Quote:“The Times had not lost a defamation lawsuit brought in the United States over one of its articles in more than 50 years.”

Wow. https://t.co/C6MxzXoDW6
— Josh Holmes (@HolmesJosh) August 21, 2026

Trump scores Supreme Court win on mail-in voting restrictions before midterms
The Supreme Court allowed the Trump admin to enforce revised mail-ballot restrictions

Quote:In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a victory on Monday, allowing it to enforce President Donald Trump’s "election integrity" executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms.

The high court lifted an injunction that had blocked the order in 23 states that challenged it after the administration appealed in July.

The U.S. Postal Service and Justice Department said they would immediately implement the revised mail-ballot restrictions after the ruling.

Most immediately, the ruling clears the path for the U.S. Postal Service to check its distribution of mail-in ballots against a list of citizens maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. But it’s also a significant political victory for the Trump administration as it has advocated against the widespread use of mail-in-voting, citing what it believes is a heightened vulnerability to tampering and voter fraud.

Trump’s original executive order looked to eliminate any ambiguity. Titled "Preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections," it directed federal agencies to compile citizenship-based lists of eligible voters and ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people appearing on those approved lists.

"Several Federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1015 and 611, prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections. Yet States fail adequately to vet voters’ citizenship, and, in recent years, the Department of Justice has failed to prioritize and devote sufficient resources for enforcement of these provisions," the executive order reads.

Where critics of the order saw a federal effort to dictate the terms of state-run elections, the court on Monday sided with the administration, stating that the way the executive order was made put requirements only on federal agencies.

In essence, the order didn’t put any new requirements on the states themselves.

"[It] directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate action to create and distribute State Citizenship Lists. This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligations on the States, so they ‘suffer no concrete harm from’ it, and without concrete harm, there is no standing," the court wrote.

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. CALIFORNIA, ET AL. ON APPLICATION FOR STAY

Quote:The President recently issued an Executive Order regarding election integrity. A group of States sued the Govern-ment in the District of Massachusetts, contending that the Order unconstitutionally infringes on their authority to ad-minister elections. The District Court agreed and enjoined the Government from implementing the Order. In doing so, the District Court rejected the Government’s argument that it lacked jurisdiction over the States’ claims because the States lack standing to bring them. The Government has asked us to stay the injunction, arguing that it is likely to succeed on the merits of its jurisdictional argument, that the injunction is causing it irreparable harm, and that the equities do not favor leaving the injunction in place while the Government’s appeal is pending. We agree and grant the stay.

Quote:JUST IN: Judge Talwani has lifted her order blocking the USPS rule on mail-in ballots for the 2026 elections. Talwani, clearly frustrated by the SCOTUS decision, whined she has no choice and implies SCOTUS based its ruling on 'flawed premises'.

Quote:In sum, the court finds that, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. California, Plaintiff Organizations are not likely to prevail

pic.twitter.com/JOAuoSVfqy — Kyle Cheney (@kyledcheney) August 26, 2026

On March 31, President Trump signed Executive Order 14399, Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections. The order did two things Democrats cannot stand:

1. Directed DHS, working with the Social Security Administration, to compile state-by-state lists of confirmed U.S. citizens age 18 and older.
2. Directed the Postal Service to stop treating federal ballot mail like a free-for-all and transmit mail-in and absentee ballots only under uniform security rules, including official Election Mail markings, unique Intelligent Mail barcodes, and state-submitted lists of the voters receiving those ballots.

IOW, the federal government should not be hauling ballots across the country to names that have never been checked against federal citizenship and identity records.

That is not “voter suppression.” That is the bare minimum in a country that has spent six years watching Democrats mass-mail ballots, harvest them, and then scream “democracy” and "racissss" when anyone asks for a list.

womp, womp. Of course, the Left won't stop tryingn to continue to steal elections and have millions of illegals voting, but this is a victory for the Rule of Law against the Left.

Funny thing, judge Talwani put in a new temporary injunction in the new case — because the old case was unripe, and now the rules are in effect. Removing the issue that led to your roar of triumph above.


Funny thing, I can point you directly to the section of the Constitution stating that the states set the rules and processes for elections, with the ability for Congress to override.

I guess you haven’t hit that discernment level that a Presidential order does not equate to Congressional action.

I’m impressed with the ‘whomp whomp’ over a case that is decided because it isn’t ripe. Now that it is ripe, back to the original result. Imagine that. Oh, and just for the record — the President has no role in setting the framework for elections. Funny that. Lolz.

Slow day chasing ambulances again? Maybe invite Talwani who you seem to be about as bright as. chuckle.

(08-29-2026 01:21 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  Slow day chasing ambulances again? Maybe invite Talwani who you seem to be about as bright as. chuckle.

Perhaps educate us poor ambulance chasers on the following:

1. Where is the clause, found at Article 1, section 4, clause 1, and stating: “ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” overridden, or even altered?

2. Is an Executive Order an act of Congress? Please give a specific cite to your basis, if your answer is “yes”.

The above should be an easy answer for anyone holding a bar card, as I have heard you do. I anxiously await your precise and informative answers to the above.

Oh, with the three other injunctions from the previous iteration, and the two appellate decisions emanating from them — the administration is now 0-6 on the merits of Prez inhibiting mail voting by fiat. So I guess this ambulance chaser is in the company of the 10 judges actual opining on the merits. I guess your fixation on Talwani needs to be expanded a bit.

I look forward to your (I hope) cogent answer to the 2 questions above.

Or just continue your low brow Spin Room crap as you show in your response quoted above. Your choice.

Sterling v. City of Jackson

A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to clean municipal drinking water or accurate information from public officials about water contamination. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Friday against four residents of Jackson, Mississippi, who alleged that city officials exposed them to lead and other contaminants through the city's troubled water system and misled residents about whether the water was safe to drink. Put that in your cup and drink it....

Sterling v. City of Jackson

A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee a right to clean municipal drinking water or accurate information from public officials about water contamination. The full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Friday against four residents of Jackson, Mississippi, who alleged that city officials exposed them to lead and other contaminants through the city's troubled water system and misled residents about whether the water was safe to drink. Put that in your cup and drink it....

United States of America
v.
State of California

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
ACTION SEEKING STATEWIDE RELIEF

Quote:The Justice Department, working with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), today filed a complaint against the State of California over its voter list after determining that more than 20,000 people who are likely aliens are registered to vote in California. Under California law, every registered voter is mailed a ballot. It is unlawful for aliens to vote in federal elections.

“State-facilitated voter fraud is unacceptable in the United States of America,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “If found responsible in a court of law, the State of California will have seriously undermined confidence in our electoral system and violated laws that protect our nation’s representative system of government. The Department of Justice will continue working to uncover cases of voter fraud, hold fraudsters accountable, and restore trust in American elections.”

“It is unlawful for noncitizens to vote in federal elections,” said Secretary Markwayne Mullin of DHS. “The Department of Homeland Security and our federal partners reviewed publicly available California voter-registration files and compared relevant records with federal immigration data to identify alien registrants. This preliminary analysis has identified a significant number of individuals in California who are likely noncitizens and appear to be registered to vote; the analysis and review remain ongoing. This is completely unacceptable — as even one noncitizen vote cancels out the ballot of an American citizen and undermines our elections. DHS is committed to identifying unlawful voting, protecting the integrity of federal elections, and ensuring that only eligible American citizens elect America’s leaders.”

“The law is clear, aliens in the United States cannot vote in federal elections,” said Acting Deputy Attorney General Trent McCotter. “What our complaint alleges is that California is facilitating unlawful voting by knowingly allowing noncitizens to vote. This needs to stop.”

“California election officials were given an opportunity to remove noncitizens from their voter rolls and to sequester ballots returned from suspected ineligible voters. They refused,” said First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli for the Central District of California. “We are taking California to federal court to demand that the votes of American citizens not be diluted by noncitizens.”

Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), in coordination with federal partners, analyzed publicly available voter-registration records to identify potential indicators that aliens may have registered to vote, cast ballots, or received election-related mail. The Department of Justice has filed a complaint against the State of California alleging that these individuals, who are likely noncitizens, registered to vote and/or voted in a federal election. HSI and its federal partners used multiple data-enrichment and verification methods to assess whether the individuals identified were likely aliens.

Filed US Complaint CA Voter List.pdf

(08-30-2026 07:46 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  1. Where is the clause, found at Article 1, section 4, clause 1, and stating: “ The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations” overridden, or even altered?

DOn't want to get too deep into these woods as I haven't read but one single post here....

but USPS is a federal, not state resource... and things like 'using a federal resource' doesn't sound to me as if it is either a power that the state controls (creating an obligation for a federal resource).... but more to your point, it doesn't 'jump off the page' to me as being part of 'Time, Place or manner of holding elections'. It sounds more like a prescription for what 'can' happen 'after' someone casts a ballot... and again, creates an obligation for a resource that is not under their control. My simple point being that 'time place and manner' does not necessarily include every single aspect of holding an election. In the simplest example (though I recognize this doesn't address the EO question), 'who can run for federal office' does not seem to fit that description... except in the broadest of descriptions. Whether or not or how a Federal resource can be used by the states for state purposes does not seem to ALWAYS require an act of Congress. The FBI is a good example of that.

I assume this at least to some degree has to do with things like the 'SAVE' act... and it is notable that in the end, the states STILL have the authority and capability (and burden) to certify that they are satisfied that the person meets the criteria to vote, regardless of WHAT information they are able to produce. Frankly this seems to remove the burden from 'the people' to have proper documentation and place it on the states to certify their eligibilty, as it always has. Placing that burden now on the USPS arguably delegates that authority back to the Federal Government.

Again, to be fair... I don't really care enough about this issue to get TOO informed about it... I don't want to read a court decision and frankly, don't like reading media summaries... they always seem to mask or even ignore very legally important details... but I don't think one can simply look at even a 9-0 court decision and claim that the argument made that lost had absolutely no merit. Most often, it at LEAST had enough merit to be heard. Nobody found it compelling, but that doesn't mean that a highly similar case making the same argument wouldn't have prevailed based on differing details. I'd say that most 2nd amendment challenges... especially ones like Heller are just applying the same arguments as before to only slightly different circumstances.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA; GAVIN
NEWSOM, in his Official Capacity;
ROB BONTA, Attorney General of
California, in his Official Capacity,
Defendants - Appellees.

Quote:For these reasons, we REVERSE the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and REMAND with instructions to enter a preliminary injunction enjoining the State of California, its Governor, and its Attorney General from applying or enforcing § 10 of the No Vigilantes Act, S.B. 805, 2025 Gen. Assemb., Reg. Sess. (Cal. 2025) (codified at Cal. Penal Code § 13654), against the United States, federal agencies, and federal officers.
REVERSED and REMANDED.

This ruling is a significant ruling against one of Newsom’s attempts to impose state requirements on federal enforcement operations.

“The Ninth Circuit agrees that California cannot regulate federal law enforcement,” --Brett Shumate, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr. went further, declaring that the court had reaffirmed the constitutional limits on California’s authority.

“Today, the Ninth Circuit again affirms what common sense makes clear: California cannot regulate how Federal law enforcement officers carry out their jobs authorized by Congress,” Woodward wrote.

The famously liberal-leaning Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday that California cannot force plainclothes federal law enforcement officers to display identification while carrying out their federal duties.

And the three-judge panel didn’t sound particularly uncertain about its decision.

“Indeed, we conclude that the United States is certain to succeed,” the court declared. Not merely likely. Certain. Smack!

Quote:Nuanced_Mouse@Pink_Meeces

WE AUDITED ALL 58 FOREIGN-BORN FEDERAL JUDGES SITTING ON AMERICA'S BENCH FOR LIFE.

I spent over a billion tokens and about 45 days on this deep dive.

Through this deep dive and the over a million court cases we have combed through, we have launched an American First Index (AFI) for the site. (More on it as we improve the metrics and refine deeper.)

Out of 58 sitting foreign-born Article III judges, 43 were appointed by Biden or Obama. Among those drawn from ACLU and public defender pipelines, border enforcement is blocked over 80% of the time and 60% of criminal sentences fall below federal guidelines.

We have added an interactive tool on bench receipts that allows you to drill down and look at how each of these judges behave on the bench.

This is just the start. The federal judges are easier to identify than the state level judges. I assume there are 100s if not 1000+ foreign born or first-gen American on our benches.

They do not judge on our laws, they judge on the culture they came from. This is a huge reason our country has lost its identity.

{IMAGES}

1:00 PM · Oct 19, 2026

Armon Turner Echols@TurnerEchols

Now ask, “who is behind all this?”—I will save you the token expense: Soros.

Trista Philips@TristaPhilips

There should never been "foreign born" judges. Ever.


Mike Hunt@FloridaBound023

And it’s the reason @nayibbukele made the removal of the bad judges a priority in reclaiming El Salvador and why they have experienced the turn around they have!

Now here's a case we can all take a keen interest in:

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/departm...-v-mcnutt/

Quote:Issue: Whether the prohibition on the production of distilled spirits in particular locations, including “in any dwelling house” or “in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house,” 26 U.S.C. 5178(a)(1)(B), is necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress’s enumerated power to lay and collect taxes.

(10-23-2026 08:42 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Now here's a case we can all take a keen interest in:

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/departm...-v-mcnutt/

Quote:Issue: Whether the prohibition on the production of distilled spirits in particular locations, including “in any dwelling house” or “in any shed, yard, or inclosure connected with any dwelling house,” 26 U.S.C. 5178(a)(1)(B), is necessary and proper for carrying into execution Congress’s enumerated power to lay and collect taxes.

Here's a nice little background article:
https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/08/alcoh...eme-court/