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 ...
What good any of that is going to do anyone if the Democrats steal the election.
And in the PA case they told PA to separate a select set of ballots. In this case they did not even do that. So you can’t subtract them back out later. So the USSC is not even being consistent anymore.
The Ballots have to be postmarked November 3rd. So they are accounting for people mailing them on Election day. For mail I always say 7-10 business days.
Did North Carolina go for Clinton in 2016?
The Ballots have to be postmarked November 3rd. So they are accounting for people mailing them on Election day. For mail I always say 7-10 business days.
Did North Carolina go for Clinton in 2016?
Witnessed and notarized too if so thats better.
First, it is premature for the Supreme Court to interject itself into this situation, especially because the NC state legislature has full control over the election and can address the issue with a legislative remedy up until the day of the election. To do would be usurping the prerogatives of the state legislature, which is inconsistent with both the Originalist/Constructionist philosophy as well as with the concept of judicial restraint.
More importantly, waiting until after the unfair and unlawful abuse of the voting system has occurred gives the justices the ability to make a very broad ruling based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution that empowers them to reign in the more egregious abuses undermining the electoral system we are seeing, especially in Democrat run states.
I believe that's unconstitutional.
This implies that all election law written by the legislature can be overwritten by an election board. Presumably un-elected officials? Not one word the legislature wrote means anything if a few people override it. I move that it is constitutionally illegal for the legislature to do that when the constitution clearly puts the responsibility on the legislature. Can congress vote to put the power to declare war in the hands of George Soros? The implication here is that they could. The court should rule that such a transfer of power is constitutionally illegal. It violates an article of the constitution.
“And apparently couldn’t wait to vote with them after that. Just makes no sense.”
Stockholm syndrome? Must be really wanting to be liked by those who beat him up.
I disagree because they present “moderate” reasons for their rulings. There’s another one that’s as much “moderate” as “conservative”.
The “conservative/liberal” dichotomy is untrue of the court.
Heck, there are no constitutional liberals on the court!
See post 87. And again if you wait until after the election how can you ever fix the result? In this case you simply can’t without forcing a revoke. Why didn’t the court rule that such normally non compliant votes have to be separated like they did in PA?
No. Trump won by about 4%. We’ve had 4 years worth of liberal transplants moving in tho so I expect it to be closer this year.
State legislatures can delegate their constitutional powers? I don't believe that's constitutional.
First, the election may be a run away for either Biden or Trump, in which the issue is moot.
To act now would give the impression that the Supreme Court is intervening to affect the outcome of the election - a very delicate point given that the Democrats have been planning to steal the election via vote fraud and they are making a huge attempt to work the referees, especially our newest Justice ACB. They are especially trying to get her to preemptively recuse herself before the election by flooding the zone with a lot of accusations.
To rule now would play into the hands of the Democrats to inflame the situation, to help mobilize the Democrats to get out the vote and to a certain extent, validate and increase the pressure for ACB to recuse before the election. I would be a very bad look for ACB to rule on this on her first day on the court and kicking the can down the road avoids these pitfalls.
More importantly, waiting until our 2020 election is melting down due to the Democrats operation chaos gives the Supreme Court the cover and cause of action to draft a very broad ruling that addresses the various abuses of the voting system and the current dangerous undermining of the Constitutionally mandated checks and balances of the Electoral College institution.
For the first time in our life times, the Supreme Court has a working majority to accomplish this and the opportunity may not come again, especially if Biden is elected and - God forbid, one of the conservative judges is forced to retire or passes away.
Or worse.
Given the ANTIFA/BLM violence we are seeing, nothing can be ruled out.
Kavenaugh perhaps sees an opportunity and wishes to seize the moment.
I disagree because they present “moderate” reasons for their rulings. There’s another one that’s as much “moderate” as “conservative”.
That’s why they are so dangerous. The have spent lifetimes constructing these positions to justify their alliance with radical Democrats. In reality these GOP judges do not care about the issues we care about. They are on bench to service the GOP Chamber of Commerce donors and that is all.
My comment was sarcasm to the person who thinks Trump can just “remove” SC justices.
This.
I went and reread the new guidance and ballots received without signatures will be “spoiled” and a new ballot will be mailed to the voter. So I was wrong when I thought they would accept ballots without signatures. Sorry for any confusion. Not sure how this would work if the first ballot was received on November 3rd and rejected. How is the 2nd ballot getting to the voter in time to be returned by the 12th?
You make a very good point in your posts.
Hopefully, the knowledge of the Court’s probable actions would inform the Legislature to enact appropriate laws. That’d be best.
Given the history of the Supreme Court, they ideally need a cause of action and claims of damage to intervene. Ideally, it would be best to rule now, but it is not 100% clear that the court has the constitutional standing to do so at this time.
On Election Day, they do have standing to rule on issues such as signatures and deadlines for accepting and counting of ballots. This is best done using an equal protection argument. If done properly, the equal protection ruling could be very broad and address many other irregularities as well as protect the Electoral College from being undermined.
Our whole system is based on checks and balances between the State and Federal governments as well as between the Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branches of government.
The Constitutional checks and balances between the State and Federal government prerogatives for voting laws are very out of balance. So out of balance that voters are being disenfranchised of their voting rights as spelled out under the original intent of the constitution
This is a golden opportunity for the Supreme Court to act to balance a Democrat led attack to undermine the voting system that is both dangerous and unstable
IDK...
The Chamber of Commerce donors have protections under the Constitution too.
To me, the overwhelming problem is the Justices that don’t care about the Constitution- and there are still three of them.
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.