Octopus Overlords

ImLawBoy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:44 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:08 pm DOJ just released a list of 44 jurisdictions in 18 states that they will be sending in folks to "monitor for compliance with federal voting rights laws". Unsurprisingly, they're all Dem-heavy areas.

Interestingly, it's actually less than they sent in 2016.

For what it's worth, in the past I've gone to polling sites to monitor for compliance with federal laws (specifically that polling places were accessible to the disabled). This was specific to Chicago, where the Chicago Board of Elections has a consent decree with the DOJ regarding "issues" in the past. Of course, my partner and I were just there with tape measures and devices to measure the slope of the ground, so anyone who was intimidated by us probably would have been too intimidated by the prospect of navigating their car into traffic to get to the polling place.

In keeping with your avatar pic, were you dressed as 'Rudy'? I mean that guy was pretty intimidating...

I'm just praying that the election doesn't come down to PA, because they will do everything under the sun to not count and toss out stuff. On Fox News you can see exactly what Trump is going to do. As soon as it shows him ahead in anything on Tuesday it will be victory and anything after the 3rd doesn't count. Which is of course not how it works, but who the hell knows anymore.

Whatever I was listening to on communist talk radio earlier today suggested Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are all critical states and all three won't start counting votes until tomorrow. PA was mentioned (yet again) as a potential problem based on how close it is as no one can really say for sure if Biden is really ~+5 (as the polls would suggest). If he is, there won't be anything to contest as it will be easily decided. If however, it's closer to +2, then yeah, it's going to be a mess.

F-ing PA man.

When I look at the map I 100% see where PA very likely could be the key state.

Trump very well could win
NC
Georgia
Florida
Arizona
Iowa

He HAS to run all of them as I really don't think he's taking any of the blue states.

That leaves PA as the linchpin... And there's HUGE room for tomfoolery with the rules in that state. Essentially if they cock up the mail enough and stuff comes in late it's just going to get tossed. If it gets raised to the SC we're screwed.

I really just want to hide in a hole for a week and possibly never come back out.

This of course shows how F'D the EC is. Imagine he loses by 10 million votes but wins the EC again?

Octavious wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:50 pm I really just want to hide in a hole for a week and possibly never come back out.

This of course shows how F'D the EC is. Imagine he loses by 10 million votes but wins the EC again?

Just read an article about how Biden's lead narrowed in swing states in the final polls, and I've got that same sinking feeling that I had in 2016.

I had good intentions of trying to tune it all tomorrow, but who am I kidding...I'm gonna be worthless.

Thankfully Florida's results should be available quick. I think if Biden takes it decisively, that's going to be a good sign. If he doesn't, I'm not going to lie - it's going to be a spiral of despair.

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:07 pm Just read an article about how Biden's lead narrowed in swing states in the final polls, and I've got that same sinking feeling that I had in 2016.

I had good intentions of trying to tune it all tomorrow, but who am I kidding...I'm gonna be worthless.

That's horse-race coverage. Don't let it get to you.

One key paragraph is here:

Democrats are also wary as polls released just before the 2016 election showed Clinton with a similar national advantage over Trump. She won the popular vote by more than 3m ballots, but defeat in several battleground states handed the White House to Trump.

They jump back from state-level polling to the national in order to make the 2016 comparison. What the article ignores is that warning signs at the local (state and district) level in 2016 were already flashing red for Clinton in the final week before the election, and (if Nate Silver etc are to be believed) pollsters learned lessons from that. There appear to be no such warning signs for Biden this time.

Octavious wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:50 pm When I look at the map I 100% see where PA very likely could be the key state.

Trump very well could win
NC
Georgia
Florida
Arizona
Iowa

He HAS to run all of them as I really don't think he's taking any of the blue states.

That leaves PA as the linchpin... And there's HUGE room for tomfoolery with the rules in that state. Essentially if they cock up the mail enough and stuff comes in late it's just going to get tossed. If it gets raised to the SC we're screwed.

I really just want to hide in a hole for a week and possibly never come back out.

This of course shows how F'D the EC is. Imagine he loses by 10 million votes but wins the EC again?

If it helps, the positive spin on this is that Biden has multiple paths to victory here which can survive a 2016-sized polling error. Basically:

(1) If Biden wins MI + WI + PA + Clinton states, then he wins. This is very likely, as 538 has him at 95% in MI, 94% in WI, and 85% in PA.

(2) If Biden loses one of those states (PA being the most likely candidate), he has fallbacks in states that are demographically different (so they're less likely to have a polling error that's correlated with PA). If he wins WI + MI + AZ + NE-2 (he's at 65%+ in AZ and NE-2) then he wins while losing PA;

(3) Alternatively he can win while losing PA if he wins one of NC, GA, or FL.

I worry about it coming down to PA less because I'm worried that Biden will lose PA in a fair election (possible, but very unlikely), but more because it could give Trump an opportunity to win by shenanigans in PA / the courts. But if Biden will win in a fair election across PA, NC, AZ, GA, and/or FL (which is pretty likely) it's going to be difficult for Trump to pull off the scale of the shenanigans required.

What it comes down to is that pretty much the only way Trump wins is against a massively lopsided national election for Biden with a super thin EC margin and it'll break the United States. I doubt it'll happen but if it does I can't imagine it'll be anything but devastating.

Octavious wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:28 pm I'm just praying that the election doesn't come down to PA, because they will do everything under the sun to not count and toss out stuff. On Fox News you can see exactly what Trump is going to do. As soon as it shows him ahead in anything on Tuesday it will be victory and anything after the 3rd doesn't count. Which is of course not how it works, but who the hell knows anymore.

We know. Trump can't make it work that way, no matter how hard he tries. There is not some super-evil cabal of Republican judges out there - our Courts have been responding to the copious BS being thrown at them as admirably as can be expected. "One of the most notoriously partisan Republican judges in the entire federal judiciary" just threw out the Harris county case, and he didn't use the kid gloves - he absolutely trounced the plaintiffs. The President will find no cover for outright electoral shenanigans in the judiciary, and he hasn't fostered the kind of law enforcement and military connections he would need to pull off a coup.

The only way Trump stays in power is to legitimately win this thing.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:23 pm

Octavious wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:28 pm I'm just praying that the election doesn't come down to PA, because they will do everything under the sun to not count and toss out stuff. On Fox News you can see exactly what Trump is going to do. As soon as it shows him ahead in anything on Tuesday it will be victory and anything after the 3rd doesn't count. Which is of course not how it works, but who the hell knows anymore.

We know. Trump can't make it work that way, no matter how hard he tries. There is not some super-evil cabal of Republican judges out there - our Courts have been responding to the copious BS being thrown at them as admirably as can be expected. "One of the most notoriously partisan Republican judges in the entire federal judiciary" just threw out the Harris county case, and he didn't use the kid gloves - he absolutely trounced the plaintiffs. The President will find no cover for outright electoral shenanigans in the judiciary, and he hasn't fostered the kind of law enforcement and military connections he would need to pull off a coup.

The only way Trump stays in power is to legitimately win this thing.

With the multiple levels of voter suppression underway, I struggle to see your calculus here. It's his clearest path obviously, but don't forget the Brooks Brothers Riot. Or do you mean to limit your point to saying that Trump isn't getting help from the court to tip the scales a bit?

Little Raven wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:23 pmHe absolutely trounced the plaintiffs.

No he didn't. He said they hadn't shown any harm. Most experts thought there shouldn't have been a hearing at all because the judge didn't have jurisdiction. That he took up the case was problematic itself. They took their shot and missed but we don't have any reason to think he wouldn't have granted a better argument. It is better thought of as a near miss in 'safety' speak. In other words, that a judge took up an exceptionally weak case that he had no jurisdiction over is not exactly something to celebrate.

The President will find no cover for outright electoral shenanigans in the judiciary,

Actually the SCOTUS has indicated some softness in their rulings. With Barrett the coming post-election lawsuits are going to be something we should absolutely worry about.

The only way Trump stays in power is to legitimately win this thing.

Probably but we lack a framework to forecast how bad they could be. Saying there is no chance he can pull it off ignores that he has a massive percentage of the population behind him. It is pretty likely nothing happens. However, to put this in perspective people who predicted bad outcomes in 2016 were called alarmist. And look at what many of them were saying. The naysayers said institutions would protect us and they are battered. The NY Times opinion page has been sheaf after sheaf of 'very serious people' finally realizing that we're in big fucking trouble. In other words, we are way farther in the hole than anyone thought possible. The system is at massive levels of risk and telling ourselves fairy tales isn't going to help. We are in serious danger.

Good opportunity to help, for anyone who is interested:

https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1 ... 6585675777

El Guapo wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:42 pm Good opportunity to help, for anyone who is interested:

https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1 ... 6585675777

These sort of state and local shenanigans are what worry me the most. Death by a thousand (well-placed) paper cuts. Her latest tweet is also alarming:

https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1 ... 1021009920

https://twitter.com/jduffyrice/status/1 ... 1021009920

Daily Beast

[A] federal judge has ordered the U.S. Postal Service to pull out all the stops to get ballots counted as speedily as possible. In an order late Sunday, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan told the USPS to use its “extraordinary measures” policy to ensure it “delivers every ballot possible by the cutoff time on Election Day.” Judge Sullivan said the USPS must use its Express Mail Network to speed up long-distance ballot delivery, and that “all ballots with a local destination must be cleared and processed on the same day or no later than the next morning for delivery to local offices.”

malchior wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:41 pmNo he didn't. He said they hadn't shown any harm.

He did a great deal more than that.
"If he had ruled on the larger issues in the case, Hanen said he would have rejected the request to toss out votes already cast." And this is the judge that everyone has been declaring Satan himself for the last 5 days. Even HE wasn't buying this bunk.

Actually the SCOTUS has indicated some softness in their rulings. With Barrett the coming post-election lawsuits are going to be something we should absolutely worry about.

Well, knock yourself out. I'm not losing any sleep over it. And I've seen no evidence that I should be. If this election is remotely close enough that the Courts are going to be involved, then Trump has already pulled off his miracle twice.

Probably but we lack a framework to forecast how bad they could be.

And a gamma ray burst COULD wipe out all life on the planet tomorrow before the election even happens, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that either.

I'm not making the mistake of assuming that Trump won't be President next year - I did that back in 2016 and have no desire to repeat that mistake. But I am confident that if Trump wins, it will be because he got more votes in the states that matter, not because he somehow cheated or rigged the Courts.

Enough wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:31 pmWith the multiple levels of voter suppression underway, I struggle to see your calculus here.

Voting suppression happens everywhere, under both parties. But none of that is new. This election won't be any more or less legitimate than any other election in living memory because of it.

It's his clearest path obviously, but don't forget the Brooks Brothers Riot.

It's pretty much his only route. There's no way to reliable engineer a situation where the Courts are in a position to give the election to Trump - it would be much easier to just rig the election, and that's not very easy to do either. And even if it does, somehow, get the Courts - they have not been particularly sympathetic to this administration so far.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:08 pm

Enough wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:31 pmWith the multiple levels of voter suppression underway, I struggle to see your calculus here.

Voting suppression happens everywhere, under both parties. But none of that is new. This election won't be any more or less legitimate than any other election in living memory because of it.

Huh, I don't think your source says that it's been the norm at all, at best it seems to be focused on voting delays in NYC and makes no historical claims... And providing examples of past actions sure does not take the fangs out of the current ones (or prove that previous attempts didn't bear fruit). I am honestly surprised after watching you post here for over a decade that you are downgrading this cycle to "just more typical election shenanigans."

Enough wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:17 pmHuh, I don't think your source says that it's been the norm at all, at best it seems to be focused on voting delays in NYC and makes no historical claims.

But New York City has far from the best of elections systems. Quite the contrary. The problem is far deeper and older than just the challenges of 2020. It’s both structural and cultural, to a degree found perhaps only in New York, a place haunted by the ghosts of Tammany Hall.

Consider that four years ago, the city’s Board of Elections illegally purged 200,000 New Yorkers from the voter rolls before the presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, and it inexplicably changed the party affiliations of others so that they were unable to vote in the closed primary. In 2018, voters waited in long lines as scores of ballot scanning machines broke down and the city’s chief elections administrator blamed the weather.

Numerous probes by officials and watchdog groups over the years have exposed as problems endemic to the city’s election administration unqualified, unprofessional staffing, illegally inaccessible polling sites, and under-resourcing of polling locations with a disproportionately negative impact on communities of color. Among other problems. But, while one or two low-level staffers departed after scandals, and even though some problems were so bad as to warrant remediation plans in federal court, not much has changed in 2020.

Sometimes Republicans use voting suppression to keep Democrats from voting. And sometime Democrats use it to keep those Democrats from voting. It's an almost irresistible temptation for those in power to try to put their thumb on the scale, regardless of partisan affiliation.

And providing examples of past actions sure does not take the fangs out of the current ones (or prove that previous attempts didn't bear fruit).

I'm not saying it's OK. We should fight against this sort of thing where ever we find it. (and a lot of us do) I'm just saying it's not new. The Texas government has been playing games in Harris county for decades - it's just that normally, Texas is so darn red that nobody cares. Fortunately, it's getting a lot more light this time around.

More good news.

A Nevada judge has rejected a suit from President Donald Trump's re-election campaign that sought to alter the counting of mail-in ballots in Clark County.

The order released Monday denies an emergency petition filed by the Trump campaign, the Nevada Republican Party and a plaintiff named Fred Kraus.

I grant that this administration is throwing more stuff at the wall than any previous one than I'm aware of. But as far as I can, almost none of it is sticking.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:31 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:08 pmInterestingly, it's actually less than they sent in 2016.

It's extra interesting because in NJ there is no in-person voting tomorrow. If you show up to vote in person, you're going to be provided with a provisional ballot. There are machines, but they're only for designated medically identified individuals. Part of me is wondering if there's an online group of (R) in NJ that are planning on storming the polls tomorrow and demanding access to the voting machines and they're going to cause a scene if they're not given the ability to vote in the way they've been doing for other elections. I kinda believe this only because on local social media (since this was all announced in August) there's been more than a few vocal Trumpaloos demanding the right to vote on a voting machine and that anything else is fraud, it doesn't count, etc...

How federal monitors are going to intercede in NJ's elections, I guess we'll see.

So what percent has already occurred? I haven’t seen NJ in reports of heavy early voting.

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:04 pm Yeah - he was pretty clear that he wouldn't have a problem ruling against future curbside voting. He just won't invalidate votes already cast. Interestingly, curbside voting is also allowed in three other counties in Texas. I'm wondering why the GOP didn't try to invalidate them. It's a mystery.

Part of the GOP argument was that 9 of the 10 locations selected were Democratic precincts, hence this favored Democrats.

Grifman wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:40 pm So what percent has already occurred? I haven’t seen NJ in reports of heavy early voting.

~3.5 million have already voted, or about 60% of all ballots that were mailed have been returned.

As of Monday morning, 3.5 million votes had been delivered. Democrats account for 1.5 million votes and Republicans account for 909,895. Unaffiliated voters have cast 1 million votes. NorthJersey.com received the data from the New Jersey Division of Elections.

That means Democrats, who account for 39% of all voters, have cast 44% of all votes so far this year. Republicans — 26% of voters — account for 30% of votes cast.

The total number of ballots cast in the 2016 presidential election was 3.9 million. New Jersey has 6.5 million registered voters.

I talked to a NJ Trump supporter today and they asked how I voted. They didn't understand that the ballot wasn't optional. Tommorow should be interesting for the people really with their heads in the sand.

Little Raven wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:00 pm

malchior wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:41 pmNo he didn't. He said they hadn't shown any harm.

He did a great deal more than that.
"If he had ruled on the larger issues in the case, Hanen said he would have rejected the request to toss out votes already cast." And this is the judge that everyone has been declaring Satan himself for the last 5 days. Even HE wasn't buying this bunk.

For emphasis, experts said he had no jurisdiction and took the case anyway. It wasn't so that he "could trounce" them. He gave them a shot they shouldn't have had. That's the problem.

Actually the SCOTUS has indicated some softness in their rulings. With Barrett the coming post-election lawsuits are going to be something we should absolutely worry about.

Well, knock yourself out. I'm not losing any sleep over it. And I've seen no evidence that I should be. If this election is remotely close enough that the Courts are going to be involved, then Trump has already pulled off his miracle twice.

I'm not shocked you aren't seeing the evidence because you seem to be demonstrating that you are missing key details about this issue. I'll give you a hint if you care to get educated before casting doubts - many legal experts pointed out that Kavanaugh in particular but other justices as well took a position that was far less moderate than John Roberts. The guy who tore up the Voting Rights Act. Kavanaugh explicitly took up a position from Bush v. Gore that is pretty wacky and Roberts went out of his way to respond to it because it is an extreme position.

Probably but we lack a framework to forecast how bad they could be.

And a gamma ray burst COULD wipe out all life on the planet tomorrow before the election even happens, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over that either.

I'm not making the mistake of assuming that Trump won't be President next year - I did that back in 2016 and have no desire to repeat that mistake. But I am confident that if Trump wins, it will be because he got more votes in the states that matter, not because he somehow cheated or rigged the Courts.

If he wins yes. That is a very different argument from what I was making though.

I talked to a NJ Trump supporter today and they asked how I voted. They didn't understand that the ballot wasn't optional. Tommorow should be interesting for the people really with their heads in the sand.

Exactly. They have their heads so far up their own rear-ends that they don't realize there is no in-person voting. Whatever idiot they're listening to on TV or talk radio is telling them the evils of mailing a ballot and they should demand to vote in person. They don't realize this was decided for them back in August! So yeah, I bet there's going to be all kinds of trouble at various polling stations despite it being publicized for months now here.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:54 pm

I talked to a NJ Trump supporter today and they asked how I voted. They didn't understand that the ballot wasn't optional. Tommorow should be interesting for the people really with their heads in the sand.

Exactly. They have their heads so far up their own rear-ends that they don't realize there is no in-person voting. Whatever idiot they're listening to on TV or talk radio is telling them the evils of mailing a ballot and they should demand to vote in person. They don't realize this was decided for them back in August! So yeah, I bet there's going to be all kinds of trouble at various polling stations despite it being publicized for months now here.

I yesterday saw a woman who was interviewed by Fox in Asbury who said she was going to be a poll watcher. I was like great. You can watch provisional ballots be passed out. Knock yourself out.

Edit: I saw a couple of my NJ canaries also talking about heading out to the polls tomorrow. Why? It was sent to your house. Going to the polling place is like a point of pride for these idiots and it makes no difference.

Seriously. Enjoy having your ballots counted on 11/10. I have no doubts they're going to be indignant over the provisional ballot. Let's see how many are clubbed and arrested.

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:01 pm Seriously. Enjoy having your ballots counted on 11/10. I have no doubts they're going to be indignant over the provisional ballot. Let's see how many are clubbed and arrested.

As an aside, what I expect is that these NJ "poll watchers" are going to be extremely poorly trained and get tossed out of the polling places anyway. They are going to confront people or do something stupid. It is inevitable.

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:18 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:07 pm Just read an article about how Biden's lead narrowed in swing states in the final polls, and I've got that same sinking feeling that I had in 2016.

I had good intentions of trying to tune it all tomorrow, but who am I kidding...I'm gonna be worthless.

That's horse-race coverage. Don't let it get to you.

One key paragraph is here:

Democrats are also wary as polls released just before the 2016 election showed Clinton with a similar national advantage over Trump. She won the popular vote by more than 3m ballots, but defeat in several battleground states handed the White House to Trump.

They jump back from state-level polling to the national in order to make the 2016 comparison. What the article ignores is that warning signs at the local (state and district) level in 2016 were already flashing red for Clinton in the final week before the election, and (if Nate Silver etc are to be believed) pollsters learned lessons from that. There appear to be no such warning signs for Biden this time.

Also: I keep reading that pollsters have corrected for undercounting deplorables last time; it wouldn't surprise me if they overcorrected, and Biden's lead is better than it looks. I'm basing that on the record turnout that's already happening. trump's base has probably not grown in any meaningful way -- he already had 100% of the deplorables.

I've read that trump needs both FL and PA to have a strong path. If he loses either one, he's in trouble.

It's gonna be a nail-biter, and PA will be the keystone if trump wins FL. If Biden takes FL with a convincing margin, we can all breathe a little easier. And if Biden wins TX Imma do a happy dance.

Kraken wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:16 pm

Holman wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:18 pm

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:07 pm Just read an article about how Biden's lead narrowed in swing states in the final polls, and I've got that same sinking feeling that I had in 2016.

I had good intentions of trying to tune it all tomorrow, but who am I kidding...I'm gonna be worthless.

That's horse-race coverage. Don't let it get to you.

Also it's expected. It is mostly a bit of reversion to the mean. You can be pretty sure these are much more solid numbers because people have to choose now. Most uncertainty is squeezed out now and they still show Biden strongly ahead.

FYI

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 3484798979

It's official: The Texas drive-thru voting case is heading to the Fifth Circuit.

The notice of appeal was filed following Judge Hanen's dismissal earlier today.

Kraken wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:16 pm PA will be the keystone

Some good news about mail in voting regarding an issue that had me concerned:

https://twitter.com/amanbatheja/status/ ... 40421?s=21

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:28 pm FYI

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 3484798979

It's official: The Texas drive-thru voting case is heading to the Fifth Circuit.

The notice of appeal was filed following Judge Hanen's dismissal earlier today.

I don’t know the process here. At what point do they run out of places to shop this?

Skinypupy wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:48 pm

Smoove_B wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:28 pm FYI

https://twitter.com/KlasfeldReports/sta ... 3484798979

It's official: The Texas drive-thru voting case is heading to the Fifth Circuit.

The notice of appeal was filed following Judge Hanen's dismissal earlier today.

I don’t know the process here. At what point do they run out of places to shop this?

When they pull the Sharpie from Trump's cold, dead hand.

The Supreme Court.

And the 5th Circuit should reject it outright. They too should have no jurisdiction. What's possible is that they might decide to ban drive-thru voting *tomorrow* but Hanen said he wouldn't order tossing those 127K votes. It will continue to ascend until it doesn't. Hopefully this stupid saga will be over soon.

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:28 pm

Kraken wrote: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:16 pm PA will be the keystone

Thank you. Sometimes I'm really that clever.

I just got back from setting up my polling place. It was a new location and there was chaos as the Clerk struggled to coral 30 people and get a flow set up. Eventually, we got it looking like a real polling place. Way more cords than I expected, but it should work.

In our county, there are 152 precincts. 12 had their location changed (I'll be working one of those). The State was supposed to send out notices to all who are effected. They never did. They are also supposed to put out signs tonight at the old polling places directing them to the new locations. I'm not holding my breath.

Also, we are using new e-tablets to scan people in and get them their ballots. They were only obtained 2 weeks ago and have never been through an election. Besides only the Clerks having been trained on them, they have a timer that counts down until the polls close. Once that timer hits 12 hours...no one knows what happens. It is a virtual guarantee people will still be in line and everyone there by 7pm gets to vote. We don't know if the software will let us check them in. The vendor rep even met with the clerks this week and was asked the question and was unable to answer it. So 7pm tomorrow things could get very interesting.

Denied by the fifth circuit. In the end, all the likely did was piss people off.

https://twitter.com/RMFifthCircuit/stat ... 4612052992