In the Judge’s defense he also said he would deny the injunction even if upon appeal the 5th circuit found they had standing.
In the Judge’s defense he also said he would deny the injunction even if upon appeal the 5th circuit found they had standing.
In the Judge’s defense he also said he would deny the injunction even if upon appeal the 5th circuit found they had standing.
Further extreme eww, judge has openly and deliberately left the issue wide open for continued litigation, and has back-door substantially granted what plaintiffs were seeking even while officially ruling they have no standing:
"Re: certain pending 5th Circuit appeal, Hanen says if he did find GOP had standing, he would likely halt drive-thru voting tomorrow. He orders Harris County to keep all drive-thru memory cards separate in case higher court intervenes."
Good news, sounds like if this was brought before him in a timely fashion he would find a reason to rule the other way.
Looks like the apparent discrepancy is due to the judge distinguishing between pre-election day drive through voting and election day drive through voting. Presumably with the goal of putting a big asterisk by the votes to give the GOP room to maneuver.These seem like opposite conclusions.
Good news, sounds like if this was brought before him in a timely fashion he would find a reason to rule the other way.
Why does the federal district court have any say in interpreting state law? I thought state law went through state courts, and then from a state supreme court to the US supreme court.Looks like the apparent discrepancy is due to the judge distinguishing between pre-election day drive through voting and election day drive through voting. Presumably with the goal of putting a big asterisk by the votes to give the GOP room to maneuver.
Why does the federal district court have any say in interpreting state law? I thought state law went through state courts, and then from a state supreme court to the US supreme court.
Looks like the apparent discrepancy is due to the judge distinguishing between pre-election day drive through voting and election day drive through voting. Presumably with the goal of putting a big asterisk by the votes to give the GOP room to maneuver.
They don't have to be right to take a shot at it.The purpose of taking away 127000 votes gives power to who?
Perhaps we should have some way to clearly express our opinion of court actions taken by others we find offensive and repugnant. We could call it “Freedom of Speech”.They don't have to be right to take a shot at it.
Perhaps we should have a system in place to decide if a grievance is valid? We could call it a "Court".
They don't have to be right to take a shot at it.
Perhaps we should have a system in place to decide if a grievance is valid? We could call it a "Court".
I must have missed where anyone said they couldn’t sue. They are just reprehensible human beings for doing it. People shouldn’t forget what sort of people make up the Republican Party.They don't have to be right to take a shot at it.
Perhaps we should have a system in place to decide if a grievance is valid? We could call it a "Court".
I must have missed where anyone said they couldn’t sue. They are just reprehensible human beings for doing it. People shouldn’t forget what sort of people make up the Republican Party.
In the 2000 election, they counted military ballots that didn’t meet the requirements for a legal ballot having been post marked after the election date. The two campaigns chose not to contest the unlawful ballots even though they might have turned the election results in Florida. In retrospect one wonders how many military personnel died who might still be alive if the Gore campaign had contested those late ballots.I'm trying to think back to all the other elections I've partaken in and I'm wondering if there was ever a time when people were more nonchalant about voter suppression or the possibility of votes that met all the legal requirements not counting. I seem to recall some talk during the Bush/gore election but it was about counting more votes (military overseas if I remember correctly).
I just don't get how any patriotic American wouldn't get upset and angry if any person, let alone a political party, was actively trying to invalidate peoples vote. Like if you have any concern for democracy how could you support any entity that engages in this behavior? The lack of concern from some people on this forum is baffling to me.
In the 2000 election, they counted military ballots that didn’t meet the requirements for a legal ballot having been post marked after the election date. The two campaigns chose not to contest the unlawful ballots even though they might have turned the election results in Florida. In retrospect one wonders how many military personnel died who might still be alive if the Gore campaign had contested those late ballots.
FFS, can someone please explain to me how population reduction, which would increase the bargaining power of the lower classes, would benefit the uber-wealthy elite? And oh no, a forced vaccine microchip to track us all! Like that kind of thing is even necessary when we all pay for our smartphones that we carry with us everywhere.plaintiff and all-around shitbird "dr" steven hotze has a twitter. and posts completely normal things to it.
That is one deranged twitter feed. Holy hell!FFS, can someone please explain to me how population reduction, which would increase the bargaining power of the lower classes, would benefit the uber-wealthy elite? And oh no, a forced vaccine microchip to track us all! Like that kind of thing is even necessary when we all pay for our smartphones that we carry with us everywhere.
Goddamn these nutters are fucking stupid.
Maybe he and the sex-with-dream/demons doctor can get together and swap stories.plaintiff and all-around shitbird "dr" steven hotze has a twitter. and posts completely normal things to it.