Constitutionally, while federal courts only have the power to hear a “case or controversy,” meaning the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear “moot” cases, here there is a well-established exception to the mootness doctrine: the capable-of-repetition-but-evading-review exception.

This exception to the mootness doctrine provides that federal courts hold authority to resolve cases where “the challenged action is in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration” and where “there is a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will be subject to the same action again.”

Both criteria exist here, Justice Thomas wrote, as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision came a mere six weeks before the election, and the petitioners in the cases—the state Republican party and state legislators—are likely to “again confront nonlegislative officials altering election rules.”

In his separate dissent, Justice Alito also concluded that certiorari should be granted because the cases “present an important and recurring constitutional question.” His dissent, joined by Justice Gorsuch, focused mainly on the mootness question. //

Maybe the six justices who voted against certiorari believe the country will be better off without relitigating the election. The denial, however, will not heal a country that witnessed state officials and courts change the rules mid-vote—not just in Pennsylvania, but in Wisconsin and Michigan too. Then her citizens saw the Supreme Court seemingly ignore those violations of the Electors Clause when Texas sought relief in the Supreme Court.

Worse yet will be the damage done to our republic when the bending and breaking of election laws repeats in the future. For now, as Justice Thomas concluded, “by doing nothing,” the Supreme Court invites “erosion of voter confidence.” We “citizens deserve better and expect more.”

Dr. Fauci has become the face and voice of the virus, with dozens of pronouncements over the past year on what Americans should and shouldn’t do. Many of his statements have been contradictory to the point that I (and probably many others) am confused about official virus-related policies from the federal government. Accordingly, I have a few simple questions to put to him that would clarify matters bigly:

Axios’ Nicholas Johnston: “Let me talk a little more of the Trump administration. Mask-wearing aside, what did they get right?”

Dr. Collins: The Operation Warp Speed, for which I give a great deal of credit to [former Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar], was a effort that many of us were not initially convinced was going to be necessary.

In the effort to force “equality” we instead can end up erasing Black representation altogether.

What is needed so that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) would consider your people “qualified persons” — that is, people who are exposed to electrical hazards 50V and greater (Photo 1)? This could be electricians, technicians, HVAC technicians, or any other person who works near 50V or more. OSHA doesn’t care about the job title. If your job title is “Chief Bag Carrier” and you work on or near exposed energized electrical conductors or circuit parts, you need to be qualified.

One important distinction to note is that for a qualified person to work on what is considered to be energized circuits or parts, that circuit would have to be both exposed and energized. Therefore, energized equipment that is not exposed would not have the same requirements as equipment that is exposed. It is considered “guarded” (Photo 2) by OSHA and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 70E standards and would present no danger — unless you open the door, rack in or out a circuit breaker, or do something else that would expose the energized part inside. //

There are two sources that provide training requirements for qualified persons:

OSHA regulations in 29CFR1910.399, 1910.332,  and 1910.333
NFPA 70E, “Standard for Electrical Safety in the Workplace”

OSHA uses broad, regulatory, non-prescriptive language. In other words, it can be vague if you are not used to using it. NFPA 70E is very prescriptive. The two documents work together to provide a complete picture.

Data from the NBC News poll shows that the composition of the two major parties is changing, and one massive shift is coming in employment: the kinds of jobs Democrats and Republicans hold. There are signs across racial and ethnic demographic groups that Republicans are becoming the party of blue-collar Americans and the change is happening quickly.

If the movement continues it could have a large impact on the future of the GOP. //

NBC admits that the GOP had better economic messaging than Democrats, but warns that the majority of this growth took place during the Trump era and if the GOP continues to use the same tactics Trump did to attract blue-collar workers, then it would further tie the party to him. //

Economic policies can be practiced without belonging to a specific man. If it works, it works. For the blue-collar voters in America, it definitely worked.

According to a new report from The Washington Times, multiple members of the Obama administration met with Iran in the attempt to undermine the Trump Administration including Kerry; Robert Malley, Obama’s Middle East adviser; and Obama Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz.

This is the vacant, hollow, bereft-of-content scandal the left and the media are attempting to cook up on Florida’s governor. If you are someone in the media looking at the elderly receiving vaccine access as some sort of problem then you are engaging in the two things the very same media have been demonizing; those politicizing the pandemic, and those ignoring the science and the advice of healthcare professionals.

This faux scandal proves that both of those realities are in play right now.

My best friend was on the other side of the spectrum of survival, and used several less expensive solutions. He was able to comfortably live with far less and used a little creativity to solve problems as they appeared.

Generator: He had a Honda 2kW with extended tank. He initially was running it for one space heater but found it to be so inefficient that he just used it for entertainment and electronics during the day. (This is not included in $200 total but is not necessary, as you will see.)

Water: Collect it in buckets. Five-gallon buckets from Home Depot can be a real commodity, and boiling the water they collect in a small crawfish pot gives you clean water for cooking food or for a hot bath.

Heat: Use a Mr. Heater Buddy tied into a 20-pound propane bottle. This is a hunter’s best friend in cold winter mornings, and most of us have them. They are approved for indoor use and can heat a room for days. My friend was able to heat his bedroom to 55-60 degrees for two nights and used approximately one-third of a propane bottle.

For cooking, he relocated his grill out of the wind and used a tarp to create a little outdoor kitchen and cut the wind. The heat from the grill made a comfortable outdoor area while cooking and kept the rain and wind off him.

With a few buckets, LifeStraw or Katadyne water filter, gas burner, pot, Mr. Heater Buddy, and a few propane tanks, he could have lived fairly comfortably for a week or more with a small amount of food storage. That is efficient survival.

In my view, Thomas is completely correct here. This was a case that was punted due to technical reasons, not an honest look at the law. Further, if before an election is not the time to allow this suit to go forward, and after the election it can’t go forward because it’s moot, exactly when can it go forward? All this sets up is for the country (and Pennsylvania in particular) to be dealing with these same issues again in two years.

Keep in mind, this was not a question of election fraud (i.e. falsifying votes) or some other radioactive topic. It was simply a question of whether unelected judges in a state can override said state’s constitution, blatantly violating election law while doing so. That seems like a precedent that should absolutely not be set and should instead be slapped down with prejudice. This is what the Supreme Court exists for, and once again, several members of the conservative wing chose cowardice over dealing with tough issues.

In the end, all this does is make sure that a huge contingent of Americans don’t trust our election system. And why should they if the courts can’t even be counted on to settle such obvious issues as what occurred in Pennsylvania? This is also a disappointing showing for Kavanaugh and Barrett, two judges that conservatives absolutely went to the mat for. No one is asking them to bias their judgements, but there was no logical reason to not vote to take up this case.

As per our usual agreement, everything that’s old will be new again, and that includes fighting these election fights in the coming years because our institutions refuse to fix the system.