• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Oct 26, 2017
3,323
Get fucked, GOP.

The justices divided 4-4 Monday, an outcome that upholds a state Supreme Court ruling that allowed election officials to receive and count ballots until Nov. 6, even if they don't have a clear postmark.

Republicans, including President Donald Trump's campaign, have opposed such an extension, arguing that it violates federal law that sets Election Day as the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November and that such a decision constitutionally belongs to lawmakers, not the courts.

Roberts sided with the more liberal justices. Trump's appointees continue to be shit stains.
 

ezekial45

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,752
That's good. I'm glad Barrett hasn't been added yet, or else this and other on-going election rulings would have tipped for the GOP.
 

Yerffej

Prophet of Regret
Member
Oct 25, 2017
23,547
Who would have thunk I'd actually appreciate Roberts being there. And when ACB joins, this will not happen again...
 
OP
OP
Michael F. Assbender
Oct 26, 2017
3,323
It being a 4-4 call bodes extremely ominously for where the S.C. is headed, though.
msm-adapt-pack.jpg

635647780056083159-floor.jpeg

joe-biden-inches-closer-2020-presidential-run.png
 

CDX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,476
Good result for now.

Glad Trump didn't get his new nominee on the court yet, otherwise that would've been 5-4 the other way.
 

CreepingFear

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
16,766
One one hand great, on the other hand, we are fucked when Barret gets in. Pack the fucking courts and DC and Puerto Rico statehood. Fuck these dirty fucks.
 

steejee

Member
Oct 28, 2017
8,614
Have to hope for that Senate flip and make use of a non stop bill passing session to shore up voting rights nationally. This country won't survive another term with GOP holding power.
 

Zache

Unshakable Resolve
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
2,791
Roberts isn't on the wrong side of a voting rights issue wow
 

RDreamer

Member
Oct 25, 2017
14,106
I'm stunned Roberts didn't side with the conservatives but this is a telling sign. He's going to be more consistently against voting rights rather than for and none of us really have to guess about Barrett...
 

Empyrean Cocytus

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
18,707
Upstate NY
The scary thing is that if Barrett had been confirmed by this point, this would be 5-4 to uphold the request.

Vote early and as safe as you can, people, because the longer you wait, the more likely it will not count.
 

KG

Banned
Oct 12, 2018
1,598
Why would this even go to the SC? Are voting matters all handled at the state level?
 

Lump

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,030
The scary thing is that if Barrett had been confirmed by this point, this would be 5-4 to uphold the request.

Vote early and as safe as you can, people, because the longer you wait, the more likely it will not count.

Trump's coronavirus superspreading may have delayed the SC appointment just long enough to result in this outcome.
 

refusi0n1

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,910
im so damn jaded these days, i figure roberts is just providing himself cover when he sides with his masters for something major like th presidency being legit. hope im wrong af
 

VariantX

Member
Oct 25, 2017
16,887
Columbia, SC
Why would this even go to the SC? Are voting matters all handled at the state level?

Republicans want to push everything back to the courts once they've packed them to get the rulings they want for decades because those are lifetime appointments. This is literally why we HAD to win 2016. They're gonna dig up settled law and run it back to the courts and essentially try to drag the country back decades. If they have their way, the country in a lot of aspects is gonna get drug back to the 50's-60's if they have their way. Voting has become life or death for even a larger swath of americans now.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Michael F. Assbender
Oct 26, 2017
3,323
I hope I'm wrong on this one, but don't expect it at all unless the court starts to do some INSANE rulings, as in overruling gay marriage tier of rullings and even then I wouldn't expect anything.

They were talking about this on the 538 podcast a few days back.

The thought floated out there was that the court would be nuts to start making major shifts right away. Blowing their wad right off the bat just begs Democrats to pack the court.

What they'll likely do is spend a couple years ignoring major cultural hot buttons, while leaning right on smaller cases that are tangentially related to things like marriage equality and abortion (to start steering things to the right).

Then, when the GOP regains control of some portion of the federal government and is able to prevent court packing, the hammer drops.
 

Parthenios

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
13,613
Any good bits from dissents? I can't possibly imagine the legal rationale for opposing allowing ballots to be counted after election day, especially considering it was done that way for decades.

They were talking about this on the 538 podcast a few days back.

The thought floated out there was that the court would be nuts to start making major shifts right away. Blowing their wad right off the bat just begs Democrats to pack the court.

What they'll likely do is spend a couple years leaning right on smaller cases that are tangentially related to things like marriage equality and abortion, then, when the GOP regains control of some portion of the federal government and is able to prevent court packing, the hammer drops.
Yup, they were not likely have to wait out till the 2022 midterms without something that forces Biden's hand. He needs to make this priority #1 during his first hundred days if he gets the Senate.
 
Last edited: