As a matter of past-practice in this district, courts do not dismiss indictments when pardons are granted. Rather, in each of the most recent cases where pardons have been granted by former President Obama and former President Trump, the United States District Court for the Central District of California has not dismissed the indictment. Instead, it has been the practice of this court that once an Executive Grant of Clemency has been filed on the docket, the docket is marked closed, the disposition entry is updated to reflect the executive grant of clemency, and no further action is taken by the Court. //

What is clear is that the Government, while it accepts Joe Biden's act of mercy as to his son, is not cool with the notion that the "charges should be wiped away because the defendant falsely claimed that the charges were the result of some improper motive." For good measure, the pleading adds, "No court has agreed with the defendant on these baseless claims, and his request to dismiss the indictment finds no support in the law or the practice of this district."

The pardon power has seen some... questionable uses throughout the history of the Republic.

Now that Donald Trump is headed to the White House, he has to make a decision vital to the Republic's health. Over the last eight years, President Trump and his allies have been the subject of a non-stop stream of lawfare attacks designed to cripple him while he was president and later, after he peacefully turned over the reigns of power to the addled Joe Biden, to imprison him for what could have been the rest of his life. The campaign to jail him was clearly a conspiracy involving Biden Attorney General Merrick Garland, New York Attorney General Letitia James, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg, and Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis.

The extent to which the civil cases against him were coordinated with the criminal cases has never, as far as I know, been explored, but it is hard to imagine that it did not exist. This use of the judicial system to attempt to impoverish and imprison political opponents is foreign to the United States and to its founding principles. The decision that Trump has to make is to either ignore the attacks calculated to ruin his life or should he be faithful to the promise he made at CPAC in March 2023, seek retribution.

In 2016, I declared I am your voice. Today I add I am your Warrior, I am your Justice, and for those who have been wronged and betrayed, I am your Retribution. //

Here is where we'd part company. These people tried to imprison Trump for what would have statistically been the rest of his life. They went after the January 6 protesters using a patent over-expansion of the law that the Supreme Court had to smack it down: Supreme Court Hands Down Blockbuster Ruling in Case That Will Impact Multiple J6 Defendants. Even now, Garland's prosecutors are fighting to extend misdemeanor sentences into terms lasting years behind bars because the Supreme Court repudiated them.

As recounted in our posts on Garland's thugs bringing a false and malicious prosecution against a pro-life demonstrator, these people were willing to lie to put their political enemies behind bars and to try and intimidate them. //

Just remember, the convictions are icing on the cake. The process is the punishment. A battalion of bankrupted and unemployable DOJ lawyers and FBI agents living in refrigerator cartons under bridges across the country would provide a daily lesson to what happens when you abuse your power and try to deprive other people of their freedom and livelihoods. //

Only when we've plowed the soil of the Deep State with salt can we talk about a truce. But the personal damage we inflict over the next four years, in terms of jail time, bankruptcies, and legal judgments, must so terrify that second tier of Deep Staters that no matter what another batch of Democrat operatives cook up, they will refuse to get involved. //

eattheelite Mongoose
4 hours ago edited
With humans being human, and all, a caution against abuses from our side is warranted. Trump will not humiliate a fellow president to advance a political ball or satiate his righteously outraged supporters and he's been clear about that much. The best, and, in general, the only, truly sustainable preventive measure is the vigilence of an informed electorate, and it worked precisely as forseen by the Founders even in the face of globalist headwinds. This time. There's a bigger picture here than an eye for an eye. If we get lost in it, which I could so easily find myself doing after eight years of political jujitsu, we'll lose the better of what MAGA can do for Americans and the world. My two cents. Now I'll go back to streaming the View and watching Ellen's English mansion flood because I do get a kick out of witnessing the cosmic justice of their all-consuming and well-earned misery. A guilty pleasure, I know. (I just don't care. Well, I just don't care yet, anyway.) I believe the left calls it self-care! //

anon-o62w
7 hours ago
It's not revenge. It's not payback. It's a crime against the American People. There must be some severe ramifications to deter this tactic by either party in the future. Trumps cases were manufactured. People in power colluded. If proven..jail. Like anyone else. It's not just Trump..it's Jan 6ers, Rudy G....the list is endless. The mistake is Trump is targeted because he's Trump. Believe me, DeSantis, Vance..they will be victims next cycle if the full weight of the law is not brought down on officials who have engaged in this tactic. //

GBenton
6 hours ago
Andy McCarthy is a muppet. He got the Russia Russia thing wrong and a lot more. They all need to pay with reciprocal lawfare for one key reason he failed to address: Trump was innocent but they are actually guilty.

So it's not even lawfare, though I would be fine with reciprocal lawfare either way for reasons this post states already. But the fact is we have to restore the rule of law and prove no one is above it, least of all those who abused power. They must be made to care, as the saying goes, or we will never see the end of this.

On top of everyone mentioned in this post, the folks who engage in voter and election fraud need prison time. If we do not secure our elections we will someday no longer have a country. I do not believe the left can win national elections without illegal aliens and dead people and bogus ballots. We need voter ID, but we also need to absolutely crucify those who stole any elections within the statute of limitations, mostly figuratively speaking but I'm open to literally, too, if they are convicted because stealing elections should be regarded as akin to treason.

Abolute power corrupts absolutely - and the ability to steal elections is simply too dangerous to let be a feature of our process. Paper ballots, voter ID, and life sentences for cheaters and those who organize and fund cheating.

Then we can deal with the media who do nothing but gaslight us with Democrat propaganda. //

Marek76
8 hours ago
Forget the higher ground, justified prosecution for actual crimes is essential if we are to be a nation of laws. The DOJ needs to fear accountability if they abuse their power.

More than 120 corporate giants have just issued a joint letter putting themselves squarely on the side of patent infringers and against America’s smaller innovative companies.

They present their case in the appealing-sounding language of “disclosure” and “transparency.” But when smaller inventors are in court trying to enforce their lawful patent rights against infringement, the main effect of a sweeping new disclosure requirement would be lengthier proceedings, more expenses, and a big advantage for deep-pocketed infringers.

The letter’s proposal, now under consideration in Congress in draft legislation known as the Litigation Transparency Act, is aimed directly at the ability of such inventors to pay legal bills and other expenses they incur when they go to court to enforce their patents. The legislation would impose a strict disclosure requirement on sources of funding for their lawsuits.

Yet such funding has nothing to do with whether infringement has taken place and, if so, what damages are due. For the sake of smaller inventors who depend heavily on intellectual property rights, this legislation needs to go back to the drawing board.

The letter-writers and Rep. Darrell Issa, the legislation’s author, claim that withholding information about financing is “unfair” and “fundamentally alters the dynamics” of legal cases.

I disagree. Rather, imposing invasive disclosure requirements would reduce or eliminate funding, and therefore, access to justice.

America’s startups and small businesses are facing unprecedented attacks on their intellectual property. Rather than taking the proper steps to legally license patent rights on their product, some wealthy corporations are simply appropriating the patented technologies they want. When caught, they call on their vast financial resources to prolong lawsuits and make them as expensive as possible. In many cases, such tactics have forced startups to surrender or, at best, settle out of court for a fraction of their losses.

Though unfair, the practice is frequently effective. It’s known as “efficient” or “predatory” infringement.

Infringers simply treat any damages they end up paying as a cost of doing business. In fact, predatory infringement is so pervasive that CEOs are willing to boast about it publicly. //

Courts have demonstrated their ability to strike an appropriate balance between transparency and safeguarding privileged information. An invasive mandatory disclosure rule would place small businesses and startups at a disadvantage by revealing their legal strategies and financial resources. Infringers could exploit this information to prolong trials, inundate opponents with motions and challenges to court filings, and launch damaging harassment campaigns against third-party investors.

But they apparently weren't done yet. They hit the trifecta on Friday when they had to, for the third time in a week, read legal notes, and this time, they had to do it four times in a single show. //

Doug Powers
@ThePowersThatBe
·
Follow
“And now a word from our attorneys” has become my favorite daily segment on The View.
Nicholas Fondacaro
@NickFondacaro
Sunny Hostin sighs as she's forced to, for the third time this week, read a legal note about The View's claims against Matt Gaetz and Pete Hegseth.
Joy Behar then baselessly accuses Hegseth of witness tampering. No legal note was provided for that false claim.
Embedded video
1:52 PM · Nov 22, 2024

Cernovich
@Cernovich
·
Follow
A Soros DA dropped charges, that's what this case was about. Jussie Smollett is innocent as a matter of law, guilty as a matter of fact.
Jason Meisner
@jmetr22b
JUST IN: The Illinois Supreme Court has undone Jussie Smollett's conviction for orchestrating and reporting a phony hate crime.
Background:
https://chicagotribune.com/2021/12/09/jussie-smolletts-conviction-for-orchestrating-and-reporting-a-phony-hate-crime-punctuates-actors-sudden-downfall/
11:28 AM · Nov 21, 2024

The ruling does not mean that the court is saying Smollett is innocent of the crime; they’re saying that Kim Foxx’s original deal with him should have protected him from being charged a second time. //

Watt
12 minutes ago
The rule in the opinion (text at link at the end of the second block quote in this post) appears to be that, although a unilateral nolle prosqui by the State allows the state to re-bring the charges, that is not the case when the State and defendant (as here) enter a bilateral agreement to nolle pros that by its terms indicates that the parties intend to bring finality to the case. Oh well...

The files are all exhibits to a motion filed in a defamation case in Florida related to the sex trafficking allegations levied against Gaetz - allegations the US Department of Justice investigated for 18 months before declining to pursue charges because, sources told the Washington Post, the two main witnesses weren't credible. Some of the exhibits, including deposition testimony from a woman who claims she had sex with Gaetz when she was 17, have been sealed by the judge presiding over that case. //

In reply to ABC's "story," Gaetz said:

"These allegations are invented and would constitute false testimony to Congress. This false smear following a three-year criminal investigation should be viewed with great skepticism.". //

As I wrote back then, after Gaetz blistered Wray over the FBI's harassment of COVID whistleblower and Chinese defector Dr. Yan Li-Meng during a congressional hearing:

Is it any wonder that the entire Democrat/Media Complex is trying to destroy Matt Gaetz? Think about when the questions into his supposedly improper relationships with females started flooding the airwaves and which government organization is “investigating” Gaetz. I’m sure it’s all just a big coincidence and not an attempt to silence or intimidate Gaetz.

Bash Ars Scholae Palatinae
20y
1,191

Freedom of speech does not include the right:

• To incite imminent lawless action.
  Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
• To make or distribute obscene materials.
  Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957).
• To burn draft cards as an anti-war protest.
  United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
• To permit students to print articles in a school newspaper over the objections of the school administration. Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, 484 U.S. 260 (1988).
• Of students to make an obscene speech at a school-sponsored event. Bethel School District #43 v. Fraser, 478 U.S. 675 (1986).
• Of students to advocate illegal drug use at a school-sponsored event.
  Morse v. Frederick, U.S. (2007).

What Does Free Speech Mean?
Among other cherished values, the First Amendment protects freedom of speech. Learn about what this means.
www.uscourts.gov

The US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit summarily vaporized 46 years of Federal environmental regulations. Writing in a case called Marin Audubon Society, et al v. FAA, et al, the majority of a three-judge panel ruled that the Council on Environmental Quality, a cabal inside the Executive Office of the President charged with ensuring that National Environmental Protection Act requirements are interpreted uniformly across the federal government, had illegally used the Federal Register to publish that guidance thereby giving citizens, agencies, and even the courts the impression that their internal guidance had the authority of law. //

The CEQ regulations, which purport to govern how all federal agencies must comply with the National Environmental Policy Act, are ultra vires.

Ultra vires means the CEQ was acting "beyond the legal scope of it authority."

The court goes on to detail the shenanigans by which an advisory body with no regulatory authority was able to write environmental regulations for the entire United States for nearly a half-century just because it decided it could.

Making the case even more awesome is that it was set off by enviro-wackos suing the FAA for allowing sightseeing flights near some national parks. The enviros claimed the FAA used the wrong standard established by the CEQ to permit the flight. They ended up being right in a backhanded kind of way. //

frylock234
13 hours ago
I love the smell of bureaucracy burning in the morning. Which windows do I leave open to enjoy that scent? Do you think Mrs. Walz would know?

Daily Wire @realDailyWire
·
EXCLUSIVE: Internal messages obtained by The Daily Wire show a FEMA official ordered relief workers in Florida not to help houses with Trump signs
4:28 PM · Nov 8, 2024. //

FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell announced the firing of a FEMA manager who ordered her staff not to assist residents displaying flags or yard signs supporting President-elect Donald Trump's campaign. Using a Saturday afternoon message on the social media platform "X," formerly known as Twitter, Criswell acknowledged the veracity of the report that first appeared in the Daily Wire (see OUTRAGE: FEMA Workers Working Hurricane Milton Aftermath Ordered to Bypass Houses With Trump Signs). This follows a report that the responsible official was "removed" from their position on Friday. //

Firing is a necessary but not sufficient step.

First, this announcement does not appear on FEMA's website in any form other than a tweet. It seems to me that this should rate some sort of an official statement.

Second, Washington's message does not give the impression that she came up with it independently. In my opinion, it looks very much like a safety briefing she took down at a meeting.

Third, firing her and referring the case to the Office of Special Counsel looks more like an exercise in butt-covering and scapegoating than concern about her actions.

Fourth, while her actions may be viewed as just the petty tyranny we've come to expect from a highly politicized federal bureaucracy, depriving citizens of federal assistance because they supported a major party candidate is a violation of multiple federal laws. FEMA seems to be attempting to appear to take action until the heat dies down. Fortunately, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis isn't going along to get along. //

At a minimum, all staff working under her supervisory chain need to be questioned about the instructions they received. It is entirely possible that Washington was the only team leader dim enough to write down and disseminate something meant to be unsaid. In fact, it is unbelievable that this was not FEMA policy in that area. A thorough investigation that results in firing everyone involved with this policy is not enough. Asses need to go to jail. //

Dutchsinse @RealDutchsinse
·
In their own words this is illegal Mr. Desantis .. see here!!!! https://dhs.gov/civil-rights-emergencies-and-disasters

Political discrimination during disasters is also covered under the law confirmed. Screenshot from DHS site directly attached.
5:12 AM · Nov 9, 2024

As a result of the election held on November 5, 2024, the defendant is expected to be certified as President-elect on January 6, 2025, and inaugurated on January 20, 2025. The Government respectfully requests that the Court vacate the remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule to afford the Government time to assess this unprecedented circumstance and determine the appropriate course going forward consistent with Department of Justice policy, //

MINUTE ORDER as to DONALD J. TRUMP: The Government's 278 Unopposed Motion to Vacate Briefing Schedule is hereby GRANTED. All remaining deadlines in the pretrial schedule are VACATED. By December 2, 2024, the Government shall file a status report indicating its proposed course for this case going forward. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/8/2024.

Merchan might throw out the conviction due to the Supreme Court ruling that a president has “at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts.”. //

retiredcantbefired | November 7, 2024 at 6:10 pm
Why won’t Merchan uphold the conviction and then sentence Trump to as much prison time as he can pile on?

Hasn’t that always been the aim? //

TargaGTS in reply to retiredcantbefired. | November 7, 2024 at 6:23 pm
He could do that. But, because immunity claims are immediately appealable. He can sentence Trump to prison but that sentence would immediately be stayed by an appellate court pending appellate review. In fact, had SCOTUS issued their presidential immunity opinion prior to trial starting, that immunity claim as applied to the facts of this case would have had to have been settled prior to the trial starting. The thought process is, if someone is immune from prosecution, it’s not enough to keep them out of prison. It must be a prohibition on the process of the prosecution itself. //

PrincetonAl | November 7, 2024 at 6:14 pm
Merchan isn’t going to do anything for Trump’s benefit. He would do this for Democrats benefit.

The strategy would be rather than having this thrown out on appeal in NY, complain about the Supreme Court and throw it out pre-emptively. A NY state Court loss does the Democrats no good.

This would allow them to further attempt to undermine the Supreme Court and the immunity decision (which was a very reasonable one)

If he does it, that is why. //

Hodge | November 7, 2024 at 9:26 pm
The conviction was a political gambit to influence the election, and indeed almost every single one of my Democrat friends mentioned at least once in every conversation, so arguably it did have some impact.

However, it didn’t have enough impact; Trump won.

So, now the question is, what is the best path for the Democrats in winding this thing up? Trump will not run again and this makes the exercise rather pointless. Further, there seems to be some reason to believe that when this case reaches the Federal appeals level it will be exposed as legally insufficient, and keeping it in the limelight may more publicly expose questionable decisions and actions by the key players.

So, it may be better for Merchan to toss the whole thing, while blaming the Supremes for protecting Trump. The Democrats like to claim that the court in in the bag for Republicans, so that would play nicely to their base as an excuse while allowing Merchan to continue as a judge without any picky picky investigations into his conduct.

As of this article’s publication, preliminary results show the amendment with more than 75 percent of support from voters. The New York Times projected the proposal’s passage.

As The Federalist previously reported, the amendment stipulates that “only a citizen of the United States” who is 18 years old and meets existing voter eligibility requirements may vote in elections held in the Tar Heel State. The measure was sent to voters for approval after it was passed by the state’s Republican-controlled House (99-12) and Senate (40-4) earlier this year.

Other states to have similar initiatives on their respective 2024 ballots include Wisconsin, Iowa, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Idaho.

The judge clearly went overboard and illegally focused on Tina Peters’ constitutionally protected viewpoint about election theft.

The left’s latest attack stems from Gorsuch’s new book on the government going after regular Americans. //

Three years before he threatened him while standing on the steps of the Supreme Court, Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said the problem with Neil Gorsuch was that his decisions as a federal judge were awful for the average working American.

“When the chips are down, far too often he sides with the powerful few over everyday Americans just trying to get a fair shake,” the powerful Schumer said against Gorsuch’s nomination.

On the first day of those confirmation hearings, Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said, “In case after case, you have dismissed or rejected efforts by workers and families to recognize their rights or defend their freedoms.”

Now, Gorsuch’s left-wing critics say his problem is actually the complete opposite. They say he cares too much about the little guy and not enough about the bureaucracy that goes after the little guy.

Yes, really.

The criticism stems from a book Gorsuch recently co-authored with Janie Nitze titled Over Ruled: The Human Toll Of Too Much Law. //

The campaign against Supreme Court justices who fail to bend to the will of the left will undoubtedly continue. This particular attack is about as substantive as the previous ones, which is to say not very.

While the Des Moines Field Office of USCIS reviewed the suspect names with the assistance of the state DOT supplying Alien Registration Numbers, headquarters in Washington, D.C., will not allow the Iowa office to share the information.

“This information would be critical to Iowa’s election officials in this process and ensure naturalized citizens can cast their ballots as normal,” Pate wrote.

The Biden-Harris Department of Justice has threatened to challenge Iowa’s process of vetting the voting rolls. Pate wrote that he asked the DOJ to allow their Immigration Services colleagues in D.C. to turn over the data that’s been completed in Des Moines. //

‘The most current, verified information is available. Yet, Washington, D.C. will not share it with us,’ said Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate. //

“If the federal government has information that will ensure only U.S. citizens vote AND ensure naturalized citizens can cast their ballot as normal, that information must be shared.”

Not only was Neely breathing when the police arrived, but they refused to give him mouth-to-mouth, instead sticking him with Narcan assuming a drug overdose was involved. //

bluestardad
3 hours ago
The whole trial should have never happened. Penny deserves a good citizen award and instead he’s the victim of a malicious prosecutor.

853 OKG bluestardad
an hour ago
I'm hoping Daniel Penny can turn around and sue Bragg and NYC for malicious prosecution. //

anon-bdx1
3 hours ago
Obviously this video was available to the prosecution and they proceeded anyway

Joe Biden's now-infamous "garbage" comment in which he referred to Trump supporters with the derogatory term continues to haunt both the White House and the Kamala Harris campaign. On Thursday evening, things developed into a full-blown scandal, possibly including criminality.

After Biden made the statement while speaking to CNN, the White House immediately edited his remarks to insert a magical apostrophe. The narrative then shifted to claiming that the president was actually referring to a specific Trump "supporter's" garbage, in this case, a comedian who made a joke about Puerto Rico. As expected, the press ran with the revisionist history. //

This is no longer just about politics, though. According to a new report, the White House altered the transcript despite objections from the stenographer, who did not feel an apostrophe should have been added. The problem? That was almost certainly a crime. //

The supervisor, in the email, called the press office’s handling of the matter “a breach of protocol and spoliation of transcript integrity between the Stenography and Press Offices.”

“If there is a difference in interpretation, the Press Office may choose to withhold the transcript but cannot edit it independently,” the supervisor wrote, adding, “Our Stenography Office transcript — released to our distro, which includes the National Archives — is now different than the version edited and released to the public by Press Office staff.” //

It is a violation of the Presidential Records Act for anyone to tamper with and spoil an official transcript. Any requested changes are supposed to go through the Stenography Office, and they have no duty to abide by such requests if they believe them to be incorrect. The White House press office changing the transcript over their objections appears to be illegal. That it was done for obviously political reasons to protect not only Joe Biden but the Harris campaign as well, only makes the situation that much worse. //

Will the Biden-led DOJ push this issue and bring charges? Of course, not. That's not even a question at this point. Should Donald Trump's DOJ, if he were to win the election, push the issue? Absolutely. Democrats have had no mercy on Republicans the last four years, including weaponizing the law in ways it was never meant to be used. The only way that stops is by re-establishing some kind of deterrence.

On Friday, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles, a – wait for it – Joe Biden appointee, ordered that 1,600 of those 6,000 names removed in August be put back on the voter rolls, saying the names were illegally removed too close to the election. The usual suspects are behind all of this:

Advocacy groups that sued — the Virginia Coalition for Immigrant Rights, the League of Women Voters of Virginia and others – said that data shared by the state for the case shows more than 1,600 people had their voter registrations canceled under the program during the quiet period.

Glenn Youngkin hit back hard at the "stunning" and blatantly political move: //

123FJB
10 hours ago
Put them back on the voter rolls and then put out a statement that those individuals will be arrested upon confirmation of their casting a ballot. //

Bobby Cheeky
10 hours ago
Reinstatement is a complicated process, and could take a few weeks! It probably can't happen until November 6.

Just play this corrupt judge like a fool, Gov. Youngkin, because that's exactly what they're trying to do you and the voters of VA. //
anon-v5qh
10 hours ago edited
Remember when the supreme court ordered PA to segregate and control the disputed ballots prior to the election in 2020? They of course ignored the order, counted the ballots and then mixed them in with the others so they couldn't be audited or identified. Oops, just another happy accident. Can't fix it.

VA should follow their law and let the activist judge twist in the wind here. This kind of ruling where the laws must not be enforced so you have to allow criminal acts is typical of the liberal judges with agendas (border law anyone? catch and release was a court ruling not a written law).

As we've learned over the years watching tight presidential races, each state holds its own election and has its own set of rules as to how it is administered. This makes for some stark differences in, for instance, deadlines set by states for accepting absentee or mail-in ballots. Mississippi allows ballot receipt up to five days after Election Day.

Until now, that is. On Friday afternoon, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a decision holding that ballots must be both cast and received by Election Day and that Mississippi's law is preempted by federal law. //

The State’s problem is that it thinks a ballot can be “cast” before it is received. What if a State changes its law to allow voters to mark their ballots and place them in a drawer? Or what if a State allowed a voter to mark a ballot and then post a picture on social media? The hypotheticals are obviously absurd. But it should be equally obvious that a ballot is “cast” when the State takes custody of it. //

That is not to say all the ballots must be counted on Election Day. Even if the ballots have not been counted, the result is fixed when all of the ballots are received and the proverbial ballot box is closed. The selections are done and final. By contrast, while election officials are still receiving ballots, the election is ongoing: The result is not yet fixed, because live ballots are still being received. Although a single voter has made his final selection upon marking his ballot, the entire polity must do so for the overall election to conclude. So the election concludes when the final ballots are received and the electorate, not the individual selector, has chosen. //

In January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic, only 14 States and the District of Columbia accepted ballots postmarked by Election Day—with the other 36 requiring receipt on or before that date. //

As Justice Kavanaugh recently emphasized: “To state the obvious, a State cannot conduct an election without deadlines . . . A deadline is not unconstitutional merely because of voters' own failures to take timely steps to ensure their franchise.” //

Federal law requires voters to take timely steps to vote by Election Day. And federal law does not permit the State of Mississippi to extend the period for voting by one day, five days, or 100 days. The State’s contrary law is preempted. //

Tech in RL
3 hours ago edited
If this is such a Constitutional question, why did the Fifth Circuit limit its ruling to just the states under its jurisdiction when we know a single judge can make a ruling that covers the entire country? I’m rather surprised the RNC didn’t push the Fifth Circuit court to apply its ruling nationally since that ruling isn’t all that useful when not applied uniformly across the nation.

If the Democrats were wise, they wouldn’t appeal this ruling since it only really applies to one deep red state. If this goes to the Supreme Court and the High Court affirms the Fifth Circuit ruling, then it would apply nationally.