Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, October 28, 2020

The Supreme Court (with Justice Barrett not participating) has refused to expedite consideration of the cert. petition in the Pennsylvania voting case.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

#1 | Posted by et_al at 2020-10-28 06:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Re:

...in the separate Alito statement: "The provisions of the Federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election."
Didn't the legislature write the state constitution, and include whatever provision the state Supreme Court is citing?

#2 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-10-28 07:22 PM | Reply

I don't think we've seen the end of questions about Pennsylvania in this election.

In this matter alone, two of the Justices left a door ajar.


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-10-28 07:47 PM | Reply

In related news: "Supreme Court, Over at Least 3 Dissents, Refuses to Roll Back North Carolina Extension Date for Receipt of Absentee Ballots" electionlawblog.org

#4 | Posted by et_al at 2020-10-28 08:26 PM | Reply

Yes, the three dissenting Justices implied that they're looking forward to reexamining this AFTER the election. I suspect that they've already been informed that Trump and RNC are going challenge every state that allowed mail-in ballots to be counted that come in after election day if they were postmarked prior to Tuesday. This creates the possibility that the court could order votes which had already been counted, to be un-counted. At least with 'Bush v Gore', the court only stopped votes from being counted. Votes that had already been counted, stayed counted.

Of course, this could all change if at midnight on election day, the count shows that Biden is ahead. Then Trump will be demanding that every vote be counted, even if they don't arrive until Thanksgiving. Why he'll be ordering Postmaster DeJoy to have every mailman and letter carrier looking inside their mailbags and blue mailboxes to make sure that not a single ballot was overlooked, irrespective of when it was postmarked.

OCU

#5 | Posted by OCUser at 2020-10-29 01:49 AM | Reply

The 'Supreme Court' in this land has been packed
by the GOP w partisans. It MUST be undone, or
we will have Minority Rule from a dwindling Right,
no matter the will of the states or the people.

The Supreme Court should be above politics. Sadly,
it is stuffed full of rightwing partisans.

Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, soon to be Barrett...

A terribly sad indictment of what this country's become.

#6 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-10-29 05:48 AM | Reply

"The Supreme Court should be above politics. Sadly,
it is stuffed full of rightwing partisans."

Absolutely true!

#7 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-29 08:25 AM | Reply

This creates the possibility that the court could order votes which had already been counted, to be un-counted.

If that happens things are going to get ugly.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-29 08:41 AM | Reply

"If that happens things are going to get ugly."

Things are already ugly and the SC started the ugliness in 2000, Bush V Gore was the theft of an election right out in the open and it changed the course of history. We need to enlarge the court and make it impossible for Republicans to dominate it as an arm of the Republican Party every again.

#9 | Posted by danni at 2020-10-29 08:57 AM | Reply

"We need to enlarge the court and make it impossible for Republicans to dominate it as an arm of the Republican Party every again."

unfortunately that's just not a good enough reason.

It's good enough for you, obviously....but not for everyone else.

It's like the DC statehood issue.....the reasons are not good enough.

#10 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-29 09:06 AM | Reply

unfortunately that's just not a good enough reason.

You're missing the point Ebs. It was good enough for Mitch McConnell and a GOP controlled Senate, and now the shoe is about to be on the other foot and headed directly for the GOP's now tightening sphincter.

And whatever the Democrats decide to do that doesn't violate the law nor Constitution will also be good enough - regardless of what you, Republicans, and anyone outside of the Democrats in the House, White House and Senate say is a good enough reason to justify whatever they decide to do.

Get used to it, cause it's coming, and it's coming soon.

#11 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-29 09:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

11

I don't disagree with anything you are saying although I'm not going to assign that much courage to the democratic party just yet.

I was talking about Danni's reason. "impossible for republicans to dominate it as....."

Danni can say that here but that can't be the kind of rhetoric used to justify this. Hell, even democrats will struggle to support it for those reasons alone.

And there are better reasons such as having the number of justices match up with the number of lower courts....focus on those.

#12 | Posted by eberly at 2020-10-29 09:37 AM | Reply

I agree with Eberly. While there are some good reasons to expand the Court, doing so simply to balance the partisanship isn't one of them.

#13 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-10-29 10:25 AM | Reply

#12 - I agree with the reasoning of matching up with lower courts but only if that can be written in somewhere that this is the maximum - to always match the number of lower courts. Otherwise you open another 'because we can' can of worms and every new POTUS will come up with a reason to expand the SC.

#14 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-10-29 11:01 AM | Reply

It's like the DC statehood issue.....the reasons are not good enough.

#10 | Posted by eberly

Or demanding an ID to vote because you're afraid of nonexistent "voter fraud"... the reasons are not good enough.

#15 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-29 02:06 PM | Reply

I agree with Eberly. While there are some good reasons to expand the Court, doing so simply to balance the partisanship isn't one of them.

#13 | Posted by Whatsleft

It's not to balance partisanship. It's to undo recent cheating and restore legitimacy.

#16 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-10-29 02:07 PM | Reply

While there are some good reasons to expand the Court, doing so simply to balance the partisanship isn't one of them.

Seems like a good enough reason to me.

With the addition of three more ideologues, it is beyond argument that SCOTUS has largely become another political branch of government. Declining to fill it with an appropriate number of your preferred people would be like letting the opposing party choose your cabinet heads, which nobody would ever do.

Republicans did what was technically within their power to make the court as conservative as possible. Democrats should likewise do whatever is technically within their power to make the court as liberal as possible. Knowing Joe Biden, he will at best make the court 7-6 liberal. Up to me he'd stack it so hard conservatives would never accomplish anything ever again.

#17 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-29 02:56 PM | Reply

Up to me he'd stack it so hard conservatives would never accomplish anything ever again.

#17 | POSTED BY JOE

But then you'd be committing the same wrong you're trying to fix.

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-30 08:57 AM | Reply

#18 Republicans are going to scream bloody murder if Biden even adds one justice to the Court, so he might as well add six. Their rage factor (and the political consequences to Democrats) will be identical. Might as well shut them out of government forever.

As far as "committing the same wrong" is concerned, i never denied this was a --- for tat.

#19 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-30 11:07 AM | Reply

Fair enough.

I'm still not able to kill my idealist streak so I'm not keen on antagonistic actions regarding expansion of the court.

Not because I care about "c-c-conservative" caterwauling, which they'll do no matter what, but because I care about the government reflecting the will of the people. We're not so overwhelmingly blue in this country that the judiciary should be overwhelmingly blue.

#20 | Posted by jpw at 2020-10-30 05:29 PM | Reply

I actually think that's a very fair point. In my personal opinion, though, the reaction to what Republicans have done in the last four years regarding SCOTUS needs to be nuclear, not just commensurate.

#21 | Posted by JOE at 2020-10-31 08:22 AM | Reply

We're not so overwhelmingly blue in this country that the judiciary should be overwhelmingly blue.

Don't be so sure. Since 1988 - 32 long years - the Republican presidential candidates have won exactly 1 popular election out of 7. And that's inclusive of their voter suppression tactics and they still haven't achieved a popular victory more than once in 3 decades.
More of the country's voters are left of center than the GOP's minority will ever admit.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2020-10-31 09:27 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort