2020 Election early voting and eventually results

In Arizona I vote by mail. When not in Arizona, well, I still vote by mail. OK, I don't leave Arizona 'cept for a few weeks a year and I don't live anywhere else like the snowbirds we have around these parts do, so I don't vote anywhere but here and I do that by mail.Maricopa County sent me my ballot in the mail.Actually, they sent me both an e-mail and a text message telling me they sent my ballot to me and, presto, magico, it showed up in my mailbox not two days later.I am a conscientious voter and yes, I admit, I even research those "Judgeships - retain/remove" on the back along with the justice of this peace here and a justice of that piece over there and, well, so it goes.I seal my appropriately marked ballot in its designated, pre-numbered, etched into the electoral aether of Maricopa County, recorded and registered Special Ballot Mailing Envelope. In this day of plague we really get to lick the envelope closed. Well, unless you have a sponge.The hard part is finding an appropriate pen with which to affix my signature within the designated big red box on the back. These types of rituals have a significance far above the station of a mere ink pen. This required a name brand BIC.I have a postal substation right up the road where I can slide my ballot envelope surreptitiously shrouded by the fog of the early-evening mist unnoticed into the "Metered" drop box directly and have my escape.So the last time I did this was this past Sunday.Tuesday morning I had my messages from Maricopa County saying they had received my envelope and was in signature verification.This morning (Wednesday) I received messages from Maricopa County saying they had verified my signature and my ballot has been counted.This is the way it's supposed to be.I'm satisfied. I am empowered. I am SuperCitizen! I voted.

After two millennia of this crap we already know Christian is wrong ... prophets or otherwise.

I don't care about dead prophets. They are suckers and losers. I only listen to live prophets.

Really, Phat. It was a joke. A slap at Trump's view of dead American soldiers.From now on, for all the remaining history of the USofA, "suckers and losers" will be Trump's legacy of love for the American military. Whenever the phrase is used, no matter the context, it will be used and seen as scorn to be forever heaped on The Orange Bastard.But, you're right, I did lie. Your live prophets are worse than your dead ones. The live ones are still spewing up their crap.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

OK. I can accept this. Just know that if things go terribly wrong, it is now YOUR fault and the name "Tangle" will be forever entangled with the demise of humanity in Trump's second term.

Sure, but how many kisses do we get between thrusts?

I'm not concerned about the fraud republicans hint at in democrat states but more the kind the republicans are presently practicing in California, Texas, Penn, and more, quite openly and, seeing recent court cases, quite legally.Though always subject to political shenanigans, voting rights used to be championed by the courts as a near sacred Civil Right in this country.Every time some yahoo backwoods Hon. State Representative decided it would be great if they only allowed one mail-ballot drop location per county regardless of area or population leading to such truly American spectacles as 1 ballot drop in a large spread out county of 80,000 people and another only-one box in a county so big it takes better part of a day to drive across, every time this republican bozo raised his head there was always a Right Honorable Judge of some Federal court to step in and say "WTF?!"That's not happening these days.Appears the courts have decided to tread very lightly on the State's Right to control its elections. And questions of egregious intent seem to have been set aside.The conservatives' control and packing of the courts for generations now is having the intended effect. Voting rights are now subservient to political will.Fortunately (crossed fingers and toes) this is a Trump disaster as much for the republicans as for the rest of the nation and the world. The man really is poison.Longer term there is still time to assert some control of the voting regulations in wounded republican states before the trump poison wears off.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Anyone who cannot answer that question hasn't been paying attention for the last 4 years.

Doesn't matter. Anyone asking such a question is either blind or stupid if they can't see a major difference.

No. It was a political opinion ... as was yours.

I suppose you could build an argument but in this case, no.

If you're not paying attention to the discussion it might appear so, yes.

The majority of the House must also agree to any change in number of SCOTUS seats. And, frankly, if there is that much political will in favor (the House, the Senate and the president) then so be it. Ride with the politics. That's the way we work.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Art.3, Sec.1 of the Constitution is very specific. Appointed judges serve lifetime appointments. Would need an amendment to get limited service or election for federal judges.And do we really want judges selling their opinions for campaign contributions?Lifetime appointment keeps the judiciary somewhat above the partisan money grab that is the political process in this country. They get to exercise long term judicial temperament and expertise vs having to deal with short term political whims, many contrary to long established legal standards, fostered by periodic elections from a society that doesn't know a tort from a Pop-Tart. ... a lot of organs of governance should be left to reflect the political whims of a fickle majority. The Judiciary is "not" one of them. There are adequate checks and balances to remove egregiously bad judges. Shielding judges to some degree from the political vagaries of society helps keep political considerations mollified and the bench's rulings centered on the law not on any personal political considerations.Today we have the other branches of our government playing fast and loose political games with court appointments. That's what our system of governance is built to handle. Let the others play the politics; keep it out of the courts. If some feel slighted at the prospect of a conservative slant to the court you don't address that issue by taking away judges protections from undue influence. The system ALLOWS you to alter that political slant by adding a seat or two. So be it. If the majority of both houses of Congress and the president are so motivated then our system of government allows for such.Both House and Senate would realistically laugh at the suggestion of 99+ seats on the court so don't use that argument. It's not gonna happen.Congress is not barred from decreasing the number of SCOTUS seats. Again, if some Judicial Reform Bill cutting the swelling number of Justices from 15 back to 9 by eliminating the seats of these 6 named justices made it into law, which means majorities in each house and the president all in agreement, the constitution and the very philosophy that underpins that document requires that it be so.If a round of musical SCOTUS chairs every 4 to 8 years bothers people it shouldn’t. Matters not the number of seats but the mind that occupies them. Shouldn’t matter what the politics, if the ABA says they are well qualified then we can argue politics. If the ABA says different then politics shouldn’t matter. Unfortunately that has not always been the case. But we chase an ideal. We can try.But making SCOTUS an elected body gives the majority too may of the levers of power for short term mischief. The judiciary was isolated from political whims by the founding fathers for a very specific reason. The political whims of the majority in any society are too often too fucking stupid for its own good. Trump as exhibit A.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Not these people. They're thinking posterity, legacy, being the bestest loved respected influential, etc, justice that ever graced this land of the free, etc. They have made it to the top of humanity. If there is a political element in the consideration, as long as there is no clear violation of either the letter or spirit of the law (and we can argue the spirit thing) then, with history, you may/can figure how that will influence an opinion.I wouldn't count on Barrett automajikly having Trumps back.