Amy Coney Barrett

[TriDeltaSallie]

Originally Posted by What?

Sallie, I applaud your perspective and continued willingness to make well reasoned points that have proven unpopular on this forum.

I hope that I am proven wrong, but like Ronaldo, I do not share your optimism. I am terrified of the voter fraud that MSM sweeps under the rug.

I agree that voter fraud is a huge concern. Trump wins in a landslide for the reasons I've outlined (and several more points I've thought of since I published it). But, yes, there is an all-out effort to undermine the election.

A lot can happen in a month. That's why I said "as of today" I think he wins in a landslide. Something could change that and I would be the first to reassess my thinking and expectations.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by Ronaldo9

As an originalist I, of course, disagree slightly with this. I would like a 9-0 originalist court, frankly.

That said, I do agree with your position that one raw exercise of power invites the next. I would just note, however, that the Democratic Party would have the power to block and filibuster the ACB nomination right now except McConnell removed the filibuster on SCOTUS judges. He did that to make good on a promise he made to the Democrats that he would take that course of action if they used their 2011 Senate majority to remove the filibuster on Circuit and District court judges, which - despite the warning this would be the response - they did.

So, yes, we are seeing the raw exercise of power inviting the next, however, this process was set in motion - not this year - but in 2011 and by Harry Reid. In other words, were it not for an action taken by Harry Reid nine years ago, there would be no chance ACB will be confirmed the week after next as will happen.

Originally Posted by Sister Havana

Let’s remember why Reid and the Democrats changed the rules to remove the filibuster for all but Supreme Court nominations. It’s important to understand it in context. McConnell and the Republicans used the filibuster a then-unprecedented amount of times to block or stall pretty much all of Obama’s appointees. They filibustered appointees they all agreed were qualified, for no other reason than Obama was doing the appointing. They even filibustered Chuck Hagel’s nomination for Secretary of Defense - yes, that would be former Republican Senator Chuck Hagel.

The event that was really the tipping point for the rule change was when Obama nominated three judges to fill three vacant seats on the DC Circuit Court. Not only did Senate Republicans scream and yell about how Obama was court-packing (by filling existing vacancies!), but they even introduced legislation to remove those three seats from the DC Circuit so Obama could not appoint people to fill them. (It didn’t pass, obviously.) This was the climate in which the rule was changed. Harry Reid didn’t do it just for fun.

And if the filibuster hadn’t been removed during the Obama years, anyone who thinks Mitch McConnell wouldn’t have done it himself the first time Democrats tried to filibuster any of Trump’s nominees has not paid attention to Mitch McConnell.

Interestingly, I just saw this pop up tonight.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...es/3573369001/

[What?]

Originally Posted by TriDeltaSallie

I agree that voter fraud is a huge concern. Trump wins in a landslide for the reasons I've outlined (and several more points I've thought of since I published it). But, yes, there is an all-out effort to undermine the election.

A lot can happen in a month. That's why I said "as of today" I think he wins in a landslide. Something could change that and I would be the first to reassess my thinking and expectations.

Please don’t interpret my comment as any criticism of your analysis, I just worry that this rosy outlook for Trump will further galvanize the fraudsters as their brethren are facing no consequences.

Carnation, my mother-in-law has received multiple pieces of election mail for my dead (2018) father-in-law, aka her ex-husband, who had not lived at her current address since the early 2000s. This is not an anomaly as I have heard similar stories from multiple friends and family members.

[TriDeltaSallie]

Originally Posted by What?

Please don’t interpret my comment as any criticism of your analysis, I just worry that this rosy outlook for Trump will further galvanize the fraudsters as their brethren are facing no consequences.

I didn't view it as criticism at all. I'm simply laying things out as I see them. There is no way I can account for fraud. I can only deal with facts.

Facts that are harder to track include things like these.

How will the movement of people out of urban areas due to the pandemic, violence, job loss, and work-from-home impact voting in various areas across the country? Will these swing areas in a different direction enough to impact electoral votes?

There are 5 million new gun owners. It's probably safe to say a significant portion of them will vote for the candidate who supports the 2nd Amendment. But where do they live (blue versus red areas) and how will that impact outcomes with electoral votes?

Where do the Walk Away, Blexit, and moderate Democrats who have switched to supporting Trump live? Do they live in heavily red areas? Heavily blue areas? Will their switching impact electoral votes?

These are questions I haven't seen answered anywhere.

[Cheerio]

Originally Posted by What?

Carnation, my mother-in-law has received multiple pieces of election mail for my dead (2018) father-in-law, aka her ex-husband, who had not lived at her current address since the early 2000s. This is not an anomaly as I have heard similar stories from multiple friends and family members.

Receiving election mailings from candidates who have made the error of purchasing very old mailing lists happens at our home, too. Our county has, however, always been quickly up-to-date when it comes to removing deceased family members from county voting rolls. I have yet to receive one updated voter registration card or vote-by-mail reminder for the three people in our home, all legally registered voters prior to passing, who have died in the past two years.

[What?]

Originally Posted by Cheerio

Receiving election mailings from candidates who have made the error of purchasing very old mailing lists happens at our home, too. Our county has, however, always been quickly up-to-date when it comes to removing deceased family members from county voting rolls. I have yet to receive one updated voter registration card or vote-by-mail reminder for the three people in our home, all legally registered voters prior to passing, who have died in the past two years.

My previous attempt at a reply timed out, so here are the cliff notes so I can go to bed. My dead FIL does not just receive random political mailers. He, like at least 6 other individuals with whom I share/d close personal ties who have either moved or passed away well over 2 years ago, have received polling place cards and detailed instructions for voting by mail from our state DOE.

[33girl]

Sallie -

I read your blog post and would love to know which groups you think are farthest down the rabbit hole.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Sallie -

I read your blog post and would love to know which groups you think are farthest down the rabbit hole.

I also read it. And to answer your question: yours and mine.

[TriDeltaSallie]

Originally Posted by 33girl

Sallie -

I read your blog post and would love to know which groups you think are farthest down the rabbit hole.

I critiqued my own group and my own experience. I discussed Kappa Delta's situation because it happened on a public Facebook page and involved a national news story.

That's as much as I'm willing to discuss publicly. There is no additional value going beyond what I've already written.