Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In Oct 2020, SCOTUS Made This Ruling On Wisconsin Absentee Ballots
jsonline.com ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: dirtyelection; dirtywisconsin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 12/11/2020 6:07:08 AM PST by AggregateThreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

Well there you have it folks.


2 posted on 12/11/2020 6:09:46 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

Absentee ballot. Not the same thing as a mail-in ballot.


3 posted on 12/11/2020 6:15:24 AM PST by NewJerseyJoe (Rat mantra: "Facts are meaningless! You can use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

I think the more important point is, who gets to change the rules...


4 posted on 12/11/2020 6:16:48 AM PST by AggregateThreat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe
The case from Texas seems to hinge on who gets to set election 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 posted on 12/11/2020 6:17:58 AM PST by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

5-3 ruling. Roberts voted with majority. Bodes well for the TX case.


6 posted on 12/11/2020 6:18:21 AM PST by joshua c (President Elect joshua_c. Hey if Joe can do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat
The ruling is precedent for the Texas case.

The paper seems to think it is against it.

7 posted on 12/11/2020 6:19:42 AM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NewJerseyJoe

“absentee ballots that are sent back”

Sent back sounds like through the mail. Aren’t absentee ballots filled out and handed back in?


8 posted on 12/11/2020 6:22:12 AM PST by Cats1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cats1

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.


9 posted on 12/11/2020 6:26:17 AM PST by Mr. K (No consequence of repealing obamacare is worse than obamacare itself)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

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?


10 posted on 12/11/2020 6:28:08 AM PST by joshua c (President Elect joshua_c. Hey if Joe can do it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

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.


11 posted on 12/11/2020 6:31:00 AM PST by V_TWIN (Where's Hunter???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshua c

“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.


12 posted on 12/11/2020 6:33:26 AM PST by V_TWIN (Where's Hunter???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: V_TWIN

And soros of course


13 posted on 12/11/2020 6:33:48 AM PST by V_TWIN (Where's Hunter???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

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.


14 posted on 12/11/2020 6:39:27 AM PST by BraveMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

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.


15 posted on 12/11/2020 6:39:30 AM PST by taxcontrol (Stupid should hurt - Dad's wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: joshua c
Chief Justice Roberts is arguing: If state law applies, as crafted by a state legislature, the opinion interpreting that law by the Supreme Court of that state should accorded deference by the federal court.

Our problem in the Texas case will probably be standing.


16 posted on 12/11/2020 6:41:37 AM PST by nathanbedford (attack, repeat, attack! Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: All

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.


17 posted on 12/11/2020 6:47:01 AM PST by veracious (UN=OIC=Islam; USgov may be radically changed, just amend USConstitution)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: AggregateThreat

Will the SC first tell us whether they will accept the case before they make a ruling on the case?


18 posted on 12/11/2020 6:52:08 AM PST by alternatives? (If our borders are not secure, why fund an army?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Wait a minute. The ruling was 5-3? Who voted with Roberts and the other 3 liberals?


19 posted on 12/11/2020 6:57:16 AM PST by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: joshua c

Ok, this was a good sign for out side....


20 posted on 12/11/2020 6:58:12 AM PST by nikos1121
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson