- 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
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Allow Restrictions on Mail-In Ballots Before Midterms
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:25 am
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:25 am
LINK
quote:
President Donald Trump’s Administration is seeking the Supreme Court’s intervention to push his election reform agenda ahead of the November midterms—by allowing nationwide implementation ?of an Executive Order restricting mail-in voting.
In a Monday filing, the Justice Department requested the high court put on hold a district court ruling that prevented the enforcement of Trump’s order. The order, issued in March, directed the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration to compile lists of eligible voters per state and forbade the U.S. Postal Service from sending absentee ballots to anybody who isn’t on a state’s mail-in or absentee participation list.
Democratic officials in 23 states and the District of Columbia challenged Trump’s order, alleging unconstitutionality and presidential overreach, and last month, an Obama-appointed federal judge in Massachusetts blocked parts of the order for those states for the November election. A Massachusetts-based appeals court rejected the Administration’s request to pause that injunction pending appeal, though the appellate court’s panel was divided: two Biden-appointed judges formed the majority, while a Trump appointee concurred in part and dissented in part.
3
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:26 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Jackson (who is over DC Circuit) already denied this and did not refer it to the full Court for consideration.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:29 am to udtiger
Of course she didn't.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:34 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Don’t worry guys I was told by some reputable posters that these numbers are too small and won’t change an election.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:39 am to ninthward
Bruh! Read your constitution. Executive branch is kept out of controlling the manner of elections. States get to determine the manner
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:45 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
You should be forced to pay your taxes and vote in person. On a working day unless you can use a PTO for it.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 7:45 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Bruh! Read your constitution. Executive branch is kept out of controlling the manner of elections. States get to determine the manner
Constitution never allowed for mail-in ballots though.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 8:45 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Bruh! Read your constitution. Executive branch is kept out of controlling the manner of elections. States get to determine the manner
When the words are, "under the jurisdiction of," it's read with a very liberal interpretation.
When the words are, "the manner of," it's read with a very strict interpretation.
How about some consistency?
"The manner of" clearly does not allow for fraudulent elections.
The people still deserve fair elections and to be represented by the people they choose, right? That is the very foundation of our republic. So, how can a rule that enforces secure elections and ensures the people get their true representatives be unconstitutional?
But here we are again where textualists are okay with the country burning because thinking about the intention of a law is too hard.
Would it be a okay for a state to let the governor pick all of its representatives, or would that perhaps violate the spirit of the constitution and the whole point of our country?
You have to use basic common sense if you care about the country itself more than the rules that strip away our right to self-governance.
Oh, and "election day" apparently means "up to 5 days after the election." So, clearly, election laws are meant to be read liberally, and can even insert words to completely change the meaning, unless of course the words say, "the manner of." Those words are chiseled in stone and not vague at all, apparently.
Where was the outrage from all the TDS conservatives when election day became election week?
Likely, you're just OK with whatever interpretation goes against Trump.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 8:47 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Bruh! Read your constitution. Executive branch is kept out of controlling the manner of elections. States get to determine the manner
quote:
[T]he Framers understood the Elections Clause as a grant of authority to issue procedural regulations, and not as a source of power to dictate electoral outcomes, to favor or disfavor a class of candidates
Using the DMV for helicopter ballot drops, knowing many illegals are on those lists is exactly where the federal govt should be involved.
And the states that refuse to hand over the lists argue it has sensitive information, and the liberal judge agreed stating it had sensitive information like SS#.
Yes the judge actually said that, the federal govt, who issues SS# could not get lists because they contained SS#.
What a clown world.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 8:50 am to trinidadtiger
Why doesnt a single AG of a red state file suit, cheating in another state affects all citizens.
Must the president do everything, and it ends up running through the DC swamp court system every time.
Must the president do everything, and it ends up running through the DC swamp court system every time.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 9:17 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Executive branch is kept out of controlling the manner of elections. States get to determine the manner
Who gets to dictate standards for mail handled by the USPS?
I'll hang up and listen.
Posted on 7/28/26 at 10:00 am to KiwiHead
"Executive branch is kept out of controlling the manner of elections. States get to determine the manner"
This is only partially true. There is likely no basis for the president trumping (pun acknowledged, if not intended) State rules for elections, but Congress do so:
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
This is only partially true. There is likely no basis for the president trumping (pun acknowledged, if not intended) State rules for elections, but Congress do so:
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News