Some Justices aren't so gung ho on this deal:
"Supreme Court worries Trump's attack on late ballots could also threaten early voting
The Trump administration kept running into the same problem Monday as it urged the Supreme Court to stop letting states count mail-in ballots after Election Day: fears that such a move could also imperil early voting."
"That answer didn't seem to satisfy Chief Justice John Roberts, who suggested Sauer was making an arbitrary decision to treat early voting and late receipt of ballots differently.
"I'm not sure I understand how that point is responsive to the point that if the Election Day is the voting and taking that it has to be that day," Roberts said.
"Maybe you're not saying anything other than, well, that's different."
"It's a challenging question," Sauer replied.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett jumped in with a similar question after the RNC's lawyer, Paul Clement, said federal lawmakers involved in passing a uniform Election Day law in 1845 would have found it "unthinkable" to count ballots after Election Day.
"Isn't that true of early voting, too?" Barrett said. "Why is that permissible? If we're just going to say historically it just needs to look like it always looked, how come those features fall out?"
www.politico.com
/GettyImages-1169868458-70e4b3e665484297a7e839a08e1b1525.jpg)
And yet Roberts thinks viewing this court as absolute dogs*^# is inappropriate and "dangerous."