Our problem in the Texas case will probably be standing.
Posted on 12/11/2020 6:07:08 AM PST by AggregateThreat
8:17 pm CDT October 26, 2020
MADISON - The U.S. Supreme Court upheld Wisconsin's voting laws Monday, rejecting an effort to require the counting of absentee ballots that are sent back to election officials on or just before Election Day.
The court's 5-3 ruling means that absentee ballots will be counted only if they are in the hands of municipal clerks by the time polls close on Nov. 3.
The justices determined the courts shouldn't be the ones to decide the election rules amid the coronavirus pandemic that is surging in Wisconsin and across the world.
"The Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules," Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in a concurring opinion.
(Excerpt) Read more at amp.jsonline.com ...
Well there you have it folks.
Absentee ballot. Not the same thing as a mail-in ballot.
I think the more important point is, who gets to change the rules...
I would expect Thomas and Alito to be very solid on the matter at hand.
Gorsuch, I would think, would maintain consistency based on his statement in October and would agree that the 4 states improperly changed rules.
Barrett is, I believe, rather focused on precedent. I would expect her to join on the side of people who want state legislatures to be in control.
That leaves Kavanaugh as a significant factor. I'm hoping he does the right thing.
If the Wisconsin case was decided 5-3, I would think that the Texas case would at least be 5-4 in our favor.
5-3 ruling. Roberts voted with majority. Bodes well for the TX case.
The paper seems to think it is against it.
“absentee ballots that are sent back”
Sent back sounds like through the mail. Aren’t absentee ballots filled out and handed back in?
No. Hence the term “absentee”
You write in asking for an absentee ballot because you know you will be unavailable the day of voting.
And then you mail it back in.
But then Roberts sided with the Liberals in the PA case. His reason:
In the Pennsylvania case, Roberts sided with the liberals. He wrote Monday that he voted the other way in the Wisconsin case because the lower court ruling came from a federal judge, not a state court, as it did in the Pennsylvania case.
Anyone understand this reasoning?
Which resulted in back dating ballots. It was as rampant as any other cheat method and how do you prove it...I don’t think you can other than witness testimony.
“Anyone understand this reasoning?”
Yeah....he’s in obamas hip pocket...never forget that demon is pulling most of, if not all the strings here.
And soros of course
Absentee ballots didn’t have to be returned via the mail. LostThread and I handed them to the City Clerk to be sure they were counted in time. We were able to verify they were counted online.
Absentee ballots had to be applied for in advance. Our resident information was verified in advance, as well as our signatures. We received the ballots a month in advance of the election.
If this quote becomes the standard understanding with the justices, then I believe that the Texas case will likely succeed.
The constitution is not optional. Laws are not optional.
Our problem in the Texas case will probably be standing.
Danger. A small bone for SCOTUS to completely ignore Texas suit. Modern “justice” is balancing evil with every good.
If all our hope is SCOTUS, YHVH (God) forgive us for being the very sheep that we have become.
Will the SC first tell us whether they will accept the case before they make a ruling on the case?
Wait a minute. The ruling was 5-3? Who voted with Roberts and the other 3 liberals?
Ok, this was a good sign for out side....
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.