Posted on 10/05/2020 8:03:13 PM PDT by SmokingJoe
Late Monday afternoon the Supreme Court issued a “Stay” with regard to an order from a South Carolina federal district court judge who rewrote a provision of South Carolina election law due to the impact of COVID 19.
Judge Julianna Michelle Childs, an appointee of President Obama, granted an injunction for Plaintiffs preventing the South Carolina election officials from enforcing a provision of South Carolina election law requiring a witness signature on an absentee ballot envelope. Judge Childs set for the relief being sought by the plaintiffs as follows:
SNIP
But the Supreme Court’s emergency “stay” prevents Judge Childs order from being enforced — and does so in terms that make it absolutely clear the state election law on requiring signatures on absentee ballot envelopes will be enforced four weeks from now.
The application for stay presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted in part, and the district court’s September 18, 2020 order granting a preliminary injunction is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought. In no uncertain terms that means that Judge Childs order will not be enforced until after the Sixth Circuit has heard and decided the appeal of her Order by election officials in South Carolina. That won’t be happening in only four weeks — but just in case it does, the order won’t go into effect if upheld until disposition on a petition for writ of certiorari is heard and disposed of in the Supreme Court — and that is CERTAIN to not happen in the next four weeks.
(Excerpt) Read more at redstate.com ...
It’s like I’ve said before...the Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore (2000) says that Judges cannot write election law. That’s the job of the State Legislatures. You’d think these Judges would do some research before making a ruling that will make them look like the asses they are.
The PA Supreme Court and a trial court in Michigan did something analogous, if not the same, as this SC Court tried to do. I wonder if this case has implications for those decisions?
Ole Johnny Roberts sees the writing in the wall. He knows another Conservative is on the way and knows he is about to lose his court.
They aren’t wins for Republicans, they are wins for the Constitution and the Rule of Law. The DEMONcRAT Party is Treasonous.
The Dems are going to freak out. Just think how many ballots they wasted by sending them in without having to fake a signature!
YES
Theyre demorats for a reason.
truckloads to be sure.
It’s not the place of the judiciary to be writing or rewriting laws.
She has way over stepped her bounds and needs to be censured.
No one person should have that much power to circumvent our legal system and impose their will on everyone else. They were not appointed as demagogues.
Yes, this is going to get real interesting over the next few weeks.
Yet another example of a criminal, democrat judge executing lawfare against the people of the United Stqtes.
JoMa
Probably paying Illegals to do the real “work”.
“Dread Pirate” Roberts might be concerned that pretty soon his leftist opinions might end up in the minority.
Congress could (it won’t) narrowly define equal protection such that the term is no longer the all-purpose Leftist tool to justify social justice.
I can guess. Roberts had nothing to gain by dissenting.
He’s compromised, not stupid.
Yep
1) Make ALL mailed ballots “provisional”.
2) Count only if walk-in vote is close.
3) Ban ALL provisional ballots if two are faked.
“He knows another Conservative is on the way and knows he is about to lose his court.”
He will lose that oh-so prized ability to be able to singularly decide the outcome of so man important cases.
That’s the ballgame to a judicial activist such as Roberts.
“the Supreme Court decision in Bush vs. Gore (2000) says that Judges cannot write election law.”
People focus on the 5 - 4 decision that ended the recounts, but if I remember correctly the first time the SC ruled above, it was a 9 - 0 decision when the Florida SC tried to extend the time for the Florida secretary of state to certify.
Sounds good
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.