Wednesday, February 24, 2021

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL MEETING, March 1, 2021

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xAN4XNVMa0peJ_POzsE7TOu2243rKpqS/view?usp=sharing 
CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA 
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA 
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING 
Monday, March 1, 2021 4:30 PM

EIGHT NOTEWORTHY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA ITEMS, March 2, 2021

ABSTRACT: Eight Noteworthy City Council Regular Meeting Agenda Items, March 2, 2021, including PUBLIC APPEARANCES, ANNOUNCEMENTS; CONSENT AGENDA including February 2, 2021 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes, Monthly Reports for January: 1) City Administrator Contract Log; 2) Community Planning and Building Department Reports; 3) Police, Fire, and Ambulance Reports; 4) Public Records Act Requests, and 5) Public Works Department Report and January 2021 Check Register Summary; ORDERS OF BUSINESS including Consider authorizing staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the leasing of the historic Forest Theater for theatrical programming and facility management, Receive an update on Special Events for 2021 and Receive an update on the City's unfunded pension liability, discuss pension mitigation options, including the development of a pension funding policy, and provide direction to staff; PUBLIC HEARINGS including Consideration of an Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision regarding fee assessment and mitigation for unauthorized tree removals at the northwest corner of Junipero Street and Thirteenth Avenue. The CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, March 2, 2021 and Staff Report document copies are embedded.

CITY OF CARMEL-BY-THE-SEA
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 2, 2021

Governor Newsom’s Executive Order N-29-20 has allowed local legislative bodies to hold public meetings via teleconference and to make public meetings accessible telephonically or otherwise electronically to all members of the public seeking to observe and to address the local legislative body. Also, see the Order by the Monterey County Public Health Officer issued March 17, 2020. The health and well-being of our residents is the top priority for the City of Carmel-by-the-Sea. To that end, this meeting will be held via teleconference and web-streamed on the City’s website ONLY. 

To attend via Teleconference; 1-510-946-0036 PIN: 123 285 133# 

The public can also email comments to cityclerk@ci.carmel.ca.us. Comments must be received 2 hours before the meeting in order to be provided to the legislative body. Comments received after that time and up to the beginning of the meeting will be added to the agenda and made part of the record. 

OPEN SESSION 
4:30 PM

CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL 
Mayor Dave Potter, Council Members Jeff Baron, Karen Ferlito, Bobby Richards, and Carrie Theis 

PUBLIC APPEARANCES 
Members of the Public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on the Agenda and that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the City Council. The exception is a Closed Session agenda, where speakers may address the Council on those items before the Closed Session begins. Speakers are usually given three (3) minutes to speak on any item; the time limit is in the discretion of the Chair of the meeting and may be limited when appropriate. Applicants and appellants in land use matters are usually given more time to speak. If an individual wishes to submit written information, he or she may give it to the City Clerk. Speakers and any other members of the public will not approach the dais at any time without prior consent from the Chair of the meeting. 

ANNOUNCEMENTS 
A. City Administrator Announcements 
B. City Attorney Announcements 
C. Councilmember Announcements 

CONSENT AGENDA 
Items on the consent agenda are routine in nature and do not require discussion or independent action. Members of the Council, Board or Commission or the public may ask that any items be considered individually for purposes of Council, Board or Commission discussion and/ or for public comment. Unless that is done, one motion may be used to adopt all recommended actions. 

1. February 2, 2021 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hCIcmNklBu4XwOO_TsEbg8Bm8VnLwV_Y/view?usp=sharing
February 2, 2021 Special and Regular Meeting Minutes 

2. Monthly Reports for January: 1) City Administrator Contract Log; 2) Community Planning and Building Department Reports; 3) Police, Fire, and Ambulance Reports; 4) Public Records Act Requests, and 5) Public Works Department Report 
Monthly Reports for January: 1) City Administrator Contract Log; 2) Community Planning and Building Department Reports; 3) Police, Fire, and Ambulance Reports; 4) Public Records Act Requests, and 5) Public Works Department Report 

3. January 2021 Check Register Summary 
January 2021 Check Register Summary 

ORDERS OF BUSINESS
Orders of Business are agenda items that require City Council, Board or Commission discussion, debate, direction to staff, and/or action. 

6. Consider authorizing staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the leasing of the historic Forest Theater for theatrical programming and facility management https://drive.google.com/file/d/1y_f3qYSp-ouseysS97HmuD1eE33oWDe9/view?usp=sharing 
Consider authorizing staff to issue a Request for Proposals for the leasing of the historic Forest Theater for theatrical programming and facility management

8. Receive an update on the City's unfunded pension liability, discuss pension mitigation options, including the development of a pension funding policy, and provide direction to staff https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xS7SkSgmdkl9zeDKkiIYXcYUJ1_qWHdw/view?usp=sharing
Receive an update on the City's unfunded pension liability, discuss pension mitigation options, including the development of a pension funding policy, and provide direction to staff 

PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Consideration of an Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision regarding fee assessment and mitigation for unauthorized tree removals at the northwest corner of Junipero Street and Thirteenth Avenue
Consideration of an Appeal of the Forest and Beach Commission decision regarding fee assessment and mitigation for unauthorized tree removals at the northwest corner of Junipero Street and Thirteenth Avenue

ADJOURNMENT

12.
The City Council meeting will be adjourned in memory of Barbara Livingston

Monday, February 22, 2021

The Causes and Costs of Illegal Immigration through the United States’ Southwest Border, A Report by Dr. Peter Navarro

 

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pfEVuM4wE6qLgCPYtK3fJ1lwOtqUMvzZ/view?usp=sharing 
A Special Foreword by Steve Cortes
The Causes and Costs of Illegal Immigration through the United States’ Southwest Border
A Report by Dr. Peter Navarro
February 2020

This special edition of the Navarro seeks to demonstrate and explain the following: 

• Which countries are illegal aliens coming from and what are their demographic profiles? 
• What forces incentivize these illegal aliens to migrate north in such large numbers and why is it so easy for illegal aliens to take up residence in the United States? 
• What will be the likely fallout of illegal mass migration: facilitated by the Biden-Harris Regime on for American taxpayers, labor markets, American children in our K-12 public schools, and crime? 
• How did the Trump Administration combat the dangers of mass illegal migration, mitigate the fiscal burden of illegal immigration, and what were the effects of these policies? 

Conclusion

This report provides a catalog and guidebook to the costs and consequences of illegal immigration into the United States. It should be clear from this report that the burden of illegal immigration falls heavily on American taxpayers, on American schoolchildren, the US healthcare system, and on those working poor citizens who are forced to compete with millions of illegal immigrants for decent jobs at decent wages.

This report also has demonstrates that the Secure Border policies of the Trump Administration made tremendous inroads into combating the problems associated with illegal immigration. If the President had won a second term – and given the widespread election irregularities fully documented in the Navarro Report, many people believe he did – the Trump policies, together with the President’s completed border wall, would have gone a long way toward ending America’s battle with an issue that continues to sharply divide the American people.

While the Democrat Party ostensibly represents the working poor and blue-collar laborers of America, this political party now advocates unrelentingly for open borders that will afflict maximum damage to these constituencies.

In all likelihood, the Democrat Party pushes for open borders in the belief that these illegal immigrants will eventually support the Democrat Party once afforded citizenship and vote for lasting Democratic control of both Congress and the White House. This calculus may well prove false as President Trump experienced some of his biggest improvements in vote totals among Blacks and Hispanics who have borne the brunt of the Democrat’s open border policies.

As the Biden-Harris Regime continues to dismantle the Secure Order policies of the Trump Administration, and as a crisis on our Southern border gains in intensity, it is well worth remembering that elections have consequences. On our Southern border, the very worst is yet to come – we must brace for the fallout.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES: (ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.) MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021

https://drive.google.com/file/d/12etnMQlRV2kj0SkdxN_ULCrKLauub6Pu/view?usp=sharing

(ORDER LIST: 592 U.S.)  MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021



ORDERS IN PENDING CASES
 
20A63 
TRUMP, DONALD J. V. VANCE, CYRUS R., ET AL. 
The application for a stay presented to Justice Breyer and referred to the Court is denied. 

 CERTIORARI DENIED 


20-799
WOOD, L. LIN V. RAFFENSPERGER, BRAD, ET AL.

20-809
WARD, KELLI V. JACKSON, CONSTANCE, ET AL.

20-882
TRUMP, DONALD J., ET AL. V. BIDEN, JOSEPH R., ET AL.

 20-810 

KELLY, MIKE, ET AL. V. PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.
The motion of 28 Current Members of the House of  Representatives for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is  granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.

20-815
KING, TIMOTHY, ET AL. V. WHITMER, GOV. OF MI, ET AL.
The petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment is denied.

20-845
DONALD J. TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT V. DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SEC. OF PA, ET AL.
The motion of Constitutional Attorneys for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Republican Party of Pennsylvania for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied.



Cite as: 592 U. S. ____ (2021) 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

 20–542 REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA 20–542 v. VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL. 


20–574 JAKE CORMAN, ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL.

ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA, MIDDLE DISTRICT

Nos. 20–542 and 20–574. Decided February 22, 2021

The motions of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. for leave to intervene as petitioner are dismissed as moot. The motions of Thomas J. Randolph, et al. for leave to intervene as respondents are dismissed as moot. The motion of Hon- est Elections Project for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in No. 20–542 is granted. The motion of White House Watch Fund, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae in No. 20–574 is granted. The petitions for writs of certiorari are denied. 

 JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting from the denial of certiorari. 

The Constitution gives to each state legislature authority to determine the “Manner” of federal elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1; Art. II, §1, cl. 2. Yet both before and after the 2020 election, nonlegislative officials in various States took it upon themselves to set the rules instead. As a result, we received an unusually high number of petitions and emergency applications contesting those changes. The petitions here present a clear example. The Pennsylvania Legislature established an unambiguous deadline for receiving mail-in ballots: 8 p.m. on election day. Dissatisfied, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended that deadline by three days. The court also ordered officials to count ballots received by the new deadline even if there was no evi­dence—such as a postmark—that the ballots were mailed by election day. That decision to rewrite the rules seems to have affected too few ballots to change the outcome of any federal election. But that may not be the case in the future. These cases provide us with an ideal opportunity to address just what authority nonlegislative officials have to set elec­tion rules, and to do so well before the next election cycle. The refusal to do so is inexplicable.

I


Like most States, Pennsylvania has a long history of lim­iting the use of mail-in ballots. But in October 2019, the Pennsylvania Legislature overhauled its election laws. Rel­evant here, it gave all voters the option of voting by mail, and it extended the deadline for officials to receive mail bal­lots by several days to 8 p.m. on election day. 2019 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2019–77. Then, in response to COVID–19, the legislature again amended the law but decided not to ex­tend the receipt deadline further. See 2020 Pa. Leg. Serv. Act 2020–12.

Displeased with that decision, the Pennsylvania Demo­cratic Party sued in state court. It argued that the court could extend the deadline through a vague clause in the State Constitution providing, in relevant part, that “[e]lec­tions shall be free and equal.” Art. I, §5. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed. On September 17, it held that this “free and equal” provision enabled the court to extend the deadline three days to accommodate concerns about postal delays.

Petitioners promptly moved for emergency relief, filing an application for a stay on September 28. That application easily met our criteria for granting relief. See Hol­lingsworth v. Perry, 558 U. S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam). Not only did parties on both sides agree that the issue war­ranted certiorari, but there also was no question that peti­tioners faced irreparable harm. See Maryland v. King, 567

U. S. 1301, 1303 (2012) (ROBERTS, C. J., in chambers)(“‘[A]ny time a State is enjoined by a court from effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people, it suffers a form of irreparable injury’”). Petitioners further estab­lished a fair prospect of certiorari and reversal. For more than a century, this Court has recognized that the Consti­tution “operat[es] as a limitation upon the State in respectof any attempt to circumscribe the legislative power” to reg­ulate federal elections. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 25 (1892). Because the Federal Constitution, not state con­stitutions, gives state legislatures authority to regulate fed­eral elections, petitioners presented a strong argument that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision violated the Constitution by overriding “the clearly expressed intent ofthe legislature.” Bush v. Gore, 531 U. S. 98, 120 (2000) (Rehnquist, C. J., concurring). Despite petitioners’ strong showing that they were entitled to relief, we divided 4–4and thus failed to act. Scarnati v. Boockvar, ante, p. ___.

Four days later, petitioners filed the first of these peti­tions and moved to expedite consideration so the Court could decide the merits before election day. But by that time, election day was just over a week away. So we denied the motion to expedite even though the question was of “na­tional importance” and there was a “strong likelihood that the State Supreme Court decision violates the Federal Con­stitution.” Republican Party of Pa. v. Boockvar, ante, at 3 (statement of ALITO, J.).


II

 Now that the petitions are before us under the normal briefing schedule, I see no reason to avoid them. Indeed, the day after we denied petitioner’s motion to expedite in No. 20–542, the case became even more worthy of review. The Eighth Circuit split from the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, granting a preliminary injunction against an at­tempt by the Minnesota Secretary of State to extend the legislature’s deadline to receive ballots by seven days. Car­son v. Simon, 978 F. 3d 1051, 1059–1060, 1062 (2020). This divide on an issue of undisputed importance would justify certiorari in almost any case. That these cases concern fed­eral elections only further heightens the need for review.

 

A

 

Elections are “of the most fundamental significance un­der our constitutional structure.” See Illinois Bd. of Elec­tions v. Socialist Workers Party, 440 U. S. 173, 184 (1979). Through them, we exercise self-government. But elections enable self-governance only when they include processes that “giv[e] citizens (including the losing candidates and their supporters) confidence in the fairness of the election.” See Democratic National Committee v. Wisconsin State Leg­islature, ante, at 3 (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in denial of application to vacate stay); accord, Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1, 4 (2006) (per curiam) (“Confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy”).

Unclear rules threaten to undermine this system. They sow confusion and ultimately dampen confidence in the in­tegrity and fairness of elections. To prevent confusion, we have thus repeatedly—although not as consistently as we should—blocked rule changes made by courts close to an election. See Purcell, supra.1

An election system lacks clear rules when, as here, differ­ent officials dispute who has authority to set or change those rules. This kind of dispute brews confusion because voters may not know which rules to follow. Even worse, with more than one system of rules in place, competing can­didates might each declare victory under different sets of rules.

We are fortunate that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision to change the receipt deadline for mail-in ballots does not appear to have changed the outcome in any federal election. This Court ordered the county boards to segregate ballots received later than the deadline set by the legisla­ture. Order in Republican Party of Pa. v.  Boockvar, No. 20A84. And none of the parties contend that those bal­lots made an outcome-determinative difference in any rele­vant federal election.

But we may not be so lucky in the future. Indeed, a sep­arate decision by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have already altered an election result. A different petition argues that after election day the Pennsylvania Supreme Court nullified the legislative requirement that voters write the date on mail-in ballots. See Pet. for Cert., O. T. 2020, No. 20–845. According to public reports, one candidate for a state senate seat claimed victory under what she con­tended was the legislative rule that dates must be included on the ballots. A federal court noted that this candidate would win by 93 votes under that rule. Ziccarelli v. Alle­gheny Cty. Bd. of Elections, 2021 WL 101683, *1 (WD Pa., Jan. 12, 2021). A second candidate claimed victory under the contrary rule announced by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He was seated.

That is not a prescription for confidence. Changing the rules in the middle of the game is bad enough. Such rule changes by officials who may lack authority to do so is even worse. When those changes alter election results, they can severely damage the electoral system on which our self­-governance so heavily depends. If state officials have the authority they have claimed, we need to make it clear. If not, we need to put an end to this practice now before the consequences become catastrophic.

 

B


At first blush, it may seem reasonable to address this question when it next arises. After all, the 2020 election is now over, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision was not outcome determinative for any federal election.

 

But whatever force that argument has in other contexts, it fails in the context of elections. For at least three reasons, the Judiciary is ill equipped to address problems—includ­ing those caused by improper rule changes—through post-election litigation.

 

First, postelection litigation is truncated by firm time­lines. That is especially true for Presidential elections, which are governed by the Electoral Count Act, passed in1887. That Act sets federal elections for the day after the first Monday in November—last year, November 3. See 3

U. S. C. §1. Under a statutory safe-harbor provision, a State has about five weeks to address all disputes and make a “final determination” of electors if it wants that decision to “be conclusive.” §5. Last year’s deadline fell on Decem­ber 8, and the Electoral College voted just six days later.§7. Five to six weeks for judicial testing is difficult enough for straightforward cases. For factually complex cases, compressing discovery, testimony, and appeals into this timeline is virtually impossible.

Second, this time frame imposes especially daunting con­straints when combined with the expanded use of mail-in ballots. Voting by mail was traditionally limited to voters who had defined, well-documented reasons to be absent. See, e.g., Moreton, Note, Voting by Mail, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1261, 1261–1264 (1985). In recent years, however, many States have become more permissive, a trend greatly accelerated by COVID–19. In Pennsylvania, for example, mail­-in ballots composed just 4% of ballots cast in 2018. But the legislature dramatically expanded the process in 2019, thereby increasing the mail-in ballots cast in 2020 to 38%.

This expansion impedes postelection judicial review be­cause litigation about mail-in ballots is substantially more complicated. For one thing, as election administrators havelong agreed, the risk of fraud is “vastly more prevalent” for mail-in ballots. Liptak, Error and Fraud at Issue as Absen­tee Voting Rises, N. Y. Times, Oct. 6, 2012. The reason is simple: “[A]bsentee voting replaces the oversight that exists at polling places with something akin to an honor system.” Ibid. Heather Gerken, now dean of Yale Law School, ex­plained in the same New York Times article that absentee voting allows for “simpler and more effective alternatives to commit fraud” on a larger scale, such as stealing absentee ballots or stuffing a ballot box, which explains “‘why all the evidence of stolen elections involves absentee ballots and the like.’” Ibid. The same article states that “[v]oting by mail is now common enough and problematic enough that election experts say there have been multiple elections in which no one can say with confidence which candidate was the deserved winner.” Ibid.

Pennsylvania knows this well. Even before widespread absentee voting, a federal court had reversed the result of a state senate election in Philadelphia after finding that the supposedly prevailing candidate “conducted an illegal ab­sentee ballot conspiracy and that the [election officials] cov­ertly facilitated the scheme with the specific purpose of en­suring a victory for” that candidate. Marks v. Stinson, 1994 WL 146113, *29, *36 (ED Pa., Apr. 26, 1994). This problem is not unique to Pennsylvania, and it has not gone away. Two years ago, a congressional election in North Carolina was thrown out in the face of evidence of tampering with absentee ballots. Because fraud is more prevalent with mail-in ballots, increased use of those ballots raises the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.2

Fraud is not the only aspect of mail-in ballots that com­plicates postelection judicial review. Also relevant are the corresponding safeguards that States put in place to ame­liorate that heightened risk of fraud. To balance the “strong interest” of ballot access with the “‘compelling interest in preserving the integrity of [the] election process,’” Purcell, 549 U. S., at 4, many States have expanded mail-in ballots but sought to deter fraud—and create mechanisms to detect it—by requiring voters to return ballots in signed, dated se­crecy envelopes. Some States also require witness or notary signatures. Tallying these ballots tends to be more labor intensive, involves a high degree of subjective judgment(e.g., verifying signatures), and typically leads to a far higher rate of ballot challenges and rejections. Litigation over these ballots can require substantial discovery and la­bor-intensive fact review. In some cases, it might require sifting through hundreds of thousands or millions of ballots. It also may require subjective judgment calls about the va­lidity of thousands of ballots. Judicial review in this situa­tion is difficult enough even when the rules are clear and the number of challenged ballots small. Adding a dispute about who can set or change the rules greatly exacerbates the problem.

Third, and perhaps most significant, postelection litiga­tion sometimes forces courts to make policy decisions that they have no business making. For example, when an offi­cial has improperly changed the rules, but voters have al­ready relied on that change, courts must choose between potentially disenfranchising a subset of voters and enforc­ing the election provisions—such as receipt deadlines—that the legislature believes are necessary for election integrity. That occurred last year. After a court wrongly altered South Carolina’s witness requirement for absentee ballots, this Court largely reinstated the original rule, but declined to apply it to ballots already cast. Andino v. Middleton, ante, p. ___. Settling rules well in advance of an election rather than relying on postelection litigation ensures that courts are not put in that untenable position.

In short, the postelection system of judicial review is at most suitable for garden-variety disputes. It generally can­not restore the state of affairs before an election. And it is often incapable of testing allegations of systemic maladmin­istration, voter suppression, or fraud that go to the heart of public confidence in election results. That is obviously prob­lematic for allegations backed by substantial evidence. But the same is true where allegations are incorrect. After all, “[c]onfidence in the integrity of our electoral process is es­sential to the functioning of our participatory democracy.” Purcell, supra, at 4; cf. McCutcheon v. Federal Election Comm’n, 572 U. S. 185, 191, 206–207 (2014) (plurality opin­ion) (identifying a compelling interest in rooting out the mere “appearance of corruption” in the political process).An incorrect allegation, left to fester without a robust mech­anism to test and disprove it, “drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our govern­ment.” Purcell, supra, at 4.

 

III

 Because the judicial system is not well suited to address these kinds of questions in the short time period available immediately after an election, we ought to use available cases outside that truncated context to address these ad­mittedly important questions. Here, we have the oppor­tunity to do so almost two years before the next federal elec­tion cycle. Our refusal to do so by hearing these cases is befuddling. There is a clear split on an issue of such great importance that both sides previously asked us to grant cer­tiorari. And there is no dispute that the claim is sufficiently meritorious to warrant review. By voting to grant emer­gency relief in October, four Justices made clear that they think petitioners are likely to prevail. Despite pressing for review in October, respondents now ask us not to grant cer­tiorari because they think the cases are moot. That argu­ment fails.

The issue presented is capable of repetition, yet evades review. This exception to mootness, which the Court rou­tinely invokes in election cases, “applies where (1) the chal­lenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration, and (2) there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.” Davis v. Federal Election Comm’n, 554 U. S. 724, 735 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted) (resolving a dispute from the 2006 election); see also Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780, 784, and  n. 3 (1983) (resolving a dispute from the 1980 election).Here, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision about six weeks before the election, leaving little time for review in this Court. And there is a reasonable expectation that these petitioners—the State Republican Party and leg­islators—will again confront nonlegislative officials alter­ing election rules. In fact, various petitions claim that no fewer than four other decisions of the Pennsylvania Su­preme Court implicate the same issue.3 Future cases will arise as lower state courts apply those precedents to justify intervening in elections and changing the rules.

One wonders what this Court waits for. We failed to set­tle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections. The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling. By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence. Our fel­low citizens deserve better and expect more of us. I respect­fully dissent.

Sunday, February 21, 2021

No Longer Consenting, Carlsbad California Restaurant Owners Defy Order and Open for Indoor Dining…by Sundance

No Longer Consenting, Carlsbad California Restaurant Owners Defy Order and Open for Indoor Dining…
Posted on February 19, 2021 by Sundance

”If the public are bound to yield obedience to laws to which they cannot give their approbation, they are slaves to those who make such laws and enforce them.”.. ~Sam Adams

 
Some Carlsbad restaurants defy public health orders and reopen indoor dining 
Feb 18, 2021

Understanding and Embracing the Role of the 21st-Century American Dissident, Brent E. Hamachek

Brent E. Hamachek

Jan 26

Understanding and Embracing the Role of the 21st-Century American Dissident

That leaves those of us who still believe in both the ideas of individual liberty that are codified in our Constitution and in the virtue of free market capitalism as threats to the new order that has been forming. 

That makes us dissidents.

Our role models need to be people like Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Natan Sharansky, and Andrei Sakharov. These were courageous men, true dissidents, who stood up to totalitarianism during the period of Soviet domination. Their unyielding yet steady courage and resolve helped to make the world understand what true oppression felt like. People forget that in the early days of Soviet Russia, the country was considered to be a utopian model for many in the West. The efforts of dissidents like these taught the world a different story. More importantly, over time it taught their countrymen.

No Proof January 6 Was an ‘Armed Insurrection,’ AMERICAN GREATNESS

No Proof January 6 Was an ‘Armed Insurrection’
Not one person has been charged with possessing or using a gun inside the Capitol. Further, no one even has been identified as carrying a gun inside the building.
By Julie Kelly February 19, 2021


Not one person has been charged with possessing or using a gun inside the Capitol. Further, no one has been identified as carrying a gun inside the building. Of the hundreds of photographs posted on the FBIs Most Wanted List for the Capitol breach investigation, not a single picture shows anyone with a firearm.

At least 100,000 attended Trump’s speech that day; fewer than 1,000 “stormed” the Capitol. A few hundred have been arrested and only 14 face weapons charges. Those “deadly and dangerous” weapons include two baseball bats, a can of pepper spray, a walking stick/stun gun, an axe, a few fire extinguishers (one in question), a helmet, a riot shield, and a collapsible baton. And at no time did this random weaponry pose a lethal threat to lawmakers inside the Capitol..

Was January 6, 2021 an “armed insurrection” or anything close?

No.