The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms.

In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement.

The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.

The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself.

The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out.

CNN has reached out to the White House for comment.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.”

That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election.

In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win.

“The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.”

“That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.”

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms

Excellent news. One less way for Trump to rig the election in his favour.

Excellent news, indeed   :)

Although, if the Dems have a significant win in the mid-terms, Trump and his ball licker - Mike Johnson - won't accept the results.

If the GOP can't rig the election they'll just deny the outcome.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 11:37am:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms

so what, he will totally ignore the judges.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 5:59pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms so what, he will totally ignore the judges.

Indeed.

And the election results.

SO UNFAIR !!!

LAWFARE !!!

ELECTORAL INTERFERENCE !!!

RIGGED WITCH HUNT !!!

STOP THE COUNT !!!

6
Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 11:37am:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms

Not a big loss. A temporary setback.
The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time.

It will be in place for tgd 2028 election.

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 10:16pm:

6 Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms Not a big loss. A temporary setback. The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time. It will be in place for tgd 2028 election.

Despite a Supreme Court ruling?

Oh ja, we forgot.

A massive fraud of this kind allows for the termination of all rules, laws and articles, including those in the Constitution.

Rule of law, innit.

Enquiring mind wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 11:15pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 10:16pm: 6 Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms Not a big loss. A temporary setback. The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time. It will be in place for tgd 2028 election. Despite a Supreme Court ruling? Oh ja, we forgot. A massive fraud of this kind allows for the termination of all rules, laws and articles, including those in the Constitution. Rule of law, innit.

You didnt read/comprehend TDS Politician's post, did you, paki?
Not in Urdu, no speaka?

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 6:18pm:

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 5:59pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms so what, he will totally ignore the judges. Indeed. And the election results.

and his wife and do you notice she doesn’t let him know she’s right there, she just lets him dig himself into a deeper hole and continue to look stupid…

https://youtu.be/Sq2mLNIVzcw?si=bdeesVFHAa6KEKen

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 10:16pm:

6 Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms Not a big loss. A temporary setback. The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time. It will be in place for tgd 2028 election.

I know who you remind me of - a certain knight and a certain former Iraqi minister...

https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?si=rZc6N6BLWFLFsuIL

https://youtu.be/loujYg0y7Vk?si=DPbIkkB7XwJCGNd8

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 6:00am:

Frank wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 10:16pm: 6 Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms Not a big loss. A temporary setback. The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time. It will be in place for tgd 2028 election. I know who you remind me of - a certain knight and a certain former Iraqi minister... https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?si=rZc6N6BLWFLFsuIL https://youtu.be/loujYg0y7Vk?si=DPbIkkB7XwJCGNd8

You do not understand your own post, duffer.


That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election.


On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.”




No time to implement the order. The principle that forms the basis of the order is not dismissed or discussed even.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 9:19am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 6:00am: Frank wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 10:16pm: 6 Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms Not a big loss. A temporary setback. The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time. It will be in place for tgd 2028 election. I know who you remind me of - a certain knight and a certain former Iraqi minister... https://youtu.be/ZmInkxbvlCs?si=rZc6N6BLWFLFsuIL https://youtu.be/loujYg0y7Vk?si=DPbIkkB7XwJCGNd8 You do not understand your own post, duffer. That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” No time to implement the order. The principle that forms the basis of the order is not dismissed or discussed even.

Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 9:37am:

Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate!

Extremely desperate.

If the Dems do well in the mid-terms Trump will be a lame-duck President, and he'll spend the rest of his life facing impeachment and criminal charges.

Unless he defects to Russia.

https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLtFXARtvaBKYXuPfAyFN7.jpg

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 9:54am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:37am: Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate! Extremely desperate. If the Dems do well in the mid-terms Trump will be a lame-duck President, and he'll spend the rest of his life facing impeachment and criminal charges. Unless he defects to Russia. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLtFXARtvaBKYXuPfAyFN7.jpg

It's not just him. It'll be Blanche, Kegseth, Patel and others who will face real scrutiny and possibly impeachment and conviction with a Democrat controlled Congress. But yes, the Democrats will be able to effectively bring an end to the Trump presidency in practical terms, as they should.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 9:59am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:54am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:37am: Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate! Extremely desperate. If the Dems do well in the mid-terms Trump will be a lame-duck President, and he'll spend the rest of his life facing impeachment and criminal charges. Unless he defects to Russia. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLtFXARtvaBKYXuPfAyFN7.jpg It's not just him. It'll be Blanche, Kegseth, Patel and others who will face real scrutiny and possibly impeachment and conviction with a Democrat controlled Congress. But yes, the Democrats will be able to effectively bring an end to the Trump presidency in practical terms, as they should.

If that happens the DEMS will go so nutty and deranged for 2 years that a Republican victory in 2028 will be virtually guranteed.


If the DEMS win in 2028 then America as we know it will be over. The DEMS are not the same as the FDR or Kennedy Dems. They are now AOC, Mamdani, Somali tranny jihadi socialists, mad on every identity, race, grievance mongering. They will go the way of England.
Biden was a farce, the next Dem prez will be a tragedy.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 10:34am:

If the DEMS win in 2028 then America as we know it will be over.

:D  ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 11:39am:

Excellent news, indeed   :) Although, if the Dems have a significant win in the mid-terms, Trump and his ball licker - Mike Johnson - won't accept the results. If the GOP can't rig the election they'll just deny the outcome.

More homo talk.

Pecca,
get a job and pay some taxes    -  ya lazy bum.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 10:34am:

If the DEMS win in 2028 then America as we know it will be over

I can't wait for the "America as we know it" right now to be over.

Even better if it ends with one Donald J. Trump going to prison for the rest of his (hopefully very short) life.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 10:34am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:59am: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:54am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:37am: Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate! Extremely desperate. If the Dems do well in the mid-terms Trump will be a lame-duck President, and he'll spend the rest of his life facing impeachment and criminal charges. Unless he defects to Russia. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLtFXARtvaBKYXuPfAyFN7.jpg It's not just him. It'll be Blanche, Kegseth, Patel and others who will face real scrutiny and possibly impeachment and conviction with a Democrat controlled Congress. But yes, the Democrats will be able to effectively bring an end to the Trump presidency in practical terms, as they should. If that happens the DEMS will go so nutty and deranged for 2 years that a Republican victory in 2028 will be virtually guranteed. If the DEMS win in 2028 then America as we know it will be over. The DEMS are not the same as the FDR or Kennedy Dems. They are now AOC, Mamdani, Somali tranny jihadi socialists, mad on every identity, race, grievance mongering. They will go the way of England. Biden was a farce, the next Dem prez will be a tragedy.

You've really got to quit whatever it is you're smoking. It's rotted your brain to the point you are incapable of anything other than regurgitating Trump talking points.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 11:18am:

Frank wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 10:34am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:59am: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:54am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:37am: Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate! Extremely desperate. If the Dems do well in the mid-terms Trump will be a lame-duck President, and he'll spend the rest of his life facing impeachment and criminal charges. Unless he defects to Russia. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLtFXARtvaBKYXuPfAyFN7.jpg It's not just him. It'll be Blanche, Kegseth, Patel and others who will face real scrutiny and possibly impeachment and conviction with a Democrat controlled Congress. But yes, the Democrats will be able to effectively bring an end to the Trump presidency in practical terms, as they should. If that happens the DEMS will go so nutty and deranged for 2 years that a Republican victory in 2028 will be virtually guranteed. If the DEMS win in 2028 then America as we know it will be over. The DEMS are not the same as the FDR or Kennedy Dems. They are now AOC, Mamdani, Somali tranny jihadi socialists, mad on every identity, race, grievance mongering. They will go the way of England. Biden was a farce, the next Dem prez will be a tragedy. You've really got to quit whatever it is you're smoking. It's rotted your brain to the point you are incapable of anything other than regurgitating Trump talking points.

Yep - that's TDS.

They can't think for themselves.

They can only repeat what their DL tells them.

"Magnets don't work if they get wet" - sure, they believe it.

"Vandals attacked the reflecting pool" - they swallow it, even though the contractor has admitted that it was his fault.

"The price of medications have dropped by 1,500%" - sounds like good maths to them.

"Russian oligarchs, with very close ties to Putin, funding the DL's son's wedding" - nothing to see here.

It's a cult like no other.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 11:24am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 11:18am: Frank wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 10:34am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:59am: greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:54am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 9:37am: Given how close it is to the midterms, you have to ask why Trump didn’t do this much, much sooner. The reason is simple. He didn’t think he would be so unpopular and polling so badly that he would need to resort to this sort of behaviour. He expected to be feted and loved and hugely popular, so why would he need to rig things in his favour? That’s why he’s rushing to try to do this, and also redraw electoral maps. He’s desperate! Extremely desperate. If the Dems do well in the mid-terms Trump will be a lame-duck President, and he'll spend the rest of his life facing impeachment and criminal charges. Unless he defects to Russia. https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/vLtFXARtvaBKYXuPfAyFN7.jpg It's not just him. It'll be Blanche, Kegseth, Patel and others who will face real scrutiny and possibly impeachment and conviction with a Democrat controlled Congress. But yes, the Democrats will be able to effectively bring an end to the Trump presidency in practical terms, as they should. If that happens the DEMS will go so nutty and deranged for 2 years that a Republican victory in 2028 will be virtually guranteed. If the DEMS win in 2028 then America as we know it will be over. The DEMS are not the same as the FDR or Kennedy Dems. They are now AOC, Mamdani, Somali tranny jihadi socialists, mad on every identity, race, grievance mongering. They will go the way of England. Biden was a farce, the next Dem prez will be a tragedy. You've really got to quit whatever it is you're smoking. It's rotted your brain to the point you are incapable of anything other than regurgitating Trump talking points. Yep - that's TDS. They can't think for themselves. They can only repeat what their DL tells them. "Magnets don't work if they get wet" - sure, they believe it. "Vandals attacked the reflecting pool" - they swallow it, even though the contractor has admitted that it was his fault. "The price of medications have dropped by 1,500%" - sounds like good maths to them. "Russian oligarchs, with very close ties to Putin, funding the DL's son's wedding" - nothing to see here. It's a cult like no other.

"Lets inject disinfectant into people's veins to kill the COVID virus" - DJT  :o

Frank wrote on Sep 15^th, 2026 at 11:40pm:

Enquiring mind wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:15pm: Frank wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 10:16pm: 6 Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 15th, 2026 at 11:37am: The Supreme Court on Monday rejected President Donald Trump’s controversial plan to change how mail ballots are sent to voters across the country, rebuffing a proposal that election officials warned would have had catastrophic consequences if allowed to take effect for this year’s midterms. In one of the most significant cases to appear on the court’s quick-turn docket in years, a majority of the justices blocked the procedure that would have given the US Postal Service the unprecedented power to withhold potentially millions of mail ballots. Even some GOP election officials cautioned that the proposal could lead to chaos and mass disenfranchisement. The court said that the administration “is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge” but offered little explanation in its three-sentence, unsigned order. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented. The decision is a significant loss for the president, who for years has railed against mail voting with false allegations of extensive fraud, while continuing to vote by mail himself. The administration had framed its proposal as a “modest” change to postal regulations intended to protect against that alleged fraud. Trump’s critics, however, described the maneuver as an unconstitutional power grab that the US Postal Service wasn’t even fully prepared to carry out. CNN has reached out to the White House for comment. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a member of the court’s conservative wing, wrote a concurrence explaining that he thought the proposal may be within the authority of the USPS, but that “state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections.” That appeared to be a recognition of a flood of briefs from state and local election officials who argued there simply was not time this late in the election process to implement the president’s order. But it also suggested that Kavanaugh could be gettable for the president, along with Alito and Thomas, to try the changes for a future election. In his dissent, Alito said he didn’t believe the practical concerns of implementing the rule raised by many election officials was enough for the states and voting rights groups that challenged the rule to win. “The government has a strong interest in enforcing the rule, and implementing it will also ‘en­hance the visibility of Federal Ballot Mail’ in order to better detect election fraud,” Alito wrote. “On the other side of the balance, the plaintiff States invoke the practical ef­fects of implementing the rule close to the midterm elec­tions. I take that problem very seriously, but it is not enough to convince me to deny the application.” “That Hail Mary pass is unlikely to be successfully completed here,” Alito wrote. “The Postal Service has broad authority to regulate the mail.” https://edition.cnn.com/2026/09/14/politics/supreme-court-rejects-trump-plan-to-limit-mail-in-voting-in-midterms Not a big loss. A temporary setback. The timing is the issue, not the principle, not the authority of the Executive to make the rule, nor for the Postal Service to implement and regulate mail-in vote with sufficient lead-in time. It will be in place for tgd 2028 election. Despite a Supreme Court ruling? Oh ja, we forgot. A massive fraud of this kind allows for the termination of all rules, laws and articles, including those in the Constitution. Rule of law, innit. You didnt read/comprehend TDS Politician's post, did you, paki? Not in Urdu, no speaka?

Oh, I speaka. We've even highlighted your position.

Do you know what you are, dear boy?

You're a constitutional conservative.

We mean this in the nicest possible way, no?

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision just weeks before people head to the polls to vote in the midterms, the United States Supreme Court ruled that securing elections was unconstitutional.

Despite efforts from the Trump administration to secure U.S. elections by restricting mail-in ballots and ensuring only citizens would be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared any attempt to prevent widespread fraud from rigging elections to be a clear violation of the Constitution.

"Making sure elections are legal is illegal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. "There is no provision in the Constitution for securing elections so that they can't be tampered with and stolen. Any attempts made by the current administration to instill confidence in our electoral process are hereby null and void. Also, what is a Constitution, anyway?"

Though the decision was not unanimous, several justices on the court agreed that securing elections goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. "Free and fair elections aren't what this country was built on," said Justice Elena Kagan. "If someone wants to hatch a plan to create hundreds of thousands of falsified mail-in ballots to swing an election in a certain direction, who are we to stand in their way? This is a free country, and that includes the freedom to cheat in elections."

The Trump administration vowed to continue the fight for election integrity despite the nation's highest court ruling in favor of removing all safeguards against fraud.

At publishing time, the Supreme Court had issued a ruling declaring the Constitution unconstitutional.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 8:43pm:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision just weeks before people head to the polls to vote in the midterms, the United States Supreme Court ruled that securing elections was unconstitutional. Despite efforts from the Trump administration to secure U.S. elections by restricting mail-in ballots and ensuring only citizens would be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared any attempt to prevent widespread fraud from rigging elections to be a clear violation of the Constitution. "Making sure elections are legal is illegal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. "There is no provision in the Constitution for securing elections so that they can't be tampered with and stolen. Any attempts made by the current administration to instill confidence in our electoral process are hereby null and void. Also, what is a Constitution, anyway?" Though the decision was not unanimous, several justices on the court agreed that securing elections goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. "Free and fair elections aren't what this country was built on," said Justice Elena Kagan. "If someone wants to hatch a plan to create hundreds of thousands of falsified mail-in ballots to swing an election in a certain direction, who are we to stand in their way? This is a free country, and that includes the freedom to cheat in elections." The Trump administration vowed to continue the fight for election integrity despite the nation's highest court ruling in favor of removing all safeguards against fraud. At publishing time, the Supreme Court had issued a ruling declaring the Constitution unconstitutional.

You honestly believe this propoganda, don't you?

You've completely lost the ability to think for yourself.

TDS has destroyed your brain.

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 8:54pm:

You honestly believe this propoganda, don't you? You've completely lost the ability to think for yourself. TDS has destroyed your brain.

With more than a little help from the Babylon Bee.

As usual.  ::)

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 8:54pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 8:43pm: WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision just weeks before people head to the polls to vote in the midterms, the United States Supreme Court ruled that securing elections was unconstitutional. Despite efforts from the Trump administration to secure U.S. elections by restricting mail-in ballots and ensuring only citizens would be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared any attempt to prevent widespread fraud from rigging elections to be a clear violation of the Constitution. "Making sure elections are legal is illegal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. "There is no provision in the Constitution for securing elections so that they can't be tampered with and stolen. Any attempts made by the current administration to instill confidence in our electoral process are hereby null and void. Also, what is a Constitution, anyway?" Though the decision was not unanimous, several justices on the court agreed that securing elections goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. "Free and fair elections aren't what this country was built on," said Justice Elena Kagan. "If someone wants to hatch a plan to create hundreds of thousands of falsified mail-in ballots to swing an election in a certain direction, who are we to stand in their way? This is a free country, and that includes the freedom to cheat in elections." The Trump administration vowed to continue the fight for election integrity despite the nation's highest court ruling in favor of removing all safeguards against fraud. At publishing time, the Supreme Court had issued a ruling declaring the Constitution unconstitutional. You honestly believe this propoganda, don't you? You've completely lost the ability to think for yourself. TDS has destroyed your brain.

I believe you are a dim, plonking idiot. Completely.

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 8:43pm:

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision just weeks before people head to the polls to vote in the midterms, the United States Supreme Court ruled that securing elections was unconstitutional. Despite efforts from the Trump administration to secure U.S. elections by restricting mail-in ballots and ensuring only citizens would be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared any attempt to prevent widespread fraud from rigging elections to be a clear violation of the Constitution. "Making sure elections are legal is illegal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. "There is no provision in the Constitution for securing elections so that they can't be tampered with and stolen. Any attempts made by the current administration to instill confidence in our electoral process are hereby null and void. Also, what is a Constitution, anyway?" Though the decision was not unanimous, several justices on the court agreed that securing elections goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. "Free and fair elections aren't what this country was built on," said Justice Elena Kagan. "If someone wants to hatch a plan to create hundreds of thousands of falsified mail-in ballots to swing an election in a certain direction, who are we to stand in their way? This is a free country, and that includes the freedom to cheat in elections." The Trump administration vowed to continue the fight for election integrity despite the nation's highest court ruling in favor of removing all safeguards against fraud. At publishing time, the Supreme Court had issued a ruling declaring the Constitution unconstitutional.

Your DL's just blasted the Supreme Court.

Not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, DL said, all butthurt and unconstitutional.

He is very frustrated, Todd said, sympathizing with his client. It's not every day they disobey DL and uphold the Constitution.

LAWFARE !!!

But that's okay. He'll find other ways to overturn the mid-terms, as you well know.

STOP THE COUNT !!!

Frank wrote on Sep 16^th, 2026 at 9:36pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 8:54pm: Frank wrote on Sep 16th, 2026 at 8:43pm: WASHINGTON, D.C. — In a landmark decision just weeks before people head to the polls to vote in the midterms, the United States Supreme Court ruled that securing elections was unconstitutional. Despite efforts from the Trump administration to secure U.S. elections by restricting mail-in ballots and ensuring only citizens would be allowed to vote, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that declared any attempt to prevent widespread fraud from rigging elections to be a clear violation of the Constitution. "Making sure elections are legal is illegal," Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the majority opinion. "There is no provision in the Constitution for securing elections so that they can't be tampered with and stolen. Any attempts made by the current administration to instill confidence in our electoral process are hereby null and void. Also, what is a Constitution, anyway?" Though the decision was not unanimous, several justices on the court agreed that securing elections goes against everything the Founding Fathers intended. "Free and fair elections aren't what this country was built on," said Justice Elena Kagan. "If someone wants to hatch a plan to create hundreds of thousands of falsified mail-in ballots to swing an election in a certain direction, who are we to stand in their way? This is a free country, and that includes the freedom to cheat in elections." The Trump administration vowed to continue the fight for election integrity despite the nation's highest court ruling in favor of removing all safeguards against fraud. At publishing time, the Supreme Court had issued a ruling declaring the Constitution unconstitutional. You honestly believe this propoganda, don't you? You've completely lost the ability to think for yourself. TDS has destroyed your brain. I believe you are a dim, plonking idiot. Completely.

Right back at you, Dumbo!