Legal Insurrection:
The United States Supreme Court has upheld Wisconsin law requiring that absentee and mail-in ballots be received by Election Day. The Court rejected lower court attempts to extend the deadline for receive. The decision came in an Order denying a motion to vacate a prior 7th Circuit stay of lower court injunction.
The Order with all dissenting and concurring opinions is here.
Chief Justice Roberts, trying to distinguish his failure in the Pennsylvania case, wrote in concurrence:
In this case, as in several this Court has recently addressed, a District Court intervened in the thick of election season to enjoin enforcement of a State’s laws. Because I believe this intervention was improper, I agree with the decision of the Seventh Circuit to stay the injunction pending appeal. I write separately to note that this case presents different issues than the applications this Court recently denied in Scarnati v. Boockvar, ante, at ___, and Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Boockvar, ante, at ___. While the Pennsylvania applications implicated the authority of state courts to apply their own constitutions to election regulations, this case involves federal intrusion on state lawmaking processes. Different bodies of law and different precedents govern these two situations and require, in these particular circumstances, that we allow the modification of election rules in Pennsylvania but not Wisconsin.
Justice Gorsuch, joined by Kavanaugh, mocked the argument that the 6-day extension was necessary on the facts: more
I don’t see it as being any more difficult, or much different, to drop a ballot in an official election drop box than it is to drop it in a mailbox.
So why the problem with it, the mail in stuff, in the first place?
When, once upon a time, we were a Nation of Laws, not of Men, the Law meant what it said. It’s sad to see that the Leftist Wing of the Supreme Court has decided that Feelings and Fear should be the rational for arbitrarily altering the Law by Judicial Fiat. If anyone doesn’t like the laws as they are written, then they should lobby their legislature to change said laws. The Courts duty is to verify that the law meets Constitutional standards, not to modify the law to meet the current likes and feels of the moment
Lance a Lot: Yup. Just reading the concurring and descending opinions you can clearly see intellect vs. feelings. Thank God for ACB!
There are 3 types of voters, this cycle in particular:
Those who will vote at the polls, on or before election day.
Those who will mail or drop off their ballot, on or well in advance of election day.
Those who are trying to fraudulently sway the election outcome.
Only the third group has any interest in extended deadlines.
I called our county voter registrar to find out where we could go vote in person. I got some young girl on the phone who informed me that we no longer refer to them as Polling Places, they are now called Voting Centers. OK, whatever. She then informed me of several locations in the county I could show up at, they’d check to make sure I hadn’t already voted and if I hadn’t I could vote. I asked her what happens if I just dropped my mail in ballot in the box right before I showed up at the Voting Center? No answer.
Responsible people do things on time. They take care of important things when they need to be done.
Irresponsible people cry out “voter disenfranchisement.”
And this happened even before ACB had anything to do with the ruling. Keep crying libs
Dan Bongino made an excellent point this morning. Now that there is a 5-4 originalist majority on the court, if (when) John Roberts votes with the liberals, the task of writing the decision then goes to the senior member…Clarence Thomas! Thomas is much more likely to write a far-reaching decision than Roberts would. So Roberts is in a box; does he vote the way he wants, i.e. with the liberals, and let Thomas write the decision, or vote with the originalists, so he can write a narrowly-tailored decision to minimize the impact (think 2nd Amendment issues).