2 upholding BRC.

---

And it will be the correct ruling.

A path was laid out in the Constitution to address things like birthright citizenship and further amending/clarifying more vague things such as verbiage in the Fourteenth Amendment. And, most unfortunate, that path goes through Congress.

So to change things, we have to fully rely on Congress, the group has has been the most hilarious unreliable amalgamation of worthless troglodytes in world government history, to actually do something about it. The same Congress whose Senate just went on pro tempore leave to keep Trump from executing recess appointments for positions they still won't confirm from 18 months ago, and the same Congress that is pushing hard to extend the unconstitutional FISA spying program while refusing to address the 80/20 election-integrity-centric SAVE Act. The same Congress that is willing to throw $300B at Ukraine and another $300B at Iran but fight tooth-and-nail to prevent Trump's administration from receiving $2.5B to finish the Southern border wall.

It's pretty much over, but not because of the SCOTUS. It's over because Congress has sold us down the river.