Jump to content

Trump enraged as Biden announces: "I will name my first cabinet picks on Tuesday."


drvoke
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

 Real Estate Donors Favoring Biden Over Trump

 

 

Trump wails:

"Why is Joe Biden so quickly forming a Cabinet when my investigators have found hundreds of thousands of fraudulent votes, enough to “flip” at least four States, which in turn is more than enough to win the Election? Hopefully the Courts and/or Legislatures will have the COURAGE to do what has to be done to maintain the integrity of our Elections, and the United States of America itself. THE WORLD IS WATCHING!!!"

 

 

Time to move along. Nothing to see here, folks.

 

 

Biden’s First Cabinet Picks on Tuesday, Incoming Chief Says

Biden’s First Cabinet Picks on Tuesday, Incoming Chief Says - Bloomberg

(Full article at above link)

 

President-elect Joe Biden plans to announce his first cabinet picks on Tuesday, incoming White House chief of staff Ron Klain said Sunday.

 Biden has said that he’d already decided on a Treasury secretary. “You’ll find it is someone who I think is, will be accepted by all elements of the Democratic Party, from the progressive to the moderate coalitions,” he told reporters Thursday.

Former Federal Reserve Chair Janet Yellen’s stock has risen in recent days and she appears to be Biden’s likely choice to lead the Treasury Department, becoming the first woman to hold that post.

Fed Governor Lael Brainard had been widely seen as the favorite to get the job, but has had almost no contact with the Biden transition team since Election Day, according to people familiar with the matter. Roger Ferguson, a former Fed vice chair and the current chief executive of TIAA-CREF, was also in the running for treasury chief.

Biden’s top campaign adviser on foreign policy, Tony Blinken, a former deputy secretary of state, is well-positioned to be the president-elect’s pick to lead the State Department. Former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and Delaware Senator Chris Coons were also under consideration.

Pandemic Relief

Michele Flournoy, a former under secretary of defense for policy, is the current favorite to lead the Pentagon. If confirmed by the Senate, Flournoy would be the first woman to hold the job.

While Klain said Biden is moving quickly to move the transition forward, the Trump administration’s refusal to start the formal process is slowing efforts on everything from planning for distribution of coronavirus vaccines, to getting background checks for Biden’s picks.

He called Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s decision last week to withdraw pandemic relief funding from the Federal Reserve “a shame,” and said it “obviously raises the challenges we’re going to face.”

And Klain said two priorities -- an unemployment extension and an extension of a federal eviction moratorium -- can’t wait for Biden to take office.

“They have to be fixed right now,” he said.

Klain said President Donald Trump, meanwhile, was “rejecting democracy” by seeking to overturn the election via state legislatures, and cited Senate Republicans, including Mitt Romney and Pat Toomey, saying the move would fail.

Klain also said that the inauguration of Biden in January would be scaled back from previous versions due to the pandemic, while trying to maintain some traditions.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, drvoke said:

 

Time to move along. Nothing to see here, folks.

 

 

 

Can you please provide a link to where you posted these same words, in Nov 2000, when The Dem Party's own Al Gore spent 37days challenging the election he lost to Bush43? You know, considering President Trump is now only in his, 13th day, of challenging the election since your MSM called it for Biden.

 

If not?

 

Then you have just proved that President Trump, is correct.  You are a fake fucc, for months, refusing to report the facts and the truth when it comes to President Trump. Like now, you say there is nothing to see here, which means you are a lunatic who also has spit upon hundreds of affidavits (court-approved evidence) that verify election fraud in Democrat cities.  And worst of all, you spit upon Trump exercising his rights at the SCOTUS:

 

The Supreme Court is locked and loaded to give the GOP a boost in the election

80600f48-c5c8-43d8-b2fb-80eb5b5721f2.png&w=55&h=55
Opinion by 
Paul Waldman
Columnist


The 2020 election could well end in the Supreme Court when the challenges to election procedures and results brought by the Trump campaign and the Republican Party reach their final conclusion.
Of course, Joe Biden may win by a wide enough margin that the Republican lawsuits won’t be able to turn the election in President Trump’s favor even if they successfully toss out a few thousand votes here and there.

But those lawsuits — every one seeking to restrict who can vote, make votes more difficult to cast and keep states from counting as many votes as possible — are already coming. They will continue after Election Day.
And the Supreme Court just showed us that it will probably be there to put a thumb on the scale for the GOP.

That’s not all. The legal ideas now being formulated could shape our elections long past this November. On Monday, the court turned back a lawsuit by Pennsylvania Republicans challenging a ruling by the state’s Supreme Court, which said that election officials must accept mail ballots received up to three days after Election Day. The justices did not explain why they declined to hear the case.
But they did say that four of them — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — would have granted a stay. Because there was a 4-4 tie, Pennsylvania Democrats prevailed, and the votes can be counted.

But if and when Republicans confirm Amy Coney Barrett, there will be no more 4-4 ties. And the fact that the court’s four most conservative justices may have been inclined to rule with Pennsylvania Republicans suggests that they are embracing a radical reimagining of the court’s role in determining voting laws for every state in the country — one that could help Republicans maintain minority rule even as they lose support among the American public.

To understand why, we have to know a bit about how election law works. The Constitution does not include a right to vote, but 49 of the 50 state constitutions do. (Arizona’s is the exception.) What it does say is that state legislatures determine the manner of appointing presidential electors (almost all states do so by statewide popular vote) and determine the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections.

The key question here is whether, when the Constitution mentions state legislatures, it should be understood as referring only to the institution of the legislature itself, or to a state’s whole lawmaking process.
If it means only the legislature itself, the Supreme Court could potentially use that interpretation to invalidate whatever a state constitution says about voting, strike down the power of a governor to veto voting regulations passed by the legislature or nullify ballot initiatives on voting passed by the voters themselves.

The Pennsylvania GOP argued essentially that because the U.S. Constitution says that the legislature determines voting laws for federal elections, a state supreme court has no right to weigh in, even when it’s ruling on how state law or the state constitution applies.

In this case, it would mean that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can’t be the judge of what the Pennsylvania state Constitution says when it comes to federal elections, because the state legislature’s power is almost absolute.

“I think there’s good reason to believe, and the 4-4 vote here confirms that,” Richard Pildes of New York University Law School told me, that soon there could be “a majority on the court that would endorse what’s called the ‘independent legislature’ doctrine.”

And this conservative Supreme Court majority — which is about to get even more conservative — has almos never met a voting restriction it didn’t like. Sweeping voter purges, discriminatory ID requirements, partisan gerrymandering — whatever Republican legislatures have come up with, this court has looked kindly on.

Among other things, in the future it could strike down independent redistricting commissions, which are now used in numerous states (California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan) to draw congressional district lines, because it’s not the “legislature” determining them.
In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s commission, which was created by voter initiative. But the vote was 5-4, with Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberals. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, Kennedy was later replaced by Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett is soon to join the court.

If they lean on a strict interpretation of the word “legislature,” the Supreme Court could rule that, for instance, voters couldn’t pass an initiative changing rules for congressional primaries. Given the conservatism of the court, it’s not hard to imagine them ruling for Republicans in case after case...

 

The Supreme Court is locked and loaded to give the GOP a boost in the election

80600f48-c5c8-43d8-b2fb-80eb5b5721f2.png&w=55&h=55
Opinion by 
Paul Waldman
Columnist


The 2020 election could well end in the Supreme Court when the challenges to election procedures and results brought by the Trump campaign and the Republican Party reach their final conclusion.
Of course, Joe Biden may win by a wide enough margin that the Republican lawsuits won’t be able to turn the election in President Trump’s favor even if they successfully toss out a few thousand votes here and there.

But those lawsuits — every one seeking to restrict who can vote, make votes more difficult to cast and keep states from counting as many votes as possible — are already coming. They will continue after Election Day.
And the Supreme Court just showed us that it will probably be there to put a thumb on the scale for the GOP.

That’s not all. The legal ideas now being formulated could shape our elections long past this November. On Monday, the court turned back a lawsuit by Pennsylvania Republicans challenging a ruling by the state’s Supreme Court, which said that election officials must accept mail ballots received up to three days after Election Day. The justices did not explain why they declined to hear the case.
But they did say that four of them — Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh — would have granted a stay. Because there was a 4-4 tie, Pennsylvania Democrats prevailed, and the votes can be counted.

But if and when Republicans confirm Amy Coney Barrett, there will be no more 4-4 ties. And the fact that the court’s four most conservative justices may have been inclined to rule with Pennsylvania Republicans suggests that they are embracing a radical reimagining of the court’s role in determining voting laws for every state in the country — one that could help Republicans maintain minority rule even as they lose support among the American public.

To understand why, we have to know a bit about how election law works. The Constitution does not include a right to vote, but 49 of the 50 state constitutions do. (Arizona’s is the exception.) What it does say is that state legislatures determine the manner of appointing presidential electors (almost all states do so by statewide popular vote) and determine the “times, places, and manner” of congressional elections.

The key question here is whether, when the Constitution mentions state legislatures, it should be understood as referring only to the institution of the legislature itself, or to a state’s whole lawmaking process.
If it means only the legislature itself, the Supreme Court could potentially use that interpretation to invalidate whatever a state constitution says about voting, strike down the power of a governor to veto voting regulations passed by the legislature or nullify ballot initiatives on voting passed by the voters themselves.

The Pennsylvania GOP argued essentially that because the U.S. Constitution says that the legislature determines voting laws for federal elections, a state supreme court has no right to weigh in, even when it’s ruling on how state law or the state constitution applies.

In this case, it would mean that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court can’t be the judge of what the Pennsylvania state Constitution says when it comes to federal elections, because the state legislature’s power is almost absolute.

“I think there’s good reason to believe, and the 4-4 vote here confirms that,” Richard Pildes of New York University Law School told me, that soon there could be “a majority on the court that would endorse what’s called the ‘independent legislature’ doctrine.”

And this conservative Supreme Court majority — which is about to get even more conservative — has almos never met a voting restriction it didn’t like. Sweeping voter purges, discriminatory ID requirements, partisan gerrymandering — whatever Republican legislatures have come up with, this court has looked kindly on.

Among other things, in the future it could strike down independent redistricting commissions, which are now used in numerous states (California, Arizona, Washington, Idaho, Colorado, Minnesota and Michigan) to draw congressional district lines, because it’s not the “legislature” determining them.
In 2015, the Supreme Court upheld Arizona’s commission, which was created by voter initiative. But the vote was 5-4, with Anthony M. Kennedy joining the court’s liberals. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. dissented, Kennedy was later replaced by Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett is soon to join the court.

If they lean on a strict interpretation of the word “legislature,” the Supreme Court could rule that, for instance, voters couldn’t pass an initiative changing rules for congressional primaries. Given the conservatism of the court, it’s not hard to imagine them ruling for Republicans in case after case...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...