Posted on 10/28/2020 5:45:50 PM PDT by Revel
The Supreme Court has voted 5-3 to deny a request by Republicans to overturn a decision by Democratic authorities in North Carolina to allow mail-in ballots to be counted nine days after Election Day and without a witness signature.
Justices Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, and Clarence Thomas dissented, though only Gorsuch and Alito signed the dissent. Newly-sworn-in Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not participate in the decision.
As Breitbart News previously reported:
Democrats engineered the changes to mail-in voting through a consent decree between Democratic Party-aligned groups on the one hand, and state election authorities on the other. The state elections board is led by a Democrat appointed to the role.
Normally, mail-in ballots are counted in the state if they arrive up to three days after Election Day, and have a witness signature.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices, though for reasons that are unclear. One blog speculated that Kavanaugh wished to show deference to the North Carolina State Board of Elections because the state legislature had delegated rule-making power to it.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
However, Im firmly convinced JFKs governance would make him a pariah with todays Democrat party.
Just because they prefer to practice judicial restraint and to not legislate from bench does not mean they are not wise and clever strategists and tacticians when it comes to protecting and defending the Constitution and thus defending and protecting America as a whole.
A big part of this shaping public opinion, maintaining consensus and avoiding the appearance of impropriety or judicial over reach.
If those are my choices I’ll choose to be an embarrassment.
I think this is like how the National Firearms Act of 1934, 1968 Gun Control Act, gave the BATF authority to declare certain weapons illegal or machine guns that needed a automatic weapon tax, etc.
I don’t like it, but it happens a lot. Too much.
And yes, courts have ruled if a legislature passes a law delegating rule making” to an agency or person, that agency or person has the authority.
To wit, they didn’t give up their Constitutional power, as they can pass another law to simply rescind any delegation they made.
“This implies that all election law written by the legislature can be overwritten by an election board. “
But if a ruling by the Board Doesn’t conflict with a law there’s no problem.
I hope the state can segregate the late ballots. Then, this point can be adjudicated fully. If needed.
Oh. Those darn transplants I am in Texas and we get them too.
I quite agree.
You have the right take of it.
“And yes, courts have ruled if a legislature passes a law delegating rule making to an agency or person, that agency or person has the authority.”
But this is a special case where the constitution clearly says it is up to the legislature. Meaning the legislature has no right to give the responsibility to anyone else. Any legislature that does that is effectively re-writing the constitution.
Thank you for that explanation,
Excellent.
.
No witnss signature and no signature match required.
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.