USSC decisions

I know Christians are the ones that are always on top of this ****, but how do other religions feel about this?

Overall, this has been my gripe with many of the individuals I talk to. I try to stress the importance of voting because it can very well have an impact on your life. Here is a good example of what can happen to gay marriage rights.

 

A gross and intentional misinterpretation of religious liberty by two of the worst justices in history. Under their logic, I could argue just about any crime or violation is justified if my religion requires it.

These kinds of creeping dangers are why so many of us got annoyed with third party voters both in 2000 and in 2016 - their failure to understand the consequence of "symbolic voting" has delayed and even turned back progress due to the now substantial conservative tilt in our courts. We will be fighting against these reactionary mouth breathers for the rest of my life probably.

 

The supreme court is no ;longer a legitimate body and states should simply ignore it.

 

As long as it is legal, anything goes, that's the GOP rule. Democrats just have to play by that rule.

 

I guess I'm not being a good tribal member here, but I'm not that surprised or upset by the Wisconsin decision on its own.

Wisconsin had a law stating by what time a mail-in ballot needed to be received. Some wanted to modify that law for the pandemic, which makes logical sense to me. But it is also logically defensible to say, "no, our existing law is just fine. People need to mail in their ballots ahead of time." SCOTUS is, at a basic level, just defending the existing law and supporting a lower court ruling. It would be more radical if Wisconsin suddenly shortened the time period and then SCOTUS upheld that. Then I would understand widespread upset.

Now, what is crazypants and dangerous is somehow suggesting that all votes need to be tabulated and reported by midnight of Nov. 3. KavBro needs to keep his Trump love in his pants.

 

Can we retro declare Gore the winner then Justice Kavnaugh?

 

If the argument is that WI law is already in place and that the court should defer to existing WI rule then that is understandable. Kavanaugh though is citing a precedent that doesn't exist. There's a reason why the electors don't meet until Dec. so it's never been the case that states have to declare a winner on Election night.

Further he's citing Bush V Gore which specifically said only applies to that situation.

 

I agree with you on the Kav arguments. Why did the smarter conservative justices even let Kavanaugh write that up?

It is appalling how bold and not-smart he is. It's almost like he came out of a fraternity and was busy drinking with stupidly-nick-named bros instead of studying.

 

But now the court has determined to let a different state (NC) extend their counting of mailed ballots nearly an extra week past their normal law.

And now... Kav and Roberts voted with the more left-leaning justices.

I'm clearly no lawyer, but something must be very different in the details here. On the general public face of things: two states were looking to extend the deadlines for receiving mail-in ballots. Two SCOTUS justices "changed" their votes in between those state cases, so they must be significantly different cases legally.

 

Kavanaugh wrote a shockingly poor opinion. Legal scholars are coming out of the woodwork with the scholarly equivalent of "WTF?" SC Justices have clerks to help them write these opinions, dissenting or otherwise, so how Kavanaugh could trot this out is more than a little incredible.

Glad to see the North Carolina ruling, but some weird stuff is going on.

 

Is it possible he's embarrassed by his Wisconsin ruling? I admit ignorance of legal matters, but I want to learn the difference between the two state cases.

 

Kavanaugh is not a jurist, he's a GOP political hack.

 

He should be embarrassed. What concerns me is what it could foretell. I'm getting more worried about Barrett joining the court by the minute. Perhaps she'll let Roberts influence her to a degree. Roberts has been making an effort to somewhat moderate some of the important SC rulings. To keep at least some of the partisan politics out of the Court. I'm not going to hold my breath, however. Wishful thinking on my part.

I think he's making that crystal clear.

 

Seems like an appropriate time to hype ConstitutionCenter.org, my cheat sheet for teaching undergrads straight from the mouth of judges and experts. They have great original document resources and put out a podcast.

 

From my brief perusing of the cases, in each instance, Roberts has sided with the state laws and/or Judiciary i.e. in both PA and NC the state electoral body and judiciary had extended the deadline, while in WI, the state law required delivery by election date. (IIRC) Also when WI decided to extend in April, SCOTUS upheld it as well.

On another note, Kav is a disgrace to the SCOTUS. Must have been drunk when he wrote the rubbish on WI case. It should be grounds enough to impeach him from his seat.