SCOTUS issues opinion on Watson v RNC

In a 5-4 spit decision The supreme Court upheld a Mississippi law that counts ballots received up to 5 days after election day as long as they are postmarked on or before election day.

The RNC had filed the case arguing the law is unconstitutional because federal law sets election day, not the states. 

The Court ruled  against the RNC. Allowing the grace period to remain in place.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote the opinion. 

"The [federal] election-day statutes require the electorate's choice to be made on election day. That occurs so long as election day is the deadline for individuals to vote—as it is in Mississippi," Barrett wrote. "But the election-day statutes do not set a deadline for ballot receipt, so they do not prevent Mississippi from counting ballots postmarked before election day yet received afterward."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1260_g3cn.pdf

This was a "well, duh" decision that should be obvious. The Republipigs wanted to disregard the meaning of "election day" and distort it to mean "the day the ballots are all received, verified, and counted." That doesn't happen in any state; ballot processing can take several days even if only ballots received by election day are counted.

Back in the olden days, the results of elections weren't known for several weeks. That was the norm. The Founders didn't expect instantaneous ballot processing. Nor should we now.

Of course, this is nothing but another manifestation of the ongoing Republipig crusade to make it harder to vote and thus, to give them an unfair advantage in elections. They've launched this stupid crusade against mail-in ballots, and are railing that they're all fraudulent (unless, of course, a Republican wins). The law where mail-in voting is allowed is that a postmark (by election day) serves as a receipt of the ballot and evidence that the vote was cast in time.

The decision should have been 9-0, and the 5-4 decision shows that SCOTUS is nothing but a MAGA/Trump lapdog. They do show some token resistance on occasion, just to give the appearance of fairness; I don't know which MAGA judge besides Barrett defected, but I'm sure that both of them will get angry phone calls from their orange master, threatening them with "retribution."

I think Barrett applied the tenets of the law to a tee in this decision. Trump appointed her in 2020; she's ruled against his wishes several times since that appointment and that pissed off some of the GOP spotlight force. She's got some sand as evidenced by her contributions to the raising of 7 kids with her husband..that says something. I like her.

She is an honest conservative which is a rare thing these days

Yeah, she's only done what her master wanted 9 times out of 10, as opposed to the other lackeys, who have obeyed him 99 times out of 100.

She was able to put up a show of faux independence on this ruling, because nobody, not even the Turd, expected it to pass the smell test. But check her record and see how many horrible things she's done since 2020, how many terrible Turd overreaches, violations, and crimes she's happily endorsed. She's been on the side of evil each and every time the question was "Can Trump do THIS??" She's fulfilling her end of the deal, which is to nod and bow every time the Turd wants to be granted some additional power.

In short, she's happily played her role as a Trump puppet. The few times she's given a ruling that might have displeased her master have been on the matters of Constitutional law (as in, whether the Turd can violate it), in front of which, as I've said, the Turd judges have drawn a line. That's how they maintain their independence facade.

For instance, she just barked and wagged her tail happily when Trump ordered her to allow unlimited campaign contributions and to give him the power to fire all federal regulators at will and without cause.

But yeah, she's a noble warrior in the fight for American judical independence and impartiality.

*SNORT*

Yes. Trump told her, "You get this Court seat, you have to do my bidding at all times." She has held up her end of the bargain. There is honor among thieves.

Don't you think she's good, Mark (as a judge)?

Nahh..you underestimate the number of times her decisions have gone against the Trump grain. You haven't looked up those decisions..you jusr slam dunk categorize her because she's generally conservative. That's your choice  but  I didn't ask for you to like or approve of her.

I've been observing the antics of the Trump Supreme Court ever since the Turd created it, and it hasn't been hard to single out the rare times when the vote doesn't go 6-3 pro-Turd. Sometimes, Roberts defects...but only when that's safe and the decision will still be pro-Turd, just 5-4 instead of 6-3.

I've noticed the few times when Barrett has gone off-script. I remember them because they've been so rare. And contrary to your supposition, I HAVE noticed when that happens. She only defies the Turd's orders when it's a matter of Constitutional law--and certainly not every time that comes up, either.

I don't care if she's "generally conservative." I would just like her to not be a Trump servant. But that ain't gonna happen; she has a debt to pay Trump and knows she would never, ever have been a SCOTUS judge if not for him. So, kissy kissy kissy, with a very light sprinkling of token resistance.