An example: Yesterday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-3 for Wisconsin Republicans who want to block the counting of votes postmarked before Election Day but received up to six days after it.
Kavanaugh wrote
“the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of the election. And those States also want to be able to definitely announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter.”
This is why it's important to thoroughly vet SC candidates and not rush them through. Absentee ballots are part of the vote count. They are not there to "flip the results." They are part of the election. Why should the results of an election be definitively announced on election night? Are we in such a rush to announce a winner that we have to stop counting the votes? Please point out where in the constitution it says that we must have a winner on election eve.
I cannot believe that Kavanaugh actually put those idiotic thoughts in writing. This should make all of you enraged that he doesn't understand the voting process, much less the constitution. And he will be on the bench for the remainder of his life, handing out decisions like this.
Oh, and the part about not politicizing the Supreme Court? Did you all enjoy the Mussolini like theater where McDonald and Barrett stepped out onto the White House balcony? Wasn't that just a lovely display of non-partisan theatrics?
FredHayek wrote: It is tradition to celebrate an appointment to the White House. Obama celebrated Elena Kagan's appointment.
Oh, but Fred, this was so much different that when Obama celebrated with his appointees. This was theatrics on a grand scale, worthy of McDonald's reality star status.
Do you have anything to say on the idiotic Kavanaugh comments?
As to the Wisconsin decision, Wisconsin state policy dictates that election officials must have mail-in ballots by the time polls close on Election Day. It does not state "postmarked by". This is another case of reading what is written. If they want to change the law, they need to change it, not ask a court to.
After the 2018 elections in Florida dn California in which so many races were flipped days after the election because car loads of ballots kept being found until just the right number was reached. That can't happen. Ballot harvesting is antithetical to our system. It is rife with fraud regardless of what politicians and media continue to claim. There are many examples of fraud that was found. I'm not even sure that the democrats actually won the House in 2018. If you can't have faith in our elections, we aren't left with much.
Justice John Paul Stevens in the Bush v Gore decision in 2000:
What must underlie petitioners' entire federal assault on the Florida election procedures is an unstated lack of confidence in the impartiality and capacity of the state judges who would make the critical decisions if the vote count were to proceed. Otherwise, their position is wholly without merit. The endorsement of that position by the majority of this Court can only lend credence to the most cynical appraisal of the work of judges throughout the land. It is confidence in the men and women who administer the judicial system that is the true backbone of the rule of law. Time will one day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by today's decision. One thing, however, is certain. Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law.
I respectfully dissent.
What respect is left in a court that has been packed with underqualified judges appointed by McDonald? What confidence can we have in this court that has been politically confirmed by a Senate which does not represent a majority of Americans?
[sarcasm]Ah, yes. Justice Stevens who has always put aside his political beliefs to rule strictly with the rule of law....[/sarcasm]
I guess you really wanted your president decided by this guy...
I, on the other hand, did not although maybe Gore would have been better than Bush by some margin. If you recall, the Florida recount was stopped when it became apparent that the recount was targeted and also when it became apparent that the ballots in question were literally disintegrating from being handled so much. Every recount beyond a certain point adds uncertainty.
Pony Soldier wrote: Perfect example of what the court shouldn’t be. Justices should be true to the constitution, not left or right
I don't think it is left or right so much as justices who believe in the Constitution and its amendments and precedents versus those justices who think the Constitution is a living document that should be easy to change as the country does.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
