What Biden's Victory Means For Net Neutrality - and for Ajit Pai (msn.com) 173
"A victory by Joe Biden in the Nov. 3 election could usher in an abrupt change in the nation's telecommunications policy, restoring so-called net neutrality regulation," Bloomberg recently reported:
Biden hasn't talked much about the FCC during the campaign, but his party's platform is specific. It calls for restoring net neutrality rules put in place under then-President Barack Obama when Biden served as vice president and taking a harder line on telecommunications mergers... If Biden wins, the FCC, which currently is at full five-member strength, could begin the new presidential term with a 2-to-1 Democratic majority, allowing it to move quickly. A Republican commissioner is leaving at the end of the current Congress and chairmen traditionally depart as a new administration arrives.
Ajit Pai hasn't indicated what he'll do. He can stay on as a commissioner but a new president could strip him of the chairmanship and its power to control what policies advance to a vote... If Pai stays after a Biden win, "he's denuded of power to do much of anything except to block things," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a Washington telecommunications lawyer.
Bloomberg also speculates that in addition, America's FCC "may move to bar broadband providers from exempting their own entertainment or media offerings from data caps." While there had been interest in such a move four years ago, Ajit Pai "squelched an agency move toward doing so soon after taking office in 2016."
Ajit Pai hasn't indicated what he'll do. He can stay on as a commissioner but a new president could strip him of the chairmanship and its power to control what policies advance to a vote... If Pai stays after a Biden win, "he's denuded of power to do much of anything except to block things," said Andrew Jay Schwartzman, a Washington telecommunications lawyer.
Bloomberg also speculates that in addition, America's FCC "may move to bar broadband providers from exempting their own entertainment or media offerings from data caps." While there had been interest in such a move four years ago, Ajit Pai "squelched an agency move toward doing so soon after taking office in 2016."
Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:3, Interesting)
What you won't see with an S230 repeal or reform is a free speech paradise that proponents are hoping for. Just the opposite really, website providers will crack down hard since they're now responsible for every little thing you post. Even if the only reform was to disallow moderation (which a lot of trolls are aching for as they don't like their Natalie Portman/hot-grits posts being modded down) it would still effectively chill speech, as anyone with a python script could crap flood speech they disagree with into oblivion...
Re:Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:4, Informative)
Info on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [eff.org] Provided here only as information to support discussion.
Re:Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:5, Funny)
Info on Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. [eff.org] Provided here only as information to support discussion.
Trump is still months away from being out of office. It's way too early to start having fact-based discussions.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting to see if he manages to go back and do his job in the meantime. I have some suspicions that he may just have a tantrum and quit, leaving Pence in charge ("haha, sleepy Joe can't be 46 now!").
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting to see if he manages to go back and do his job in the meantime. I have some suspicions that he may just have a tantrum and quit, leaving Pence in charge ("haha, sleepy Joe can't be 46 now!").
It would be really smart of Trump to resign, letting Pence finish out his term in exchange for a blanket pardon. The crimes documented in the Mueller report alone could send him to federal prison for around 50 years, and no one has even looked seriously into his corruption/emoluments.
Resigning and letting Pence pardon him would be smart. Which is why he won't do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't help Trump. The AG of New York is eager to put him in prison for crimes committed within the state. A federal pardon won't get Trump out of that. He'll just end up in Sing Sing instead of a federal prison.
Well, if it were you, would you rather have one sovereignty trying to put you in jail, or two?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be convicted of something to be able to be pardoned.
No, you don't. Nixon wasn't convicted of anything, wasn't even indicted for anything, when Ford pardoned him. Nor does the pardon have to be specific about the crimes pardoned. Again, consider Ford's pardon of Nixon for "all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974". It's worth noting that this was only possible because Nixon resigned rather than being impeached; the Constit
Re: (Score:2)
The same people who say that "defund the police" doesn't mean literally wiping out their funding have staked out a position where any talk of any changes at all to the regulations that interpret section 230 are a repeal. And, of course, a repeal of section 230 would cause every website to impose draconian censorship and it would be the end of free speech online.
But in reality, what serious people are talking about is more along the lines of telling every free service with more than a million users that the
Re:Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:4, Interesting)
"Defund the police" is a horrible slogan. I saw an example recently where the LAPD and LASD were defunded in the 1970s... So that the LAFD could take over medical first responder duties. Before that, first responders for medical calls were almost always police or sheriff deputies, who rarely had the necessary training to handle anything more than a broken bone or a simple laceration. Anything complicated would be stuffed in the back of a patrol car and hauled to the hospital, with time the primary factor, rather than skill. Once the LAFD implemented a paramedic program, they could handle everything from heart attacks to drug overdoses to minor fractures with much better outcomes.
Police should have some of their funding redirected to social workers, psychologists, and other professionals to deal with non-criminal dangers. We'd see better identification of mental health issues and fewer violent interactions, allowing those who need help to get it before they get shot.
Re: Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Police should have some of their funding redirected to social workers, psychologists, and other professionals to deal with non-criminal dangers.
That's exactly what "defund the police" means.
That very much depends on who is saying it (Score:3)
What "defund the police" means very much depends on who.is saying it. One city council member was chased out of a meeting by "defund the police" activist after saying they would better fund social services and would not completely eliminate police. That group was very clear that for them "defund the police" means "get rid of the police".
*You* might mean something else when *you* say those words.
Personally, here's how I see it:
I frequently buy special-purpose tools that I'm only going to use once or twice.
Re: (Score:3)
If a cheap saw I bought isn't quite getting the job done, I don't exchange it for an even cheaper, crappier saw. I don't want cheaper, crappier police officers. I want better ones.
It simply doesn't make sense for police officers to be handling everything they're handling. I want better cops too, but I also don't want policing to be the solution to everything. All the same problems have to be solved, but lots of them don't have to be handled by cops.
Re: (Score:3)
I agree it would be good to have more emergency psychiatric responders and probably some other staff.
Of a crazy person is waving a knife around, ideally we'd have both psychology professionals and public safety professionals respond - both may well be needed.
When a family member had a mental health crisis and they called 911 talking about doing harm to others we were LUCKY that our city police had a designated unit for such situations and they did an amazing job. I was really impressed with how patient the
Re: (Score:3)
When I'm building on my house and need some screwdrivers, I don't start by getting rid of most of my hammers.
If you run out of space in your toolbox for screwdrivers, and you've got more hammers than you need, you get rid of some hammers.
Re: (Score:2)
> In any given situation, only one of those skillsets is ever needed.
Okay, who do you send for "crazy guy with a knife" calls?
> any given situation, only one of those skillsets is ever needed. Let case workers do the job, then if they need police, they call police.
After crazy guy kills some people, call the police?
On a given call, you don't know ahead of time which mix of skills will be needed. You could send two or three different types of professionals to each call, or you can cross-train people.
Re: Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:2)
I've watch multiple times when the cops arrested (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(and we're not talking here just about fringe conspiracy theories like QAnon, nonsense like the "Moon Landing Hoax", and the like).
Congratulations, you have your wish [cnn.com]. Now, when the gunshots go off and Democratic representatives and Senators are targeted, you can trace it back to the con artist and his minions undermining democracy by throwing out conspiracy theories.
As a side note, you didn't see the media covering the story about Lindsey Graham's out of wedlock child he had with that Puerto Rican maid,
Re: (Score:3)
Your distorting the facts on that one.
He was appointed as a commissioner by Obama who wanted the commission to have a balance between liberals and conservatives, and so he took Mitch McConnels advice on who the republicans would like.
Trump however was the one who made him the Chairman. It would be infeasible to leave him in that position after all the damage he's done. He may well be demoted back to commissioner, but honestly, after the last 4 years I wouldnt blame the democrats for enating retribution.
Re: Biden will probably support Net Neutrality (Score:2)
I wouldnt blame the democrats for enating retribution.
This really seems to be a common them among the left these days. AOC suggests "making lists" of "Trump enablers" on Twitter - where countless "blue checks" agreed with her! Robert Reich suggests "Truth and reconciliation panels" and those aren't the only ones!
Am I the only one bothered by this!? They aren't exactly winning friends and influencing people here!
Re: (Score:2)
He was appointed as a commissioner by Obama who wanted the commission to have a balance between liberals and conservatives...
Wow. No. The FCC, like almost every independent Executive banch agency, is legally required to have a split of members, with the tie-breaking Chair position going to the party in the Presidency.
It had absolutely nothing at all to do with what President Obama "wanted".
Ajit Pai nominated to FCC by Obama (Score:3)
Ajit Pai was nominated for a position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama in 2011. He was confirmed unanimously by the United States Senate on May 7, 2012, and was sworn in on May 14, 2012, for a term that concluded on June 30, 2016. He was then designated chairman of the FCC by President Donald Trump in January 2017 for a five-year term.
He's been a "swamp" critter for quite a while. Follow the money.
Re: (Score:2)
Ajit Pai was nominated for a position on the Federal Communications Commission by President Barack Obama in 2011.
Pai was recommended by Mitch McConnel, according to the tradition of appointing 1 commissioner from the opposite party. He theoretically could have refused, but a lone commissioner has very little power, so why bother.
Re:Ajit Pai nominated to FCC by Obama (Score:4, Informative)
It isn't a tradition, it is law. And it isn't just one commissioner, unless the Agency has only three Commissioners. If the Agency has 5, like the FCC and SEC, then 2 come from the opposite party.
They serve 5 year terms (in a five-member Commission) and they're staggered to expire one year apart.
Re: (Score:2)
All politicians are corrupt. However with Biden I am pretty sure the transition of power to the next president will be orderly and peaceful. With Trump, nobody is certain at all even at this late stage in the game. We are back to corrupt politicians running the show but at least these politicians are content with working within the system, not try to bend the rules to the breaking point.
Now as far as class warfare, you are again missing the point. Economics of competition requires businesses to go for incre
Re: (Score:3)
Well, if Biden does destroy the middle class in favor of the 1%, then the's merely following Trump's lead. Trump was NEVER one of the average people, he only pretended. Trump is the biggest elitist of them all. His tax cuts favored the rich far more than anyone who had to work for a living, and far too much of the first covid stimulus went right into the pockets of big businesses (some businesses were honest enough to actually give the money back and claim there must have been a mistake, an attitude that
Legislation, not Regulation (Score:3, Interesting)
I feel it's a terrible idea to try to interpret an ancient communications law by squinting and partially applying it to modern problems. What we really need is a comprehensive legislative solution.
I've made this argument before, and was roundly shouted down when Obama enacted "Net Neutrality". Remember that anything which can be enacted only with the stroke of a President's pen can be repealed just as easily. Now that we've seen this happen once before, I'm hoping my point sounds a bit more reasonable.
But Republican Senate!, I hear you say. Well, yes, enacting legislation is difficult, and prone to compromises. Maybe the bill's supporters will have to bend a bit and offer support for some Republican issues in turn. At least try writing a bill, and let's see what specific opposition there is.
Re:Legislation, not Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe the bill's supporters will have to bend a bit and offer support for some Republican issues in turn
yes, there was so much compromise during the Obama administration.
There is no compromise on the Republican side. The gerrymandering has backfired in that absolute crazed right wing fanatics, spouting Q-anon theories, can be elected.
They are _rewarded_ for not compromising. Not ever.
So no, there will be no legislation. The Republicans will block everything, wait until 2024, and see if they can win the presidency again. There will be no compromise. They are rewarded for not compromising.
They will then enact the most corporate friendly orders they can, and thus it will go, for quite some time.
Re:Legislation, not Regulation (Score:5, Insightful)
Obama enacted "Net Neutrality".
Obama did not enact net neutrality, the FCC did, and the FCC can not flip flop on policy quite as easily as you're suggesting. They're required to maintain a degree of consistency and if they enact some policy which anyone feels violates that requirement then the aggrieved party can sue to block that policy. The ISPs sued when the FCC under Obama classified them as telecommunications services and enacted net neutrality legislation, and lost that lawsuit. Consumer advocates sued when the FCC under Trump classified the ISPs as information services and killed net neutrality, and lost that lawsuit. Presumably the ISPs will sue again when the FCC tries to re-undo the problem... but this time they're dealing with courts which have been thoroughly packed by the Republicans. We have yet to really feel the worst consequences of that, but this could be one of those. I don't know.
As for legislation: I'm not sure that 1996 counts as "ancient" but we've had similar legislation more recently, albeit not directly related to net neutrality. Removing virtually any kind of limitations on spying or invasion of privacy by the ISPs was one of the first things the Republicans rushed to do as soon as they took over in 2017. Since it was a legislative action this can't be reversed by the FCC, so if you want a barometer on how likely a Republican senate is to do anything positive which might cut into ISP profits... well there you are. If the Senate passes meaningful privacy legislation, then I will look at meaningful neutrality legislation with hopeful eyes. This will not happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Not familiar wit
Is it though? (Score:2)
Insert Thor meme here.
That's what keeps employers from tapping your work phone at will ("quality assurance" aside), the way they can search your computer or company email. Speaking of phones, are you glad courts applied the 4th Amendment to phone calls, or do you think the government should have been free to tap them without warrants until a new amendment was passed?
Re: (Score:2)
Excet that they've not historically applied the conventions to phone calls. The NSA "MYSTIC" program is still active, monitoring citizens telephones and metadata in bulk at the telco facilities. It was one of the programs revealed by Edward Snowden's leak of NSA documents.
Re: (Score:2)
This case, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] decided that it was fine for the Federal government to tap phones back in '28 as phone calls were not covered by the 4th or the 5th. No search, no seizure and the lines weren't tapped in someones dwelling so evidence acquired this way was fine.
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect that at the time that no one expected a moron to be elected in the future, or that the moron would lack all subtlety in tearing down regulations that favor the people.
(I'm allowed to say moron, right, that's still allowed in the constitution? I'm sometimes unsure what parts still remain in place.)
I'm hoping Pai(d) is removed (Score:3)
and forced to move somewhere with 10Mb/s service, out of cell range, not realizing he had signed a 10 year non-compete clause when he joined the FCC.
Re: (Score:2)
10Mbps is not that bad, you can actually browse the web that way without too much pain. He should be move somewhere where he has to choose between ADSL and dialup.
violation of net neutrality sounds awful (Score:2, Insightful)
But, personally, in 4 "horrible horrible" years of "orange man bad" I didn't feel anything.
Every content I have been using have been delivered in the same time, there were no visible problems.
Re:violation of net neutrality sounds awful (Score:5, Interesting)
This is a multi-faceted problem. Net neutrality only fixes one of those facets (ISPs double-billing - charging you for service, and also charging websites for the service you already paid for). The other problems like exorbitant prices, poor customer service, long wait times for installation and repair, low data caps, slow rate of hardware upgrades relative to the rest of the developed world, etc. can't be fixed by net neutrality. The root cause of all these problems is the same however - local governments granting these ISPs service monopolies. Stop that practice (insure there's competition among ISPs) and all these problems are solved, no net neutrality needed. It's how the rest of the world does it.
Re: violation of net neutrality sounds awful (Score:2)
Looks like we are saying the same thing: Net Neutrality is a bullshit problem
As for forcing ISPs to stop all other crap - there is nothing about that in Bloomstradamus article quote
Re: (Score:2)
Other than that, I agree. Competition is the way forward. Back in the days of dialup a customer could choose from plenty of ISP's. Same with DSL, but to a lesser degree. Maybe the right way to go is to require last mile networks to only provide connectivity
Re: (Score:2)
The root cause of all these problems is the same however - local governments granting these ISPs service monopolies. Stop that practice (insure there's competition among ISPs) and all these problems are solved, no net neutrality needed. It's how the rest of the world does it.
Nope. Flat wrong. Missouri Revised Statutes 67.1842 Prohibited acts by political subdivisions paragraph (5) Enter into a contract or any other agreement for providing for an exclusive use, occupancy or access to any public right-of-way;
It has been illegal for any local government entity in Missouri to establish exclusive franchise agreements for any utility, including broadband, since 2013. It's not even legal to grant a preference to any public utility right-of-way user (paragraph (2)). Is Missouri some Me
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't feel anything.
Jeesh impatient much? Give corporations a chance to screw each other first. When they run out of money to pay each other for transit then it'll be your turn.
Lack of competition is the real problem (Score:4, Insightful)
What needs to happen is that all the laws, rules, agreements, regulations and etc that artificially constrain competition in the ISP market need to go away.
If new players (be they local governments, non-profit organizations, community groups, co-ops, for-profit businesses or anyone else) can come in and run new networks and provide a genuine alternative to the dinosaurs like Comcast, Charter, Cox, Verizon, Frontier, AT&T etc then the ISPs who do customer unfriendly stuff will loose customers.
All this talk about anti-trust against Google, Facebook etc, instead of going after them, go after Comcast and AT&T and others for the way they abuse their market power to prevent new competitors entering the market.
Re: (Score:2)
No it's not. There's no competition for you. You will only have one ISP. Remember net neutrality isn't about you having access to two ISPs, it's about ISPs not double dipping for bandwidth and prioritisation.
Re: (Score:2)
It was stupid and evil for local governments to grant cable monopolies in the first place
In many cases they didn't. I was a few cable companies buying up community antenna systems. Theoretically it is possible for you to go into a neighborhood and string your own cable. If you have the money to fight off attacks from the incumbent systems. Google tried and failed.
biden (Score:2)
So all that benefits the larger companies will go.
The middle class will be eroded further.
Net neutrality might go if that earns them a few bucks.
Biden's Policy for the next 4 years: (Score:2, Funny)
Ctrl+Z Ctrl+Z Ctrl+Z for the love of god Ctrl+Z
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ctrl+Z Ctrl+Z Ctrl+Z for the love of god Ctrl+Z
To be fair, a whole lot of it will be Ctrl+Y
Re: (Score:2)
Needs more funny mods.
Anyone apointed by Trump (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ajit Pai Must Go! (Score:3)
What is the specific problem to be fixed? (Score:2)
Right now, I would think expanding capacity to work from home, with prioritization of Zoom traffic necessary to get by till then. Why waste time on solutions in search of a problem? And if we talk neutrality, what about content neutrality of social networks and video hosting?
Something Biden's already done (Score:2)
Is to troll all the trolls. They're coming out in force. You know he must be doing something right!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Buckle up (Score:5, Funny)
Re: Buckle up (Score:4, Informative)
Probably because your supporting arguments are, as above, total horseshit.
Re: (Score:2)
The truth has always been a valid defense in courts against libel.
Re: (Score:3)
I do want to see if all those who have been shouting that over the last four years will follow through and accept the new president or just continue being hypocritical.
Re:Buckle up (Score:4, Informative)
Your claims contradict what Trump's representatives have testified in court.
Re:Buckle up (Score:5, Insightful)
A 9 minute video of a guy sitting in a car with a homemade ELECTION CHALLENGER note around his neck? Hold on I'm printing out a SLASHDOT SHITPOSTER sign right now! Oh the judge in Philly said sure you can get closer and that was the end of that.
Re:Buckle up (Score:5, Interesting)
A 9 minute video of a guy sitting in a car with a homemade ELECTION CHALLENGER note around his neck? Hold on I'm printing out a SLASHDOT SHITPOSTER sign right now! Oh the judge in Philly said sure you can get closer and that was the end of that.
If I were to provide a neutral analysis, I think the idea that some folks have is that the Trump oriented Observers and citizens thought that the job of the Observers was to inspect every ballot and count every vote, and make every decision on what was a countable ballot.
That's not what they are there for. They are there to watch if someone throws a batch of ballots in the trash, or otherwise performs fraud.
I'm at a restaurant right now, and I can see and read the social distancing signs that are at least 30 feet away. I can see every move that people who are that far away can make.
I can make an argument that placing the observers very close to the counters is narrowing their field of view, therefore enabling a zone behind them in which fraud might take place. Me? I'd take a chai in the corner of the room, and look over the whole area.
But let's face it - Occam's razor tells us that this is a delaying move, one designed to so doubt into some folks minds. It assumes that not only is there fraud, but that Republicans are complicit in it.
Another delaying move is not allowing mail in ballots to be counted until after the regular ballots are counted, then calling fraud because they were counted after election day.
On a personal note, it is amusing the tap dance that claims Mailed ballots are fraud, but absentee ballots are not.
Trump and his people are running out of normal legal modes to challenge the vote.
Re: (Score:2)
I think these objectors are remembering the bush v gore recounts, where the hanging chad issue made close inspection rather important. This time however, all the counters are doing is verifying signature, removing from envelope, straightening out the ballot, and adding to the pile that will be counted by machine. The necessary observing is very small.
However, if all the Republican observers go into the rooms assuming the existence of massive fraud combined with a lack of ability to use logic, I can unders
Re:Buckle up (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest you just sit back and relax, everything is going to be great, you'll see!
Re: (Score:2)
You need to calm down there friend, BDS (Biden Derangement Syndrome) can have serious negative effects on your mental and emotional health.
I suggest you just sit back and relax, everything is going to be great again, you'll see!
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Not-orange-man bad!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Buckle up (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Judges, republican appointed Judges, say you're full of crap.
Nothing changed because the Internet providers (Score:4, Insightful)
The same thing happened with the car industry when Trump cut emissions and mileage requirements. Nobody wanted to bother acting on the new guidelines because nobody expected them to last long enough to matter. And based on the election results they were right.
Re: (Score:2)
The whole thing is a misdirection... ISPs can effectively hinder flows through their peering policies and routing traffic through congested paths even under the rules of net neutrality. Content providers pay a premium to peer with MSOs and ILECs to ensure they have more control over the path to the eyeballs and thus a higher end user experience. NN said nothing of peering and only said that ISPs need to be transparent about congestion.
The actual solution is to allow mor
Why not just do both? (Score:2)
Re:What happened to all the doom and gloom? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course the ISPs wouldn't instantly impose noticeably onerous practices; otherwise even Republicans might find it politically impossible to avoid regulations (see robocalls, for example). The ISPs needed to use the "boiled frog" approach. Over time, these onerous policies would certainly be put in place, just like the way airlines have been gradually whittling away your personal space and baggage size over the last two decades.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm well aware that actual boiled frogs are apocryphal, but that doesn't matter in this case. It can work very effectively on humans, like in the airline example I pointed out, or like the actual size vs. nominal size of dimensional lumber.
ISPs presently have monopolies because running wires to houses is in fact a natural monopoly. Once the first player has done it, it makes no economic sense for someone else to spend a lot of money digging trenches to try to undercut them on price.
If you want to eliminate
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, killing it should push telcos and streaming providers into monopolies but it won't happen overnight.
US telcos have partitioned the country up into fiefdoms so they are already pretty much complete regional monopolies.
Re: (Score:3)
Never forget that Verizon filed in court that they believed that they should, under the First and Fifth Amendments, be able to censor anything crossing their networks that they find objectionable. This means that if you think that, say, Earthlink was a better ISP, they would reserve the right to censor you because they believed they were the better ISP.
From July 2012 [wordpress.com] (citations removed):
Re: (Score:3)
And I think net neutrality means all porn on the Internet will only be allowed to show people who just have smooth featureless mounds down there, like Barbie dolls.
It's an accurate a definition as yours.
Re: (Score:2)
*as accurate a definition
Serves me right for posting drunk from the Trump Dump Party I guess. Back to the orgy!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not a U.S. citizen: I'm sure we can find all sorts of broken shit about your country, so shut the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The most intriguing counter question would be, could you even have voted for Trump?
And why do you tell lies, maybe you have an agenda of your own?
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court has ordered PA to set aside ballots that were received after 8pm on Tuesday.
Citation needed.
Re: (Score:2)
Citation provided: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20a84.html [supremecourt.gov]
That being said, all this amounts to is the SCOTUS saying "please continue doing what you were already doing".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They had war and famine. Firm deadlines can be _very_ useful to guarantee a scheduled handover of power.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And you trust BIDEN to do that? Look at his donors!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We don't. The banks and the military contractors do. They fuck up every Democrat primary and suppress any attempt to ditch first-past-the-post voting so that our only choice in every election nationwide is between a Republican who likes guns and a Republican who likes abortion.