Laws are only for the peasants to keep under control. When have laws been used to prosecute the evil players stealing this election, or in draining the swamp? Keep praying, that’s what i have been doing.
Well, since there is now no way to separate out which ones arrived late, couldn’t the left just say 90% of late arriving votes were for Trump even though slo joe had a big jump while they were being counted?
To the left, the end justifies the means.
Short list of Rights violated by Democrats this election
State Legislatures to determine rules and conduct of election. The right to observe and challenge ballots especially in a system more prone to fraud. The right of individuals and precincts to have their ballot treated equally. The right to challenge irregularities in court.
The right to have ballots kept secure. The right to an politically free voting environment. The right to an election where rules and laws are kept and consistently applied. And other constitutional ones I am sure that apply
None of this matters when local big-city, big-county officials are allowed to make it up as they go along.
And the rejoinder from the Left, when the rule of law is invoked, is always “racist voter suppression”. And few there be who are willing to buck that foul sulfurous headwind.
If that article is accurately written, the ruling applies to absentee ballots — NOT to the mail-in ballots that were mandated by some states (including mine). Absentee and mail-in ballots are NOT the same thing.
I think the most important part of the article is that the court confirmed that state legislatures, and no one else, set laws and rules for elections. Neil Gorsuch was very clear on that.
Gorsuch wrote that leaving decisions about how to conduct elections during the pandemic would lead to a “Babel of decrees” and that lawmakers were better positioned to make judgments about what to do.
“Last-minute changes to longstanding election rules risk other problems too, inviting confusion and chaos and eroding public confidence in electoral outcomes,” he wrote. “No one doubts that conducting a national election amid a pandemic poses serious challenges. But none of that means individual judges may improvise with their own election rules in place of those the people’s representatives have adopted.”
Bingo
Yet he same court refused to hear the PA case basically arguing the same thing. Courts in PA arbitrarily changing deadlines...
There is a problem with this decision when compared to the decision where JOHN ROBERTS voted to allow Pennsylvania mail-in ballots to be accepted for 3 days AFTER November 3. The inconsistancy is glaring.
The article has a fundamental flaw, in the claim that the rules must be the same for all voters in all states.
The rules absolutely are NOT the same for all voters in all states. They never have been, the constitution does not require them to be, and this is not an equal protection situation.
Each state is a separate entity, electing the electors who will vote for president, and electing representatives for the house and senate. In NO case is any person in one state voting for anybody that can be effected by an election in another state. That is the beauty of the electoral college, it makes 50 state elections.
So no, Wisconsin can have an 8pm deadline, and New Jersey can have a November 10th deadline, and so long as all the voters in each of those states have the same access as all the other voters in those states, we are good.