President Trump Responds to Mail-In Ballot Loss at Supreme Court
Far Right
President Trump on Monday responded to the Supreme Court's decision on mail-in ballots.
The post President Trump Responds to Mail-In Ballot Loss at Supreme Court appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
Andy Burnham, the United Kingdom's likely prime minister-in-waiting, turned down an invite from President Donald Trump for the upcoming 250th anniversary of American independence, Politico reported on Monday.A spokesperson for Burnham told Politico that he won't attend the U.S. embassy's "Great American Jubilee" at U.S. Ambassador Warren Stephens’ official residence in Regent’s Park on Tuesday due to a "scheduling clash." The swanky celebration is expected to draw dignitaries, military brass and business leaders, and will feature a performance from country music superstar Tim McGraw."Invitations have been sent to every major party leader," according to Politico. "Previous attendees include former Prime Minister Liz Truss, Reform UK leader Nigel Farage and outgoing U.K. PM Keir Starmer, who attended in 2023 before he entered office."Last week, Trump sneered at Burnham, calling him a former "mayor of a town" and "extremely liberal."Burnham was expected to be approved as the U.K.'s next prime minister on July 20, Politico reported.Burnham wasn't the only person to turn down Trump. Pop star Katy Perry declined to perform at America250 celebrations in Brussels over the weekend.
In a blow to the integrity of U.S. elections, the Supreme Court upheld state laws permitting election officials to accept postmarked ballots after Election Day on Monday. The ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s liberal justices in the majority. The dispute in Watson v. RNC […]
The U.S. Supreme Court has “declared war” on American democracy, on “modern society,” and on “everything it takes to function in the 21st century,” warns Nobel laureate Paul Krugman, after the court expanded presidential powers once again. Six of the court’s members, presumably the conservative wing, “are fundamentally hostile to democracy, fundamentally hostile to the modern world and determined to put the catastrophically bad leader that we currently have sitting in the White House in charge of everything, which is a nightmare scenario on every level.”Krugman scorches the court for ruling that presidents can fire, without cause, the heads of independent federal agencies (except the Federal Reserve). In doing so, the court overturned a 91-year-old precedent. He explains that in a modern society, “the agencies that operate the U.S. government and basically run our society are supposed to be professional. They’re supposed to be following their legal mandate. They’re not supposed to be personal tools of a dictator in the White House.” Krugman says that the court has now given “essentially dictatorial powers to the occupant of the White House,” while also making it extremely difficult for the economy and for society to function.He explains that in today’s complicated world, ground rules are necessary. Offering the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as an example, Krugman says that producers need to know that their products will be approved based on merit, and not on “spurious grounds.” “And what would cause those decisions to happen?” he asks. “Well, how about the fact that some businesses are better at the business of bribing the president and his family than others. And if you think that this is outlandish — you know, a few years ago you might have said this was outlandish, things like that wouldn’t really happen — well, as we speak, these things are happening all the time.”Ultimately, Krugman says, America cannot continue on this path — and he calls for some form of restructuring or constraining of the Supreme Court.“This is a clear argument that says we have to one way or another disempower the Supreme Court. I don’t know enough to tell you what is the best route to do that but court packing or something else is going to have to happen.” Professor of law Barb McQuade, commenting on the court’s opinion, wrote, “Today’s decision in Slaughter will destroy the independence of the Merit Systems Protection Board, which will have a cascading effect on all federal employees, who have been free from political interference for 150 years. The spoils system is back, baby!”
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can count mail ballots that are cast by Election Day but arrive later, rejecting a GOP challenge to Mississippi law's for late-arriving ballots.
President Trump railed against Monday's Supreme Court ruling that allows states to keep counting ballots after Election Day and urged Congress to pass his voter ID legislation that would severely restrict mail-in ballots.
Congressional Republicans are redoubling their support for the SAVE America Act, a bill that has left Washington in gridlock for months, after the Supreme Court ruled states can count mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. The 5-4 decision in Watson v. Republican National Committee rejected a GOP-led push to end laws that permitted mailed […]
In a blow to the integrity of U.S. elections, the Supreme Court upheld state laws permitting election officials to accept postmarked ballots after Election Day on Monday. The ruling was 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s liberal justices in the majority. The dispute in Watson v. RNC […]
