Posted on 06/29/2021 2:39:43 PM PDT by Bogle
"The court’s justices are set to hand down their last opinions of their current session on Thursday, perhaps including on a voting rights case that calls into question Arizona’s law that bans ballot harvesting...."
(Excerpt) Read more at theepochtimes.com ...
“ Are these guys just making it up as they go along?”
They’ve been do that all along.
Usually, they first decide on a ruling that they want and then they go looking for a case that will let them make it.
-PJ
Supreme Kangaroo Kourt.
The country as founded is effectively gone and buried. If you’re still in the military at this point I have to ask what you’re actually hoping to defend.
There are basically two positions the Court might take. The easy one (also the correct one) would be to acknowledge that, under the Constitution, the States conduct elections and, with very wide latitude, are entitled to make such arrangements as they see fit. This view respects State sovereignty and the historical practice of the country. If the Court so holds, it will strike down the Democrat challenge and let Arizona’s prohibition of ballot harvesting stand.
Alternatively, the Democrats are arguing that the penumbras and emanations of the Constitution have again shifted and that vote harvesting — until very recently, universally illegal and seen in all States as an open door to vote fraud — is now constitutionally mandated. Democrats want the Court to find that minorities are simply too challenged, not only by the burden of actually going to the polls, but also by the onerous burden of dropping an absentee ballot in the mail. Apparently mailboxes are racist, or minorities disproportionately do not know that we have a postal system. Or something. Anyhow, the Democrats now insist that any semblance of chain of custody on ballots is an unconstitutional burden.
If I had to guess, I would wager that the Court will uphold the Arizona law banning ballot harvesting.
Well put. Thanks for the insights.
Remember the blatant threats the new regime was hurling at the SC justices during the campaign? Those same threats are now being whispered into the willing Uniparty hack ears on the court. “I’m sure you’d hate to be only one of 13, you might want to reconsider the ______ case before you vote.”
Lets hope so, but this court cannot be trusted. Especially when it comes to vote fraud. They could not have been anymore lawless when they declared they would not hear the Texas vs PA case in which many other states joined in. The constitution does say that the USSC is resolve cases between the states.
To all those now taking a crap on SCOTUS:
Remember how happy we were when Trump nominated and got confirmation of three TEXTUALISTS? That means they interpret the constitution as it was written, just like Justices Scalia and Thomas do.
“Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law”
Read that again. They do not sit as a body that looks for wrongs to be righted or to correct mistakes of the legislature, they interpret the constitution as written, and if you read what the constitution says about elections you will better understand recent rulings and decisions.
The USSC will rule that states can make their own laws on ballot harvesting.
Otherwise legal ballots cast in the wrong district will be held to be valid.
I would agree. It has been my experience that if the Supreme Court likes the ruling go the Circuit court, it will let it stand. My guess is that they took this case because they didn’t like that ruling.
SCOTUS is no longer relevant.
>> and that this ruling could even make things worse if SCOTUS upholds the lower court?
Roberts keeps yanking away the football and giving it to the other team
Thanks for that...my memory is short, but my wounds are still raw. Now that I think about it, it was a 14th Amendment issue that they punted. Can a state choose not to enforce a state law—in this case, an election law—in order to benefit some people at the expense of others? Of course I never knew all the details, and SCOTUS might well have ruled against the GOP. But it sure would have been nice for them to at least take the case. It’s hard not to view their inaction as cowardice although I’m entering the land of ad hominem.
scotus, ballot harvesting is no good
Elections are up to the states PERIOD!!!
Deep State now controls SCOTUS.
SCOTUS rules the ways Deep State tells it rule.
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.