5 Points On The Short Term PA Voting Rights Win That’s Stoking Long Term Fears About SCOTUS And Elections | Talking Points Memo

A Supreme Court order that had the effect of making voting easier during the pandemic should be very good news for voter advocates. But the four conservative dissents in the case are ringing loud alarm bells for election law experts.


This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1339439
1 Like

Trump’s counting on the SC to get “re-elected”.

12 Likes

Barrett must but won’t recuse herself from any rulings on Trump’s election. If she is the deciding vote in a case that retains Trump’s power this country will be finished.

28 Likes

Why not Gorsuch and Kavanagh? Trump picked them as well? As Gen Kelly said Trumps personality is totally transactional. A life of quid pro quo.
Not just on voting but also Trumps taxes and more.

12 Likes

Biden MUST expand the court and be done with it.

24 Likes

He will but I fear he’ll be too generous to the Republicans.

7 Likes

“Roberts may have decided that the long term legitimacy of the court was more important to him than his personal legal views about…”

That boat has sailed. The fundamental legitimacy suffered a staggering blow with Bush v Gore, and Roberts has cemented the slide with Citizens United and Shelby. Sen Sheldon Whitehouse has documented an 80 to 0 preference for the Roberts Court favoring corporate or big Republican donor interests over average people. Recall that cases are supposed to be chosen to resolve situations where lower courts disagreed with each other. Decades of Republican politicians running on appointing their kind of judges and ‘justices’ to the federal courts has resulted in their having delegitimized the federal judiciary generally, and the Supreme Court most of all. It is a Pyrrhic victory that will leave ashes in the mouth of Lady Liberty for the foreseeable future. Just as Ornstein and Mann have documented how Republicans have broken Congress (here’s looking at you, Newt Gingrich and Mitch McConnell) they have also broken the federal judiciary. The damage may be irreparable. Its long term legitimacy was squandered for near term power.

45 Likes

Knowing that PA vote is critical I fantasize that Roberts would like to see Trump just disappear and voting to get the votes counted.

3 Likes

Trump and his allies… believe Barrett should be put on the court… to serve as the tie-breaker for any legal fights that emerge from the election.

Barrett is biased, and should sit out these cases. If she refuses, then the Court needs to be expanded.

12 Likes

You misspelled “unpack”.

The three most important things in politics: Framing, framing, framing.

48 Likes

If the supremes end up altering the outcome of a second election exactly 20 years from the first, may as well write the country off, as this could well lead to mass civil unrest, and quite reasonably so.

For exactly that reason, I really don’t think that they’re going to jump in the deep end, they can’t be so obtuse as to not know that any decision would have far-reaching consequences.

17 Likes

Please don’t call Barrett “ACB.” It’s disrespectful to RBG and rewards the right for giving her that nick.

39 Likes

See above.

6 Likes

From illegally electing GWB, to fallaciously asserting that racism is a thing of the past, Roberts is a died in the wool conservative and a fairly despicable person.

However, I delight in the sleepless nights he must be presently going through wondering how he’s ever going to appear to be dispassionately calling balls and strikes with a Supreme Court filled to the brim with radical right-wingers who will not only overturn the ACA, abortion rights but the Enlightenment itself to the unmitigated joy of a majority of Republicans.

9 Likes

O/T: Can’t believe this is coincidental timing…

20 Likes

Until the decision affects them. Like when their rural hospital closes.

12 Likes

The two “wins” the GOP has had in presidential elections in this century flew in the face of the popular vote. One more fucking time and this country will explode.

21 Likes

The GOP took the case to SCOTUS on all kinds of grounds, but one of them was at least plausible in my mind. Federal law establishes when Election Day is, but SCOPA’s decision would have allowed voters to cast their ballots after Election Day. That is because SCOPA invented a presumption that, in the absence of a postmark indicating otherwise, the ballot was timely mailed if it was delivered within three days of the election. It’s possible that Thomas et al. thought that was setting up a violation of the federal law establishing Election Day. Obviously, however, any votes timely mailed could still be counted after Election Day, as elections officials in many states have done without question for many decades, as authorized by state law.

7 Likes

I really do think so. If there are lots of challenges and ballots going uncounted, all of the BLM and allies will be back out on the streets-- you can’t take away the one thing that you promised them that could change things, their vote, and throw that away without having a backlash.

And this time around I doubt it would stay nearly as peaceful as it did this summer.

13 Likes

“The argument that Pennsylvania Republicans were making in the ballot deadline dispute was that under the U.S. Constitution, state legislatures should have the final word on election rules and state courts should not play a role in determining whether those election rules comply with state constitutions. A U.S. Supreme Court that agreed with that argument would further embolden Republican state lawmakers to pass restrictive voting laws, as they would assume they would face no check from the courts.”

A very extreme argument indeed. And such a ruling would be just a first step. Because if the state courts cannot rule on state legislature with regards to elections, then why should they be allowed to rule on any state legislature? Its essentially invalidating the State Constitutions of all 50 states, and nullifying all State judiciaries.

I haven’t followed the specifics on this one (kinda busy dealing with election stuff here at home), but can someone chime in on why the GOP didn’t attack the law itself, and instead attacked the courts?

14 Likes