Hey, @C_C_Krebs care to answer how US government systems were penetrated here but somehow this election was the most secure in history? Did you know about this in advance? Is Dominion a customer?
(Also from The Atlantic)
Nonetheless, some legal scholars believe that the Constitution gives the president inherent emergency powers by making him commander in chief of the armed forces, or by vesting in him a broad, undefined “executive Power.” At key points in American history, presidents have cited inherent constitutional powers when taking drastic actions that were not authorized—or, in some cases, were explicitly prohibited—by Congress. Notorious examples include Franklin D. Roosevelt’s internment of U.S. citizens and residents of Japanese descent during World War II and George W. Bush’s programs of warrantless wiretapping and torture after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Abraham Lincoln conceded that his unilateral suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War was constitutionally questionable, but defended it as necessary to preserve the Union.
The Supreme Court has often upheld such actions or found ways to avoid reviewing them, at least while the crisis was in progress. Rulings such as Youngstown Sheet & Tube Company v. Sawyer, in which the Court invalidated President Harry Truman’s bid to take over steel mills during the Korean War, have been the exception. And while those exceptions have outlined important limiting principles, the outer boundary of the president’s constitutional authority during emergencies remains poorly defined.
The Supreme Court ordered Pennsylvania Democrats to respond by Thursday evening in a case challenging the states three-day extension for counting mail-in ballots.
President Trump has moved to intervene in a lawsuit brought by Pennsylvania Republicans, arguing the states Democratic Party and Secretary of State violated the law by extending the time for counting mail-in ballots to Nov. 6 at 5 p.m., despite the state legislature setting the deadline as Election Day.
The lawsuit takes issue with a state Supreme Court ruling that postmarked ballots be presumed to have been mailed before Nov. 3, even if not clearly postmarked to that effect.
This is an open invitation to voters to cast their ballots after Election Day, thereby injecting chaos and the potential for gamesmanship into what had been an orderly and secure schedule of clear, bright-line deadlines, the Republicans argued.
According to the courts docket, the justices want the states officials and Democratic Party to respond before Fridays ballot-counting deadline.
Response to motion for leave to intervene requested, due Thursday, November 5, 2020, by 5 p.m., the docket read.