“Plaintiff has neither pointed to any source of law that prescribes and defines a duty to withdraw a candidate’s name from the ballot nor demonstrated his clear legal right to performance of this specific duty, let alone identified a source of law written with ‘”such precision and certainty as to leave nothing to the exercise of discretion or judgment,'” the Monday order reads. “Thus, the plaintiff has not shown an entitlement to this extraordinary relief, and we reverse.”

Justices David F. Viviano and Brian K. Zahra dissented, saying the “ruling will do nothing to rebuild the public’s trust in the fairness and accuracy of our elections.”

“No statute prohibits a presidential candidate from withdrawing his or her candidacy. And there is no practical reason for denying a request to withdraw before the ballots have been printed for the general election,” the dissent reads.

The ruling has the potential to affect the election’s outcome with a “significant cost to the integrity of the election,” as “voters will be improperly denied a choice between persons who are actually candidates, and who are willing to serve if elected,” Viviano and Zahra argued. //

At the same time, Benson and state Democrats have been pushing to keep third-party candidate Cornel West off Michigan’s ballot, citing technicalities with his identity notarization and “and allegations that West’s petitions to get on the ballot were fraudulent,” according to The Detroit News.

The state supreme court declined to take up a Democrat appeal to an earlier decision by the court of appeals, which said West must remain on the ballot. West’s presence on the ballot could likely hurt Harris’ chances, as noted by PBS.

After being asked why Benson was working to keep Kennedy on the ballot and Cornel West off the ballot, Benander told The Federalist that Benson’s office “did not seek to overturn the Appellate Court’s decision on Cornel West.”

HARD-TO-FIND ACCOMPANIMENT TRACKS AND ARTIST ALBUMS. PHYSICAL CDs AND DIGITAL DOWNLOADS.

The argument's premise is that Trump left Biden and Kamala with no plan for withdrawing from Afghanistan. The fact is that Trump signed the withdrawal agreement with the Taliban on February 29, 2020. For graduates of Baltimore public schools and others challenged by mathematics, that is 534 days before the Kabul airlift began. If there was no plan for the withdrawal, that really isn't the direct responsibility of the guy who left office 207 days prior to the event. The responsibility for planning the operation lay with the Defense Department, specifically within the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

If Biden didn't have a plan, then it is the fault of service leaders who refused to do their duty and, in this telling of events, sat on their hands and refused to plan for a US withdrawal from Afghanistan. (During the big drawdown of the Army after the USSR went belly up, the Army refused to plan for a force reduction because it was felt that if word got out that we were planning, then the political people would think we were fine with the idea and make us do it. If we didn't plan, the reasoning went, we might not have to do it. I can see the same logic in effect in executing the end of our adventure in Afghanistan.) That would mean the very people blaming Trump for the disastrous US withdrawal from Afghanistan include some of the people who were responsible for that withdrawal.

Thanks to the efforts of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, we know there was a plan, but Biden and the "last person" in the room overruled it. //

The real threat to our democracy are military officers who trade on their rank to tell lies in the name of partisan politics. //

Mike Ford
17 hours ago edited
One of AFNN’s best writers, COL Jack Tobin (rest his soul) wrote the initial plan well before Biden came on the scene….

It called for the use of Bagram as the evac base and its subsequent retention.

It also followed standard NEO doctrine whereby you evac the noncombatants and THEN extract troops.

You damned sure don’t put your evac point in a downtown version of Dien Ben Phu //

Hoover the Great
18 hours ago
This debacle really shows why we need to take a meat cleaver to the US army. And by that, I don't just mean replacing personnel, I mean reducing footprint and eliminating force and positions. Reduce the size by maybe 80-90%. As Eisenhower stated, a massive standing army like we have does not make America safer.

ECoolidge19 Hoover the Great
17 hours ago
I saw a post on RS sometime ago, it listed the number of 4 star Generals during WW 2 compared to now. It was like 1-8. I forget exactly but I remember being surprised. Sounds like a good starting point. At minimum, you don't fire but just put a freeze on hiring new //

Hoover the Great anon-x1lc
2 hours ago
There is no security benefit from maintaining a massive standing army like we have now. Or if there is one, it does not remotely approach the cost of it, both monetary cultural and spiritual. That position is essentially the one held by President and Supreme Commander of Allied Forces Dwight Eisenhower.

We built this military machine after WWII. Before that, we had a skeleton military that we would quickly put the meat and muscles onto if we needed to fight a war. We never lost a war with that model. Since we built this military machine, the military's record is more mixed. That spans several decades, so is not just the result of bad people in leadership. It's the system itself.

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

The bottom line is that we don't know where Kamala stands in 2024 on mandatory gun buy-back schemes. What we do know is that she made that part of her platform in the 2020 race, and she has never disavowed that position. Though her "campaign" says she no longer supports it, one of her leading surrogates refuses to give a yes or no answer; in fact, he refuses to acknowledge the question.

All of this fits into Kamala's campaign of deception where she has minions tell the media what her positions are and she retains the ability to change them at whim by blaming an unnamed staffer. //

anon-x2cb
33 minutes ago
They CANNOT buy back something they DID NOT SELL ME!

[Republican consultant and Fox News contributor Ari] Fleischer's advice for Trump is, "Hit her on policy. Just like you did to Biden in the first debate. That was a disciplined, tough, policy-oriented Donald Trump. I would love to see the same Donald Trump against Kamala Harris." //

Louise1
18 hours ago
Two ideas:

1) Tell how your policies will help people, and protect the environment, better than Harris' policies.

Example: Don't say inflation is bad because we want good economic numbers. Say inflation is bad because it hurts people.

Example: Don't say that you're against EV mandates because of cost or convenience. Instead, say that EVs can actually hurt the environment. It's hard to recycle EV batteries. Tires on EVs pollute the air with more fine particles than the tires on ICE vehicles, because EV batteries are so heavy. ( https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2023/07/electric-vehicles-tires-wearing-out-particulates/674750/ ) Etc.

2) When you say a Harris policy is bad, offer a better policy. Example: To cut pollution, do these things:

a) Put pressure on China to stop polluting the air so much.

b) Tell people how to keep their houses cool or warm by using simple, cheap insulation in their windows such as bubble wrap.

c) Encourage research in extinguishing wildfires better, so that they don't release a huge amount of smoke. ( https://redstate.com/wardclark/2024/08/29/canadas-carbon-footprint-is-massive-but-its-because-of-wildfires-n2178698 )

If you tell how your policies will help people and protect the environment, and if you tell how your policies are better than Harris', then people will be more likely to vote for you. //

Carey J
19 hours ago
I heard Trump was preparing for the debate by going to bars and arguing with drunks.

Carey J Randy Larson
12 hours ago
Yeah, I heard it from the Bee. You'll note I didn't say where I heard it.

Re: Ahh a manager who is telling the truth
"Transparency in organisations is a rare thing."

But those times you come across it, it's a wonderful thing to behold! People know what's going on, know where the delays and problems are, they help out, and things usually get done more quickly and properly. It's sad that's so rare. Mainly because of empire builders worried more about their reputation than the project.

Published 1997
Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff

The Internet has revolutionized the computer and communications world like nothing before. The invention of the telegraph, telephone, radio, and computer set the stage for this unprecedented integration of capabilities. The Internet is at once a world-wide broadcasting capability, a mechanism for information dissemination, and a medium for collaboration and interaction between individuals and their computers without regard for geographic location. The Internet represents one of the most successful examples of the benefits of sustained investment and commitment to research and development of information infrastructure. Beginning with the early research in packet switching, the government, industry and academia have been partners in evolving and deploying this exciting new technology. //

In this paper,3 several of us involved in the development and evolution of the Internet share our views of its origins and history. This history revolves around four distinct aspects. There is the technological evolution that began with early research on packet switching and the ARPANET (and related technologies),

Cafeblue32
3 hours ago
Dear undecided voters,

If Democrats have to tack to the right and pretend to be conservative to get elected, why not just vote for the right to begin with and be done with it?

Hope this helps,
Sincerely,
The rest of of us. //

IdeClair
3 hours ago
Bernie Sanders summed it up : Dems are saying whatever it takes to get elected..but they don't mean it.. //

reddotbluestate
3 hours ago
Dems lie. Water is wet. The sun is hot.

The policies themselves are what you'd expect. Some of them are incoherent word salads that never lay out any actual mechanism for accomplishing the promises being made. Others are just typical far-left slop, including on issues like energy and healthcare. At the very least, the release countered the idea that Harris is now a moderate. //

Perhaps there's a reason for that. According to a new report, Harris didn't even author some of the policy positions presented. Instead, they were lifted from Joe Biden's old campaign website. //

Kamala Harris is an idea, not a tangible candidate. She's a left-wing caricature dreamed up by the likes of CNN and MSNBC. There's no "there, there." She's simply a screen for the most radical factions of the political realm to project their deepest desires on. The problem for Harris? Most voters aren't radicals. They just want straight talk about the positions they care about. //

Further, if she's copying her policy ideas from Joe Biden, it's kind of hard to claim to be the candidate of "change." This exposes her as a continuation of the last four years, and that's something many Americans aren't too keen on. //

flguy
5 hours ago
Plagiarizing Biden...talk about irony! //

RedinOR
5 hours ago
For all the stuff in the world I don't know, I definitely know where I stand on basic issues. If I were running for office - for the fifth or sixth time - I and my team would have taken at least an hour or two to put together some ideas to post about how we might deal with those problems. Or is this more difficult than I imagine it to be?

Just based on lack of preparation, lack of any demonstrated ability and lack of seriousness, QueMala is the most unqualified person to run for president. Maybe for any office, ever.

Fishin'withFredo RedinOR
5 hours ago
Well, when all of your success in life has been the result of being somebody's box check or sex toy, you're definitely not prepared for the real world stuff.

chaz Fishin'withFredo
4 hours ago
We could also point out that this was the only way for an aspiring political novice to navigate the misogyny and institutional racism of the democrat party (not sarcasm)

The critical element in thinking about Elon Musk is that, like any American, he has a right to his own opinion, and he has a right to express his opinion.

However, that right is not unlimited. He is under some special limitations that would not apply to normal people because his company, specifically Starlink and SpaceX are government contractors and, as such, he has obligations to the government that would, for any normal person, and should for him, require him to moderate his speech in the interest of national security.

You have somebody who runs really strategic defense and aerospace projects for the federal government who's actively undermining the government that's paying him. And somewhere in that is a legal case that needs to be prosecuted. //

Jonathan Turley:

McNamee’s rationale for criminalizing speech is chillingly shallow and irrational. He declared that somehow Musk’s political views made him a danger as the head of companies of major importance to the United States. It does not bother him when CEOs adopt far left views, just Musk opposing some of those views.

McNamee is using the government contracts with SpaceX as a reason to censor his political and social views. So, according to McNamee, if your company makes something that the government wants (including rescuing the currently stranded astronauts in space), he must give up his right to express political views, including against censorship.

McNamee embraces the power of the government to dictate viewpoints or at least silencing certain views as a matter of national security. It is no accident that the overriding objective is to “get Musk.” Musk has proven the single greatest barrier to the global anti-free speech movement. //

For global elite like McNamee, free speech is not just dispensable but distracting. Only fools would listen to these voices in trading away our indispensable right.

JY
18 hours ago
The purpose of the first amendment is to undermine the government. //

anon-mfdk
19 hours ago
So under his logic, every person in Congress would need to limit their speech because they are paid by the federal government.