The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: Elderberry on November 23, 2020, 01:49:49 pm
-
Politico by WENDY WEISER and DANIEL WEINER 11/22/2020
The Supreme Court’s “Breathtakingly Radical†New Approach to Election Law
The justices won’t end up deciding the 2020 presidential race, but they have set the stage for a massive rollback of voting rights.
In the end, the blizzard of lawsuits from President Donald Trump’s campaign will amount to nothing beyond a megaphone for disinformation about the integrity of the 2020 election. As destructive as the president’s attempts to undermine democracy are, the most lasting damage to America’s election system is likely to come instead from a series of Supreme Court rulings that appear perfunctory but actually could restrict voters’ rights for years to come.
In the weeks before Election Day, the court weighed in on more than a dozen cases in a way that many portrayed as a mixed bag for voting rights—allowing voting expansions to stand in some cases and sharply curtailing them in others. But that scorecard approach obscures the principal effect of the court’s rulings: In all of the cases, regardless of whether the Trump campaign won or lost, the justices quietly—yet dramatically—rolled back Americans’ voting rights in ways that could do permanent harm—that is, unless Congress steps in.
Let’s start with the visible damage.
In multiple cases, and often without a shred of explanation, the Supreme Court affirmatively stepped in to make it harder to vote. The first case was in Wisconsin in April, right after the pandemic hit. A lower court had extended the deadline for returning mail ballots in the presidential primary by six days. But the night before the election, over a withering dissent by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg—her last written opinion—the Supreme Court blocked that extension, leaving voters only hours to obtain and return their ballots. The result: thousands of citizens were unable to return their ballots on time, and their votes were not counted.
More: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/22/supreme-court-election-law-voting-rights-438844 (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/11/22/supreme-court-election-law-voting-rights-438844)
-
bkmk
-
ffl
-
I stopped reading right here
As destructive as the president’s attempts to undermine democracy are,...
No need to go any further.
-
I stopped reading right here
No need to go any further.
I *almost* stopped reading there, but chose to persevere.
The article is premised on the belief that the judiciary is simply another instrument of policy, rather than an instrument of law, and that judges (or justices) who do not enforce correct policy are evil. In the instance of this article, correct policy means no controls on voting.
It's just another in the long line of polemics from the left that the test of legitimacy of a government authority is whether or not that authority is controlled by the left. That's why they constantly insist on calling "time out" during the game to change the rules.
-
I stopped reading right here
No need to go any further.
(https://i.imgur.com/VO5e2JG.png)
-
I *almost* stopped reading there, but chose to persevere.
The article is premised on the belief that the judiciary is simply another instrument of policy, rather than an instrument of law, and that judges (or justices) who do not enforce correct policy are evil. In the instance of this article, correct policy means no controls on voting.
It's just another in the long line of polemics from the left that the test of legitimacy of a government authority is whether or not that authority is controlled by the left. That's why they constantly insist on calling "time out" during the game to change the rules.
I fully agree with every word you wrote @HoustonSam but had no need to read further to figure all that out.
-
I *almost* stopped reading there, but chose to persevere.
The article is premised on the belief that the judiciary is simply another instrument of policy, rather than an instrument of law, and that judges (or justices) who do not enforce correct policy are evil. In the instance of this article, correct policy means no controls on voting.
It's just another in the long line of polemics from the left that the test of legitimacy of a government authority is whether or not that authority is controlled by the left. That's why they constantly insist on calling "time out" during the game to change the rules.
When leftist claim every vote should count ask them if I vote twice should both votes count?
Simple question.
-
" If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat." Sun Tzu.
-
@Cyber Liberty
@mystery-ak
I read the article:
Article said: "The justices won’t end up deciding the 2020 presidential race, but they have set the stage for a massive rollback of voting rights."
The article is as @Bigun said; it was written by a lib. The information is correct, but it doesn't mean a "massive rollback of voting rights" as the article says.
Article mentions "Purcell Principle". Never heard of that, looked it up. It is, "don't make changes to voting rules close to an election." That explains exactly what happened in this election. No one had thought of an election when there is a pandemic killing people. It happened, and states were faced with millions of people crammed together to vote, so some states "changed" the rules for voting by mail. Each state did their own thing.
Millions went for mail ballots and did not do it correctly, so they were thrown out. One cannot expect a rule change close to an election, to get to voters. Well, let me change that - a State rule change close to an election, does not get to THE PEOPLE HOLDING THE ELECTION. Why is that? People don't read. They think someone will tell them what they need to know.
I taught election judges and clerks how to run the election in their polling precinct. So, who was responsible for teaching them so they would know any new rule change? I was. I kept up with any new rules/laws in the Texas Election Code. I found out from reading the Texas Secretary of State's, Election Division, website. From there I could find any new laws that would affect our next election.
The above paragraph is true, but never was there a new law/rule close to an election. It did not happen, but it happened this time in numerous states due to the "freakin" virus.
What all the above says is, we had this happen, so fix any law/rule now before there is another election. Get the rules set for mail ballots now. And I would like this Purcell Principle to be law - can't change the rules close to an election.
-
@Victoria33
goopo
-
I stopped reading right here
No need to go any further.
Agreed. And anyway if liberals hate then it’s a good thing.
-
Agreed. And anyway if liberals hate then it’s a good thing.
QFT!
-
The justices won’t end up deciding the 2020 presidential race, but they have set the stage for a massive rollback of voting rights.
What voting rights? Show me where in the Constitution it says that people have a right to vote for President.
-
No one had thought of an election when there is a pandemic killing people.
1918 Midterm Elections during Spanish Flu Pandemic (which actually was a pandemic killing people and proportionally was 138 times deadlier than SARS-2) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_United_States_elections)
It happened, and states were faced with millions of people crammed together to vote, so some states "changed" the rules for voting by mail. Each state did their own thing.
The key part these States did not do was to include their legislatures in the process as required by Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Millions went for mail ballots and did not do it correctly, so they were thrown out.
Even worse, many hundreds of thousands of mail ballots were submitted and counted for fictitious persons, deceased persons, non-residents, or people who had no desire to vote.