posted
Here's how I see "things going down". This does not represent an endorsement of any candidate; just "soothsaying".
I think the "all clear" will sound about July 1. If they are to be believed, the Chinese are reporting fewer new Covid-19 cases as are the South Koreans. I only first learned of such during February and the widely reported fourteen day quarantine seems to be adequate.
I think the economy will recover fast. The reason is that most professionals with discretionary income are working, even if from home, and their demand for services, including travel, is "pent up". This of course means that furloughed service workers will be quickly recalled.
I think the Financial Markets will mirror the economic recovery, but in order to avoid inflation, interest rates had best rise (retirees whose portfolios comprise more fixed income securities than when working will like - something to remember on the way to the polls).
Now if this timeline holds, Trump will hold a "huge 4th" spectacle at taxpayer expense to celebrate the crisis' passing.
"Oh but we know it won't be partisan"
This of course followed with his throwing bread to the Proletariat touting his bold leadership, and how Joe would have been "snoring just like Herbert Hoover" (convenienly forgetting HCH was a Republican).
Trump will win re-election; not by an "oh so last century" landslide, but win.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if the nation's health and economy recover in late summer, you think people won't remember Trump's complete lack of leadership ability which may well have cost voters the lives of beloved friends and family members? Joe Biden may be a gaffe machine, but at least he would have been a better leader than what we've got now.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jerome, you must be getting all your info on Trump filtered though CNN and other major media. I feel the guy has done fairly good. Not perfect, but fairly good, particularly since there seems to be a relatively large contingent of politicians media and others who want to see Trump fail regardless of the cost to the nation. The idea of how Hillary would have handled this gives me nightmares. I do not see any of the potential Democratic candidates that would be of any benefit to the country.
Posts: 2813 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Mr. Harris, my (evangelical) Sister, and all the other Trump supporters out there, are making a serious mistake listening to him touting Easter as an "all clear" date.
Drs. Birz and Fauchi surely have, in their professional minds, "the Fourth".
Simply look at the parts of the World - the Far East, where the cases appear to have peaked; look at when there were first reports of such, and you're looking at a 90 day timeline.
That's "the Fourth", volks.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: I think the economy will recover fast. The reason is that most professionals with discretionary income are working, even if from home, and their demand for services, including travel, is "pent up". This of course means that furloughed service workers will be quickly recalled
It appears that I must "walk-back" this "optimistic soothsaying" on my part, for as this Journal article reports, layoffs are now hitting "white collar" positions that I thought were immune:
Fair Use:
The first people to lose their jobs worked at restaurants, malls, hotels and other places that closed to contain the coronavirus pandemic. Higher skilled work, which often didn’t require personal contact, seemed more secure.
That’s not how it’s turning out.
A second wave of job loss is hitting those who thought they were safe. Businesses that set up employees to work from home are laying them off as sales plummet. Corporate lawyers are seeing jobs dry up. Government workers are being furloughed as state and city budgets are squeezed. And health-care workers not involved in fighting the pandemic are suffering
Without doubt, this is the most ominous development I've learned regarding this downturn. I'm starting to think that the recovery from this "Covid Recession" (better name, anyone?) will resemble that of the "Great Recession" from which the recovery was believed to have begun during March '09, but was not complete until '19.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have some other thoughts, but for now I am just going to drop this one out. There are a lot of businesses and their employees that have decided that they can do quite a bit from home, provided the people involved have the integrity to do real work. Since I have worked most of my life in engineering, which is for the most part an office job I have seen that come about. Although I am essentially retired I have done a little work from home in the last months. In every case, except field work, as in visiting a site for inspection, it has all been from home with communication by telephone and email with a few exceptions where the meetings on the site involved more than one person and we sat outside eating and talking. There are quite a few people that are saying, "hey, this ain't bad, we could keep this up." I could see some offices having this as a practice for some days of the week, but I suspect there will be some felt need to see face to fact at regular intervals. There are even some of the admin people that I know to be working from home, including items relating to time and expenses.
Should this occur, it could a a notable difference in road and transit traffic and trade at such businesses as restaurants and shops in office areas. It could also result in an even greater drop in public transit usage, two reasons, fewer people going and people being unwilling to be in close proximity with unknowns.
I was in Taiwan during the SARS epidemic and saw how they handled it. Virtually everyone wore a mask. Virtually every building had someone at the door taking temperatures or an infrared sensor. Public transit traffic dropped by almost half. People who did not have to go to an office or site stayed home. Air traffic between Taipei and Hong Kong dropped about half and that was/is one of the heaviest traveled air corridors in the world. People who did not have to go out, did not go out. There near panic we are seeing here did not occur. There were a lot of seemingly small things done, but the massive closings did not occur. People simply took precautions when they did go out. Eventually the epidemic worked its way through or fizzled itself out, but we got past it, and things came to be back to normal. There is a general suspicion that this one also started in China, but that I do not say further.
Posts: 2813 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Where's The Greatest Generation and "pro bono publico" today? The willingness of people to sacrifice to get this COVID under control is totally lacking. People gather in large groups up close and without masks, kids and even young adults don’t know what the phrase “social distance” means. Then you get these “nutjobs” talking about their “rights”. Our civilized society is breaking down,
I’m so pessimistic with, at this posting, 93 days to go to the Election that I am fearing Trump will precipitate the greatest constitutional crisis we have faced. Should Joe prevail with pluralities in enough States to attain the needed 270 Electoral Votes, Trump will simply force the matter into the Federal Courts with challenges. He controls those; he’s packed them with loyalists. Sean and Tucker will be fanning the flames nightly.
The challenges will not be resolved by Jan 20, and I think we are looking at the Speaker of the House (presently and likely remaining so, Nancy Pelosi) being sworn in as the 46th (Acting) President.
Trump will have not won the Election, but with the Courts help, he will become the 47th President. The USA will be as much a dictatorship as is Russia, Turkey, and China.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
And we will go to our graves thinking about the the country we left our children.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have somewhat more hope that the election will stay out of the judiciary with Joe's selection of Kamala, She could be ready to go and be President on a moment's notice.
She could stand up to these tin horn dictators like Erdogen, Maduro, and even Vladimir, and will further mop up the debate floor with Pence. Trump will color himself lucky he doesn't have to debate her.
The Black vote will turn out this time - that such didn't in '16 cost Hillary Ohio. If Joe can flip PA and OH, and hold everything Hillary won in '16, he'll have 270. If that means he wins, I hope it's determined at the Ballot Box. Same applies should Trump prevail.
Joe made the best choice. I hope readers here agree.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even better if Biden wins AZ, FL. NC and even TX on top of WI. Biden needs to score a landslide, not just squeak out an elevator college victory to avoid your scenario. I would have preferred Harris for AG with Rice for VP because as a former prosecutor. she would go after Trump &co all out. But I'm sure they'll find someone suitable.. Now, after Biden and Harris' speech this afternoon, black women will come to the polls with their co workers, church members and salon buddies as they wouldn't have for Khlobuchar and didn't for Clinton. This puts OH and WI in play even more than before.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A very reasonable assessment, Mr. Nicholson.
Additionally, we must accept that the term "landslide" belongs to a past century, with Bill over Dole during '96 the last of such. I hold that there need be a 5% plurality in any state to avoid a challenge, so very safe assumption there will be. Fortunately, there is no meaningful Third Party to muddy things up this year (OK, Kanye West ).
There is simply no reason to disrupt your "body clock" this year, and I'm surprised the TV stations even plan to offer marathon coverage. Possibly, as Mr. Nicholson notes, that one ticket or the other will have sufficient Electoral Votes in states with greater than that 5% threshold I note, but then I also note, "landslide" is a historical term.
Let's remember that States have until Dec 20 to certify election results internally, and their delegation to the Electoral College.
Finally, I still hold 50-50 the 46th POTUS will be the the 117th Congress' Speaker of the House, as provided by the Constitution.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Continuing with my "doom and gloom" predictions with 82 DTG, I think should Joe and Kamala win in the College, and are able to take office on Jan 20, there will not be a "traditional" inauguration day. They will be sworn in at a "masked" ceremony no more elaborate than that of a VP filling an unexpired term (be such Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, TR, Truman, LBJ, or Ford, let the history books describe those surroundings). Should Trump (and his sidekick; uh, WAZZIZNAME) win, still a "subdued" affair.
Finally, should someone other than Trump be next sworn in as POTUS, he, first, will not formally concede, will not participate in the ceremony, and he will need be "escorted" from the White House to the helicopter assigned the SAM - Special Airlift Mission. As this occurs, there will be demonstrations in Lafayette Park by two opposite factions that hopefully, but not likely, will be peaceful.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point I expect Trump to win with sufficient certainty that the Democrats will not spend the next four years playing "Calvinball" like they have the last four. The he won't willingly cede if he loses is more the way Hillary and cohorts have acted the last four years. Should he lose I think he will leave with much more grace than Hillary failed to acknowledge her loss. By now I have had it to my eyeballs with how twisted our normal press has become, and am well on the way to saying these professional rioters should simply be shot and be done with them.
Posts: 2813 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, I pray I'm mistaken; and that the Election will be sufficiently decisive so that when the College convenes, we will follow our 245 year tradition of a peaceful transition, or continuation, of power.
We both have worn the uniform of our country. We both took the oath to uphold that tradition.
I know we both want that.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Biden wins, I think the inauguration will take place inside the Capitol Building. No parade, no inaugural ball. Split screen with Trump being walked/ carried/ frog marched/dragged out of the White House. The inaugural address will be virtual, with Biden signing dozens of executive orders as the House and New Senate enact dozens of new laws simultaneously with increased$ for corona virus/ depression victims.Meanwhile, the remaining Republicans will say they have a better solution which they never put forward when they were in power.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
....and then go vote....for the candidates of your choice, but VOTE
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
As for myself, I'm going to bed at my usual 9P CT Nov 3, after having watched a movie. I'll "take a double" of my over the counter sleep aid, put the longest Mahler in the Player (8th; pretty sure), awake in the morning, and see where it all stands.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's what I did in 2016. Didn't help because my sister called in the wee small hours to tell me Trump won.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It matters not who you are for, this Opinion piece appearing in The New York Times is worthy of your attention.
Fair Use:
This is not a column about a case that’s pending at the Supreme Court — yet.
It’s about the nightmare scenarios surrounding the presidential election and its aftermath that could conceivably propel a case there. Such scenarios are being contemplated and written about with increasing urgency as President Trump ramps up his predictions of voter fraud, setting the stage for challenging the legitimacy of an election that he appears, at this point at least, likely to lose
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Biden wins, Trump will not concede however big the margin. But a big enough margin would have a better chance of surviving a court challenge.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I plan to vote on Nov 3rd at the polls. Of course I'll be masked (somewhere, but not in my precinct, somebody will try to vote unmasked; making a big "fruck" about "their rights") and go about 10AM.
I'm sure mail balloting is perfectly secure, but after voting early during '16, I said "never again". There was "just something missing"; emotional yes.
This could be my final Presidential Election, and I just want the "feel" of elections past. It will be hard enough not to "stay up", but "placing my bets" nothing will be decided, why disrupt my "hard to reset" body clock?
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, while I had a "pretty high bar" for concession speeches set when I watched Stevenson during '52 (11 yo), I do agree with you, Hillary "could have handled things better".
While I discount the reports circulated within "alternate media" that Hillary was "drunk as a skunk" and Bill told the Secret Service "you deal with her; I can't", she owed her supporters more than her "next Morning on the QT" appearance.
An "awful lot of people" worked "awful hard" without pay (I know several) for her, Hillary could have come out and conceeded in front at the same time she reportedly texted Trump.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
In this video clip taken from "The Circus" S5 Ep13 airing on Showtime, foresees the civil unrest that will occur should Nancy Pelosi, or whoever is 117th Congress' Speaker, is sworn in as the 46th POTUS. It's not so much lack of qualifications, but rather our 231 year history of peaceful transition of power will have been broken.
"Let us pray..."
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
An even more fearful specter has appeared. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. Mitch McConnell, who denied President Obama a replacement for Antonin Scales in February 2016 on the argument that it was an election year, now says he will this vacancy in this election year. This is going to be BRUTAL!
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Even if RBG had hung on until January 3, the Senate would still have to "flip" - and there is a greater chance of Joe winning than that occurring. If somehow Joe is to win, I'm sure any SCOTUS nominee of his, qualifications notwithstanding, would have a "rough ride" ending with Mitch selecting the nominee and a "Mr. President, here is who will be seated".
Oh well, so much for 231 years of Separation of Powers.
All told, I think that RBG's passing has delivered Reelection to Trump. I have sensed that from the moment I opened this topic. Obviously, Trump knew RBG was in worse shape than was being let on. He certainly had "need to know" and accordingly he publicly announced he had his conservative "list" ready to go. Now, he is in the "driver's seat" to decide to nominate pre or post election. If he senses that the Senate could "flip" (unlikely), he will appoint now with a hurry up and vote now agenda. If he senses the Senate is "safe", then why not drag it out? Get those conservatives like the Evangelicals who just might have had enough of his amoral behavior, corrupt staff, and a ranking by the Wiki Notable Scholars" that he ranks 42nd of 44 (Buchannan and Andrew Johnson below), to be sure to come out to the polls to ensure his reelection.
Time for Kubler-Ross Phase 5 and accept there will be "four more years" of Trump.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had expected RBG to resign somewhere in the middle of Obama's second term. After all, she would have been 80, and it would give Obama the opportunity to put up a judge more in line with RBG's positions. Maybe she expected to outlast Trump's first term and that the Democrat, whoever it may have been, to be the one to appoint her successor?
As to Trump's crudeness in personality and past, for most of the Evangelicals and conservatives, Trump's positions on most things and his determination to action rather than just talk, put him far ahead of Biden regardless of what sort of personality he can present. As many have said, we are electing a president, not a pastor.
Posts: 2813 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, I think that with the Dems having lost the Senate after the '14 midterms, RBG decided it was time for a "hang in there girl". Bearing that out was what happened with the Garland appointment, and all told so long as there is a Senate Majority Leader as ruthless as Mitch, the Constitution will be abrogated in favor of that Leader.
I think RBG was quite confident that whoever the Democrats nominated, Bernie and Liz included (just because I would have voted for Trump before either of those two matters not), would defeat Trump. I have to wonder that, as she saw Joe sink in the polls to the point that the election will likely be contested (ref: clip at post #22), she just "gave up and checked out".
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With now 39 DTG, and the chanting "short" ringing in the air, I've become convinced the momentum has swung to Trump.
That he will appoint and the Senate will confirm, a new SCOTUS Justice seated by Election Day, essentially assures should any contest reach the Judiciary (and several will; Trump will see to that), it will be decided in Trump's favor.
Further, Trump's statement he will not participate in an orderly transition, will be enough to scare some into voting for Trump. "Hey, no government I don't get my checks; better vote for him".
Also, the "bread for the Proletariat" will be thrown about. Case in point; the $200 prescription gift cards, which he appears to be empowered to initiate on his own.
But, even if not yet reflected in the Polls, the momentum is Trump's. He is a Showman, a Carnival Barker, and Joe is simply a weak and plodding candidate. That Joe holds qualifications beyond those of Trump matters not compared with the ballyhoo a showman brings. While, considering the absentee voting, including mine, will mean no point staying up, the Election will be decided by the results - close but decisive.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Norman: I have trouble seeing Biden's qualifications. Yes, he has spent a long time in public office, and apparently has good academic qualifications, but, what has he done? I see very little that says this guy is able to handle the job of president. If he is sitting down with some less than friendly head of a foreign state without teleprompter of puppeteer, what will he do? I don't think he could handle it. Even if I did not consider Trump having performed well as president and could find myself in agreement with more of Biden's positions than I do, I would still vote for Trump as "least bad" which is why I voted for him in 2016.
I think Trump has shown himself to be a doer, not a talker, and much of what he has done I consider to be the right moves. In fact, I think he would come across better if he did less talking. But then there is a near irrational hatred for the man in much of the news media, so not sure it would matter.
As to him benefitting financially from the office, if anything, he has lost financially. The one who has benefitted is Biden, or at least his son.
Posts: 2813 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
While I realize, and respect, that some here active at this Forum, will be quick to note that the linked source is biased, it is one of the two sources from which I draw my news and formulate my opinions.
I watched some fifteen minutes of the Debate, turned it off, read papers for about forty five minutes, then listened on the radio. I fell asleep before it ended.
Even if the annoying and childish behavior of the Party debates, such as the cheering that created an atmosphere of "Ellen" or "AGT", was absent, there was still enough of such to go around.
There was nothing presented by either that could assist an undecided voter, if in fact there are any of those at this point in the cycle (34 DTG).
Even though The Times journalists interviewed hold that Joe won the debate, I think that Trump did. He is more the skilled showman, and as we found out during '16, that does more to win Elections than the superlative command of the facts and issues Hillary showed throughout that cycle.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good grief, talk about a campaign being upended!!!!!!
Will the undecided voters surmise that Trump is physically unfit and go with Joe, or will they deliver a "sympathy vote" to Trump?
"The Circus" - a TV show on Showtime that summarizes the campaign events of the week really did not have time to address Trump's illness (same with RBG's passing two weeks earlier) this past episode. It appears to "deadline" Friday to air on Sunday. It will be "sport" to see what they say next Sunday, along with reporting on Mike and Kammy.
Wasn't '16's Comey torpedoing Hillary, and Trump with his "grab 'em by", enough of October surprises to last a lifetime? Apparently not.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
With 26 DTG; VP Debate, I give it to Kammy.
Both were reasonably civil to one another, but Pence often ran over his alloted time. Kammy showed that she respects two minutes means two minutes.
But what really counts is that both showed they could "be ready to take over" - something that should weigh on all voters considering on one side there is a 74yo who has contracted COVID and has been "less than full disclosure" on his recovery from such. On the other, a 77yo who has shown some traits of dementia.
But who gets the highest marks from me was the Moderator. She is not a broadcast journalist, but she clearly showed who was wearing the badge.
Finally, let me note, I chose to vote by mail this past Tuesday. I feel "something missing"; I will not be answering "my call to duty" on the appointed day. But given my age and vulnerability to COVID, I thought the course I took was best.
But at least I did it on a Tuesday.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Must say that enthusiasm for Trump still remains at an all-time high, especially if the yard sign ratio holds. Never seen as many political yard signs in my life as during this year, in addition.
Have to disagree that Harris won the VP debate. Pence paraphrasing Moynihan put things to bed, there. Reminded me a bit of the Bush-Ferraro debate. And I confess to being troubled about how Harris got into politics in the first place, never mind her past record therein and her Senate voting record that has been analyzed as being even further left than that of Bernie Sanders.
PS. The NYT is beyond “biased”. Their hiring of overt racists/bigots, hosting of the so-called 1619 Project and other things, makes them worse than even their Duranty era.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pleased to note your return to this site, Mr. Helfner. Having no knowledge of where you reside nowadays, yard signs are definitely as "grass root" as political sentiment can be. Somewhere within my affluent community, there are Trump supporters. I do see yard signs for the IL 6 CD Republican "neck and neck" challenger (seat historically R - until it "flipped" during '18), and one household, displaying such from a 2nd floor window, sign for Trump.
I voted absentee by mail Oct 5. I can only have confidence that there will be sufficient time from my ballot's receipt to be properly counted. I wish there was another way to verify, such as Photo ID, that who casts is registered. This 79yo's signature has changed with time.
I feel a sense of loss in that I am not answering a "call to my solemn duty" by getting to the polls half mile away (Park District HQ; schools kicked Elections out account security) on the appointed Tuesday. Further, as I noted earlier, I will be "Blacked out" 6PM CT onward Election Night because nothing will be decided. I'll watch a movie ("The Candidate" starring Robert Redford would be a good choice; some movie channel will offer it), then put the longest Mahler (8th I think) in the player, and go to sleep (often difficult for us elderly). 7AM CT Nov 4, I'll see where things stand.
I noted this prediction earlier, but if NBC still has their Rockefeller Center map, here's how I think it will look at that 7A. Trust Lester, Chuck, and Andrea (and Tom?) will have gone to bed themselves.
posted
I just looked at your link,Mr. Norman, and I think all those brown states will be blue when all the votes are counted. Except Nebraska, (except for Omaha). And look for North Carolina and Iowa to surprise you. In your previous posting, you called Trump a "skilled showman", but most people now see that as a national leader, as a leader of the free world, as someone who can manage a crisis, he has been found wanting.
Posts: 511 | From: Richmond VA USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Within such, it notes that both AZ and FL can process absentees upon receipt. Allow me to add, if Joe flips those two States and holds everything else Hillary won in '16, Joe will have 278 votes.
If that be the case, will he be inaugurated Jan 20? Well, that's the $64,000.00 question.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I cannot say how the rest of the country feels, but the more I see of Joe, and Kamala, the more I hope and pray they fall far short on November 3 and quietly fades away into the sunset on January 20 with the rest of the rioters and troublemakers doing likewise.
Posts: 2813 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. Harris, I think we are both together in that whoever is to win, it is decided at the Ballot Box, and not by the Judiciary, for that would be a "recipe for riots".
Sometimes I wonder if our Republic is the better for having had Marbury (an aggrieved lawyer who wanted to be a "JP") v. Madison (Jefferson's Secretary of State) adjudicated as it was. For, had that landmark decision, from which the Judiciary became empowered to say "it's Unconstitutional", as they did in Gore v. Bush, this "upcoming little matter in 17 days" would be decided by the Ballot Box - period.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If not for Marbury, what would the alternate method for deeming certain laws to have violated the Constitution be?
Also, I see no connection between Marbury and judicial activism, to wit legislating from the bench; arguably, judicial activism led to the Civil War. Where do state supreme courts get their authority (if so) for judicial review from, in addition?
This also begs the question as to the constitutionality of recent developments such as early voting and the security of mail-in voting against things such as vote-buying. Who gets to review such things, and prosecute if malfeasance happens?
Jefferson saw plenty of flaws of course in the fact that the federal SCOTUS had provided for justices with lifetime appointments, deeming that it made “the Constitution … a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into whatever form they please” and also that “whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also”. The implication is that while checks and balances are established between legislature and executive, those between each and both of those branches and the judiciary are merely implied.
Posts: 576 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by irishchieftain: If not for Marbury, what would the alternate method for deeming certain laws to have violated the Constitution be.
Enacted legislation; the same way "bad laws" got on the books. To my kmowledge, I don't think The Fathers had in mind for the Judiciary to be empowered to overturn enacted legislation. For had that been the the case, the Constitution would have had language within Article III delineating judicial review.
The Adams-Jefferson election was sort of the Trump-Joe/Hillary of its day. Incoming Jefferson wanted to discredit his predecessor by nullifying a "two bit" appointment by outgoing Adams on a technicality. There weren't too many Lower Courts back then, and I'm not lawyer enough to understand the reasoning behind the Decision, for only HS US History, college Business Law, and Mr. Google, comprise my knowledge of such.
Posts: 10010 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
