Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Monday, March 23, 2026

At least four justices appear to be on board with a frivolous lawsuit attacking voting by mail.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

BREAKING: The Supreme Court seems skeptical of laws in 14 states that allow counting of mail ballots that arrive after Election Day.[image or embed]

-- The Associated Press (@apnews.com) Mar 23, 2026 at 12:31 PM

Comments

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

At least 4 Justices are on board with whatever Trump wants... no matter what it is.

#1 | Posted by Corky at 2026-03-23 05:23 PM | Reply

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

#2 | Posted by Corky at 2026-03-23 06:39 PM | Reply

And yet Roberts thinks viewing this court as absolute dogs*^# is inappropriate and "dangerous."

#3 | Posted by jpw at 2026-03-23 07:03 PM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

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

Drudge Retort