VA SCOTUS oral arguments

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI -- Article II, Section 9 of the VA constitution says that you can't be called to jury duty during an "election." And now we know that "election" means the approximately 45-day period beginning with early voting. So it seems like there's now a 45-day period during which jury trials won't be happening in Virginia.

Make early voting one week. That is enough. Have absentee voting for valid reasons. And, no ballot harvesting.
How many years did we manage to vote with those rules--and no early voting.

Nah, I'd prefer making the activist judges on the VA Supreme Court deal with the consequences of their decision.

Yup, we should remove the three no votes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

Does Virginia not have any good constitutional lawyers? Why in the world are they using a California firm?

Because the AG is incompetent.

Miyares is so incompetent, he had to hire private counsel from California to handle the appeal.

[Anonymous]

Democrats are so incompetent, they misspelled Virginia as “Virgnia.”

Their appeal is facially invalid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

Does Virginia not have any good constitutional lawyers? Why in the world are they using a California firm?

Because the AG is incompetent.

Miyares is so incompetent, he had to hire private counsel from California to handle the appeal.

Jones!

It's not unusual to hire outside counsel. But, from California? Really. And, the guy did a terrible job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

Does Virginia not have any good constitutional lawyers? Why in the world are they using a California firm?

Because the AG is incompetent.

Miyares is so incompetent, he had to hire private counsel from California to handle the appeal.

Jones!

It's not unusual to hire outside counsel. But, from California? Really. And, the guy did a terrible job.

I just noticed the VA Solicitor General was a partner at a firm called Stris & Maher. And it turns out that this California guy also worked at that firm. Seems like a questionable basis to choose outside counsel for such a high-profile case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

Does Virginia not have any good constitutional lawyers? Why in the world are they using a California firm?

Because the AG is incompetent.

Miyares is so incompetent, he had to hire private counsel from California to handle the appeal.

Jones!

It's not unusual to hire outside counsel. But, from California? Really. And, the guy did a terrible job.

I just noticed the VA Solicitor General was a partner at a firm called Stris & Maher. And it turns out that this California guy also worked at that firm. Seems like a questionable basis to choose outside counsel for such a high-profile case.

It's just a little nepotism. Nothing to get excited about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Democrats are so incompetent, they misspelled Virginia as “Virgnia.”

Their appeal is facially invalid.

They also misspelled senator. And mailed it to the wrong address!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:SCOTUS will not take the case b/c it is a state constitutional issue, not a federal/U.S. Constitution issue (even beyond the fact that VASC ruled correctly).

Jones knows this and only filed the suit (a) to make it look like he is "fighting" MAGA (b) Hakeem Jefferies told him to, and (c) so the Dems can continue their campaign to de-legitimize SCOTUS.

Does Virginia not have any good constitutional lawyers? Why in the world are they using a California firm?

Because the AG is incompetent.

Miyares is so incompetent, he had to hire private counsel from California to handle the appeal.

Jones!

It's not unusual to hire outside counsel. But, from California? Really. And, the guy did a terrible job.

I think he should argue the case himself hiring a CA lawyer is strange.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI -- Article II, Section 9 of the VA constitution says that you can't be called to jury duty during an "election." And now we know that "election" means the approximately 45-day period beginning with early voting. So it seems like there's now a 45-day period during which jury trials won't be happening in Virginia.

For this purpose it would be clear that election meant election day. Same word does not have to mean the same thing in every context. The VA constitution intended to impose that burden on votes. But did not intend to limit jury service.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just FYI -- Article II, Section 9 of the VA constitution says that you can't be called to jury duty during an "election." And now we know that "election" means the approximately 45-day period beginning with early voting. So it seems like there's now a 45-day period during which jury trials won't be happening in Virginia.

For this purpose it would be clear that election meant election day. Same word does not have to mean the same thing in every context. The VA constitution intended to impose that burden on votes. But did not intend to limit jury service.

You have the interpretive principle backward: you start with the presumption that the same word means the same thing. If jury service was only supposed to be prohibited on "election day," it would have said that instead of simply saying "election."

[Anonymous]

Here is the language for that claim:

"No voter, during the time of holding any election at which he is entitled to vote, shall be compelled to perform military service, except in time of war or public danger, nor to attend any court as suitor, juror, or witness; nor shall any such voter be subject to arrest under any civil process during his attendance at election or in going to or returning therefrom"

Two things:
"shall be compelled" means you cannot be forced
pretty sure there is plenty of time to do other things.

Not sure how this applies to military service. Military are entitled to vote absentee, so that is likely interpreted as able to vote.
I find the language a little different from the post above.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here is the language for that claim:

"No voter, during the time of holding any election at which he is entitled to vote, shall be compelled to perform military service, except in time of war or public danger, nor to attend any court as suitor, juror, or witness; nor shall any such voter be subject to arrest under any civil process during his attendance at election or in going to or returning therefrom"

Two things:
"shall be compelled" means you cannot be forced
pretty sure there is plenty of time to do other things.

Not sure how this applies to military service. Military are entitled to vote absentee, so that is likely interpreted as able to vote.
I find the language a little different from the post above.

The language doesn't exempt a person from jury and military service only during the time when that person is voting; it applies "during the time of holding any election." So no jury or military service during the entire election, which includes the early voting period.

[Anonymous]

Jones et al. filed their appeal to the wrong court; it is therefore invalid.

Jones is not above the law. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Jones et al. filed their appeal to the wrong court; it is therefore invalid.

Jones is not above the law. Case closed.

I agree, it's invalid now. How does one in such a position like that spell two words wrong AND sent it to the wrong court? How many people saw this document before it went out? I can't comprehend this happening at this level.

[Anonymous]

It would serve VA right if SCOTUS took the appeal, doesn't grant it, but declares that election day is indeed one day as VA has argued making early voting null and void.