Newsletter Subject

In Florida's Election: It May be 'Legal,' but is It Right?

From

gatestoneinstitute.org

Email Address

list@gatestoneinstitute.org

Sent On

Thu, Sep 24, 2020 09:17 AM

Email Preheader Text

In this mailing: - Chris Farrell: In Florida's Election: It May be 'Legal,' but is It Right? - Alan

In this mailing: - Chris Farrell: In Florida's Election: It May be 'Legal,' but is It Right? - Alan M. Dershowitz: Questioning Supreme Court Nominees about Religion: A Delicate Task [] [In Florida's Election: It May be 'Legal,' but is It Right?]( by Chris Farrell • September 24, 2020 at 5:00 am [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [WhatsApp]( [Telegram]( [Send]( [Print]( - Those are 32,000 votes deemed pro-Biden in a state where 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000. Florida, a critical swing state, has 29 electoral college votes that could determine the presidency. - One is left to wonder about what appears to be a slick, well-financed, lawyered-up, manipulation of the electoral process. It appears to have less to do with a legitimate, grassroots campaign to rehabilitate persons who have paid their legal dues for past misconduct than it does as a cynical, orchestrated, vote buying and manipulation process. Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's law requiring convicted felons in Florida to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution before having their voting rights reinstated. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, has "paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons in Florida" so that they can vote. Pictured: The Elbert P. Tuttle U.S. Court of Appeals Building, home of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Atlanta, Georgia. (Image source: Warren LeMay/Wikimedia Commons) Last week, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Florida's law requiring convicted felons in Florida to pay court-ordered fines, fees and restitution before having their voting rights reinstated. Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who raised more than $16 million for this purpose, has, together with the Florida Rights Restoration Coalition, "paid off monetary obligations for 32,000 felons in Florida" so that they can vote. Those are 32,000 votes deemed pro-Biden in a state where 537 votes decided the presidential election in 2000. Florida, a critical swing state, has 29 electoral college votes that could determine the presidency. [Continue Reading Article]( [] [Questioning Supreme Court Nominees about Religion: A Delicate Task]( by Alan M. Dershowitz • September 24, 2020 at 4:00 am [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [WhatsApp]( [Telegram]( [Send]( [Print]( - When Judge Amy Coney Barrett came before the Senate Judiciary Committee for her nomination to the court of appeals, Senator Diane Feinstein generated considerable controversy when she said to Barrett: "The dogma lives loudly in you." ... Under our Constitution, Senator Feinstein's statement crossed the line. Ours was the first Constitution in history to provide that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Although Feinstein did not explicitly impose a religious test, she suggested that personal religious views -- which she called dogma -- might disqualify a nominee from being confirmed. That would clearly be unconstitutional. - Religious tests have no place in America. But what does have a place in the confirmation process are questions about whether a nominee will put faith before the Constitution and refuse to apply the Constitution if it conflicts with his or her faith. That issue would be true of any nominee regardless of their faith or faithlessness. President John F. Kennedy assured us that his Catholicism would not determine the nation's policy. Justice Antonin Scalia said the same about his Catholicism and his jurisprudence. - One's religion is a private matter, but one's judicial philosophy is highly relevant in the confirmation process... Let us hope the Senate handles this nomination better than they have handled other recent nominations. Two of the leading candidates for nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Amy Coney Barrett and Judge Barbara Lagoa, are Catholic. So, the issue of religion is likely to come up at any confirmation hearing. It must be handled with delicacy and sensitivity to the Constitution's prohibition against religious tests, as well as to the respect we must all pay to people of faith. Pictured: Barbara Lagoa (center) speaks at the event where Governor Ron DeSantis named her to the Florida Supreme Court, on January 9, 2019 in Miami, Florida. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images) When Judge Amy Coney Barrett came before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary for her nomination to the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Senator Diane Feinstein generated considerable controversy when she said to Barrett: "The dogma lives loudly in you." This was a reference to Barrett's deep Catholic faith. Under our Constitution, Senator Feinstein's statement crossed the line. Ours was the first Constitution in history to provide that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." Although Feinstein did not explicitly impose a religious test, she suggested that personal religious views -- which she called dogma -- might disqualify a nominee from being confirmed. That would clearly be unconstitutional. [Continue Reading Article]( [Facebook]( [Twitter]( [RSS]( [Donate]( Copyright © Gatestone Institute, All rights reserved. You are subscribed to this list as {EMAIL} You can change how you receive these emails: [Update your subscription preferences]( or [Unsubscribe from this list]( [Gatestone Institute]( 14 East 60 St., Suite 705, New York, NY 10022

Marketing emails from gatestoneinstitute.org

View More
Sent On

03/07/2023

Sent On

27/06/2023

Sent On

26/06/2023

Sent On

26/06/2023

Sent On

25/06/2023

Sent On

24/06/2023

Email Content Statistics

Subscribe Now

Subject Line Length

Data shows that subject lines with 6 to 10 words generated 21 percent higher open rate.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Words

The more words in the content, the more time the user will need to spend reading. Get straight to the point with catchy short phrases and interesting photos and graphics.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Number of Images

More images or large images might cause the email to load slower. Aim for a balance of words and images.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Time to Read

Longer reading time requires more attention and patience from users. Aim for short phrases and catchy keywords.

Subscribe Now

Average in this category

Subscribe Now

Predicted open rate

Subscribe Now

Spam Score

Spam score is determined by a large number of checks performed on the content of the email. For the best delivery results, it is advised to lower your spam score as much as possible.

Subscribe Now

Flesch reading score

Flesch reading score measures how complex a text is. The lower the score, the more difficult the text is to read. The Flesch readability score uses the average length of your sentences (measured by the number of words) and the average number of syllables per word in an equation to calculate the reading ease. Text with a very high Flesch reading ease score (about 100) is straightforward and easy to read, with short sentences and no words of more than two syllables. Usually, a reading ease score of 60-70 is considered acceptable/normal for web copy.

Subscribe Now

Technologies

What powers this email? Every email we receive is parsed to determine the sending ESP and any additional email technologies used.

Subscribe Now

Email Size (not include images)

Font Used

No. Font Name
Subscribe Now

Copyright © 2019–2025 SimilarMail.