The Supreme Court, Trump, Biden and the Election Explained

first_imgJustices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh said they would have granted a stay blocking the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. On the other side were Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and the court’s three-member liberal wing: Justices Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court on Oct. 27, did not take part in the decision not to fast-track the case. A court spokeswoman said Justice Barrett had not participated “because of the need for a prompt resolution” and “because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings.” Pennsylvania officials have instructed county election officials to segregate ballots arriving after 8 p.m. on Election Day through 5 p.m. three days later. That would as a practical matter allow a ruling from the Supreme Court to determine whether they were ultimately counted.Justice Alito’s statement in the Pennsylvania case echoed an earlier concurring opinion by Justice Kavanaugh in a voting case from Wisconsin. Justice Kavanaugh also said that state legislatures, rather than state courts, have the last word in setting state election procedures.Taken together, the Oct. 17 deadlock and statements from four justices suggest that Justice Barrett could cast the decisive vote if the Pennsylvania dispute holds the key to the election. Updated Nov. 4, 2020, 12:06 p.m. ET Late last month, the justices refused a plea from Republicans in the state to fast-track a decision on whether the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had acted lawfully.- Advertisement – The U.S. Supreme Court has not hesitated to block orders from federal judges that sought to alter state rules for conducting elections. Rulings from state courts present more difficult questions because the Supreme Court generally defers to them in cases concerning interpretations of state law, while the Constitution empowers state legislatures to set the times, places and manner of congressional elections.In a statement issued when the court refused to speed the Pennsylvania case, Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas and Gorsuch, criticized his court’s treatment of the matter, which he said had “needlessly created conditions that could lead to serious postelection problems.”“The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has issued a decree that squarely alters an important statutory provision enacted by the Pennsylvania legislature pursuant to its authority under the Constitution of the United States to make rules governing the conduct of elections for federal office,” he wrote, adding that he regretted that the election would be “conducted under a cloud.”“It would be highly desirable to issue a ruling on the constitutionality of the State Supreme Court’s decision before the election,” Justice Alito wrote. “That question has national importance, and there is a strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the federal Constitution.”But there was not enough time, he wrote. Still, Justice Alito left little doubt about where he stood on the question in the case. The court’s refusal to move more quickly came a little more than a week after it deadlocked, 4 to 4, on an emergency application in the case on Oct. 19. – Advertisement –center_img Should the vote in Pennsylvania have the potential to determine the outcome in the Electoral College and should those late-arriving ballots have the potential to swing the state — two big ifs — the U.S. Supreme Court might well intercede.The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has ordered a three-day extension for ballots clearly mailed on or before Election Day and for those with missing or illegible postmarks “unless a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that it was mailed after Election Day.” WASHINGTON — President Trump promised early Wednesday morning to ask the Supreme Court to intervene in the election. “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “We want all voting to stop.”The first statement was premature. The second did not make sense.- Advertisement – The Supreme Court decides actual disputes, not abstract propositions, and then only after lower courts have made their own rulings. While there have been countless election cases filed around the nation, it is not clear which of them might reach the court in the coming days.But one candidate is already on the court’s docket. Last month, the court refused to put a case from Pennsylvania on a fast track, but three justices indicated that the court might return to it later if need be.As far as voting is concerned, it stopped on Election Day. But some states allow votes cast by mail on or before Election Day to be counted if they are received up to several days afterward. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the state Supreme Court extended the deadline for receiving ballots from Election Day to three days later. “The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless,” he wrote, “if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election.” – Advertisement –last_img read more

Poyet furious with officials

first_img Press Association The Black Cats had a nightmare first half in their 1-0 defeat at the KC Stadium, with Carlos Cuellar scoring a decisive own-goal before Cattermole and Andrea Dossena both saw red just before the interval. Poyet accepted Dossena had to go for a dreadful stamp on David Meyler but felt the eighth red card of Cattermole’s career – for a studs up tackle on Ahmed Elmohamady – was a harsh one. His feeling of injustice was aggravated by the fact McShane was not penalised for his collision with Westwood, which left the Irishman groggy and unable to continue. Poyet accepted there was no malice in the challenge but gave a colourful account of the danger involved. Asked about the dismissals, he said: “Cattermole no, Dossena yes. “I would love the ref to talk. If I was a pundit working today – and I was during the summer when I was out of work – I would ask the technical people to show the tackle on Westwood that nearly cut his head off, the one on Adam Johnson (by Robbie Brady) and the one from Lee Cattermole and let the pundits comment on them. “They need to comment on all the tackles. I’m not accusing McShane at all: I think he played the ball and he was late but he nearly killed him and he is injured and he is out and I need to change my goalkeeper. “The tackle of Lee didn’t touch him (Elmohamady). He was still on the pitch and he was down for two minutes, there’s a little bit of a difference, “Maybe I’m from another planet, I don’t know.” Tigers boss Steve Bruce, who was facing former club Sunderland for the first time since his sacking in 2011, knows all about managing Cattermole’s feisty side. He coached the midfielder on Wearside and earlier at Wigan but felt his sending off this time was correct given current regulations. “Thankfully he’s not mine to manage anymore,” he said. “(But) we all know what I think of Lee as a player. One thing Lee’s got to curb is that red mist that comes down. We know you can’t make that challenge in today’s football, you just can’t make it. “He’s got to learn that and I’m sure he will…eventually. “In my day it might have been a booking but the directive is that if you leave the floor with studs showing, even if you don’t make contact, it is seen as reckless and endangering the the player. “The referee’s got that one right and the second one (by Dossena) is a horror challenge, let me tell you. “It was on David Meyler, who has had two serious injuries in his career, and he was lucky because those are the ones that really damage footballers. “I don’t know if you can get three red cards but he deserved them.” Bruce, who suggested before the match that his decision to take the Sunderland job in 2009 was a mistake due to his Newcastle roots, denied he took any undue pleasure from the result. “You all want the story, I understand that, but as far as I’m concerned it’s gone; history,” he said. “Let’s all move on with our lives, it was a long time ago. No matter who you managed, when you get one over an old team it’s always satisfying but that’s about it.” Sunderland boss Gus Poyet was furious at referee Andre Marriner’s decision to send off Lee Cattermole, while failing to punish Hull’s Paul McShane for a challenge that “could have killed” goalkeeper Keiren Westwood.last_img read more

NFL stars deliver a message to the league: Admit you silenced us wrongly

first_imgA handful of the NFL’s biggest stars collaborated to send a message to the league: Acknowledge racism, the oppression of black people and the “silencing” of players who’ve tried to peacefully protest both.In a Zoom video posted Thursday on Saints wide receiver Michael Thomas’ Twitter feed, players such as Thomas, Patrick Mahomes, Tyrann Mathieu, Ezekiel Elliott, Odell Beckham Jr., Jarvis Landry, Deshaun Watson, DeAndre Hopkins, Jamal Adams and Saquon Barkley took turns speaking. “A message on behalf of the nfl”— Michael Thomas (@Cantguardmike) June 5, 2020The script for the message, condensed to eliminate repetitions:”It’s been 10 days since George Floyd was brutally murdered. How many times do we need to ask you to listen to your players?””What will it take? For one of us to be murdered by police brutality? What if I was George Floyd?”I am George Floyd. I am Breonna Taylor. I am Ahmaud Arbery. I am Eric Garner. I am Laquan McDonald. I am Tamir Rice. I am Trayvon Martin. I am Walter Scott. I am Michael Brown Jr. I am Samuel Dubose. I am Frank Smart. I am Phillip White. I am Jordan Baker. “We will not be silenced. We assert our right to peacefully protest. It shouldn’t take this long to admit. “So, on behalf of the National Football League, this is what we, the players, would like to hear you state:”‘We, the National Football League, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people. We, the National Football League, admit wrong in silencing our players from peacefully protesting. We, the National Football League, believe black lives matter.'”MORE: ‘Enough is enough,’ Rodgers and other Packers say in videoThe full list of players who took part, according to The Athletic’s Matt Schneidman: Thomas, Mahomes, Mathieu, Elliott, Beckham, Landry, Watson, Hopkins, Adams, Barkley, Patrick Peterson, Eric Kendricks, Marshon Lattimore, Anthony Barr, Chase Young, Davante Adams, Stephon Gilmore and Sterling Shepard.   Thomas spent part of Thursday listening to Saints quarterback Drew Brees apologize to teammates for voicing his opinion that he could “never agree” with people not standing for the national anthem, without acknowledging the actual issue that former 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick was trying to address with his 2016 protest: police brutality against black people.In his apology, Brees said that his original comments “completely missed the mark,” and Thomas offered him forgiveness.”Let’s focus back on the real issues going on in the world,” Thomas wrote in a tweet. “And not get distracted.”last_img read more