Sooooo.... Texas?

[Jockey]

Instead of some dopey hypothetical situation, why don't you worry about the actual fraud that the previous president committed for months leading up to the election and then septupled-down on after the election?

69 absolutely cannot prove that trump won. Hence, you have your proof that he did win.

Can't you even grasp that simple concept? Duh!!!

[21Jumpstreet]

I always find the debate over mail in ballots fascinating. I can understand why someone would not trust the process, when you put that ballot into the mailbox you are giving up some control. Not to say we don't give up control on a lot of things, but I can understand someone being uncomfortable.

What I don't understand is if someone is uncomfortable with mail-in ballots, why not shout for easier in-person processes? Why not shout for things like expanded polling locations, multiple days, federal holiday, whatever.

Can't have it both ways?

[Jockey]

I always find the debate over mail in ballots fascinating. I can understand why someone would not trust the process, when you put that ballot into the mailbox you are giving up some control. Not to say we don't give up control on a lot of things, but I can understand someone being uncomfortable.

What I don't understand is if someone is uncomfortable with mail-in ballots, why not shout for easier in-person processes? Why not shout for things like expanded polling locations, multiple days, federal holiday, whatever.

Can't have it both ways?

Except it is not about fraud, or the process, or dishonesty. It is simply the rallying cry for those who want to keep certain types of people from voting.

They are not looking for fairness in elections. They just want to 'fix' the results - just as they are doing with the fraudulent audits in Arizona, Wisconsin and other places.

[Billy Hoyle]

I'm not really objecting to anything, just pointing out that it never had a chance and was a big waste of money.
But yeah, I think the Walker recall was dumb as well.
Do you find these to be worthy uses of government resources and taxpayer money?

recalls are a joke. We're dealing with a recall attempt on our Mayor out here, coordinated by the campaign of the candidate who lost in November. It was announced two weeks after the election. There is a recall process, it's called the next election. Our mayor is a spineless idiot who has caved to the extreme leftist terrorist (even moving when his condo building was set on fire) but he still won so the Mao and Stalin loving and let the homeless live wherever they want losing candidate needs to just go away until 2024.

Unless there's a crime committed while in office and the politician does not resign then recalls should either not be allowed or the threshold needs to be significantly higher for it to happen.

[21Jumpstreet]

Except it is not about fraud, or the process, or dishonesty. It is simply the rallying cry for those who want to keep certain types of people from voting.

They are not looking for fairness in elections. They just want to 'fix' the results - just as they are doing with the fraudulent audits in Arizona, Wisconsin and other places.

Precisely. I was looking to keep the triggers and tired rhetoric out of the comment.

[tower912]

I am against recalls except in cases of crime or fraud.

[MU82]

I am against recalls except in cases of crime or fraud.

Maybe ... except "fraud" is now routinely claimed, usually without proof.

I mean, tens of millions of Americans would say Biden should be recalled because of "fraud."

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

No doubt you objected to the cost of the Walker recall too, then?

I'm against recalls of any kind. 
The recall is the next election whether you decide to re-elect the person or not.
It may suck you have to wait a full 4 years but that's the process & system we use.

[Jockey]

I'm against recalls of any kind. 
The recall is the next election whether you decide to re-elect the person or not.
It may suck you have to wait a full 4 years but that's the process & system we use.

Completely agree.

If a crime is committed in office, let the courts handle it.

[Pakuni]

I'm against recalls of any kind. 
The recall is the next election whether you decide to re-elect the person or not.
It may suck you have to wait a full 4 years but that's the process & system we use.

Right.
And if the elected official commits a crime or is somehow deemed unfit for office, there are remedies for that that don't require a statewide election.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

No doubt you objected to the cost of the Walker recall too, then?

I see these types questions a lot from people on the right. It's amusing to me because usually the answer is, "yes, I'm opposed to it even when it doesn't benefit the left." When it goes in the opposite direction, it seems like the question is usually ignored.

[naginiF]

I see these types questions a lot from people on the right. It's amusing to me because usually the answer is, "yes, I'm opposed to it even when it doesn't benefit the left." When it goes in the opposite direction, it seems like the question is usually ignored.

See also: sexual harassment/misconduct

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

See also: sexual harassment/misconduct

Oh I was including that. All whataboutism. There are certainly exceptions, but my usual experience is that when someone on left responds to whataboutism, it's usually with "yes, that's bad too but we're talking about this now."

[brewcity77]

Is the stunt in Florida where the R recruited a shlub with a name just like the D candidate in order to siphon votes considered fraud?

I've been trying to get my buddy Sean Duffy to move up north and run for retired congressman Sean Duffey's seat for the past couple years.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Distinguished_Gentleman

[MU82]

Well, this could get interesting ...

Texas doctor says he violated nation's most restrictive antiabortion law to challenge it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-abortion-doctor-tests-restrictive-law/2021/09/18/f5b48862-18a0-11ec-9589-31ac3173c2e5_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34b95c9%2F61475a989d2fda9d41d6ac89%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F10%2F74%2F61475a989d2fda9d41d6ac89

A Texas doctor stepped forward Saturday to say he had performed an abortion that is illegal under the state's restrictive new law to force a test of its legality.

"I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly," Alan Braid, a San Antonio OB/GYN, said in an op-ed in The Washington Post. "I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces. I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. . . . I can't just sit back and watch us return to 1972."

Braid said he performed a first-trimester abortion on Sept. 6, just a few days after the law known as Senate Bill 8 went into effect in Texas, making nearly all abortions illegal after a woman is about six weeks pregnant ­— with no exceptions for incest or rape. The doctor said he acted because he had "a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients."

[#UnleashSean]

Well, this could get interesting ...

Texas doctor says he violated nation's most restrictive antiabortion law to challenge it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-abortion-doctor-tests-restrictive-law/2021/09/18/f5b48862-18a0-11ec-9589-31ac3173c2e5_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34b95c9%2F61475a989d2fda9d41d6ac89%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F10%2F74%2F61475a989d2fda9d41d6ac89

A Texas doctor stepped forward Saturday to say he had performed an abortion that is illegal under the state's restrictive new law to force a test of its legality.

"I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly," Alan Braid, a San Antonio OB/GYN, said in an op-ed in The Washington Post. "I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces. I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. . . . I can't just sit back and watch us return to 1972."

Braid said he performed a first-trimester abortion on Sept. 6, just a few days after the law known as Senate Bill 8 went into effect in Texas, making nearly all abortions illegal after a woman is about six weeks pregnant ­— with no exceptions for incest or rape. The doctor said he acted because he had "a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients."

A lot like the school teacher teaching evolution when it was banned eh?

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Well, this could get interesting ...

Texas doctor says he violated nation's most restrictive antiabortion law to challenge it

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/texas-abortion-doctor-tests-restrictive-law/2021/09/18/f5b48862-18a0-11ec-9589-31ac3173c2e5_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34b95c9%2F61475a989d2fda9d41d6ac89%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F10%2F74%2F61475a989d2fda9d41d6ac89

A Texas doctor stepped forward Saturday to say he had performed an abortion that is illegal under the state's restrictive new law to force a test of its legality.

"I understand that by providing an abortion beyond the new legal limit, I am taking a personal risk, but it's something I believe in strongly," Alan Braid, a San Antonio OB/GYN, said in an op-ed in The Washington Post. "I have daughters, granddaughters and nieces. I believe abortion is an essential part of health care. . . . I can't just sit back and watch us return to 1972."

Braid said he performed a first-trimester abortion on Sept. 6, just a few days after the law known as Senate Bill 8 went into effect in Texas, making nearly all abortions illegal after a woman is about six weeks pregnant ­— with no exceptions for incest or rape. The doctor said he acted because he had "a duty of care to this patient, as I do for all patients."

Does he get $10,000 for turning himself in?

[Galway Eagle]

Does he get $10,000 for turning himself in?

Hahaha I hope so

[Warriors4ever]

Doesnt he have to sue himself?

[MU82]

Broad majorities of Americans oppose key provisions of restrictive Texas abortion law, poll finds

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/poll-texas-abortion-law/2021/09/20/fbbd3968-1a0b-11ec-8380-5fbadbc43ef8_story.html?utm_campaign=wp_post_most&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&wpisrc=nl_most&carta-url=https%3A%2F%2Fs2.washingtonpost.com%2Fcar-ln-tr%2F34bb877%2F6148b2909d2fda9d41d91db4%2F5f8d147cae7e8a56e5b732a4%2F29%2F74%2F6148b2909d2fda9d41d91db4

Broad majorities of Americans oppose key provisions of a restrictive Texas abortion law, and a majority disagrees with the recent Supreme Court decision that allowed the law, which effectively bans abortions after six weeks, to go into effect, a new poll finds.

The new law takes a novel approach, relying on private citizens to sue people who help women get forbidden abortions, effectively eliminating the guarantee in Roe v. Wade and subsequent Supreme Court decisions that women have a right to end their pregnancies before viability and that states may not impose undue burdens on that decision.

In the Monmouth University poll, 70 percent of Americans say they disapprove of "allowing private citizens to use lawsuits to enforce this law rather than having government prosecutors handle these cases."

Meanwhile, 81 percent say they disapprove of giving $10,000 to "private citizens who successfully file suits against those who perform or assist a woman with getting an abortion."

The poll also finds that 54 percent of Americans disagree with the Supreme Court's decision to let the law stand while the legal battle over it continues.

[brewcity77]

There are definitely some slippery slopes with all this. How long until a blue state passes a firearm ban with a citizen enforcement mechanism?

Similarly, if there's no duty of the state to protect an individual's bodily autonomy, then there's no argument against a broad vaccine mandate.

Feels like a lot of legal conundrums being created.

[forgetful]

There are definitely some slippery slopes with all this. How long until a blue state passes a firearm ban with a citizen enforcement mechanism?

Similarly, if there's no duty of the state to protect an individual's bodily autonomy, then there's no argument against a broad vaccine mandate.

Feels like a lot of legal conundrums being created.

How about a vaccine mandate, where if an unvaccinated person is COVID positive and leaves their domicile, they can be sued for a minimum of $10k by anyone.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

There are definitely some slippery slopes with all this. How long until a blue state passes a firearm ban with a citizen enforcement mechanism?

Perhaps if the Supreme Court wasn't dominated by partisan hacks, but they will strike down guns bans in an instant.

[Lighthouse 84]

Perhaps if the Supreme Court wasn't dominated by partisan hacks, but they will strike down guns bans in an instant.

A Justice who rules on the law, whether he or she agrees with the law or not, does not equal a "partisan hack".  It's not the obligation of SCOTUS to rule on how he or she personally wants the decision to be.   As Scalia said, "The judge who always likes the results he reaches is a bad judge."