BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Pennsylvania Republicans' second attempt to block extended ballot

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Thekaspervote]

1. A small piece of good news..thank you

[regnaD kciN]

2. Hell has truly frozen over...

[soldierant]

29. I'd read the opinions before getting too excited.

They did not rule out revisiting the question after Election Day.

[StarfishSaver]

36. THIS!

[dchill]

3. Why? Did Kavanaugh pass out?

[C_U_L8R]

4. Did the new one weigh in?

[Nevilledog]

5. Hmmmmm

Link to tweet

[C_U_L8R]

7. Abstained or still reading the Supreme orientation manual?

[Nevilledog]

9. Painting her chambers Handmaid red

[tanyev]

15. ROFL!

[littlemissmartypants]

31. At the direction of her husband, no doubt.

[C Moon]

32. HA HA HA HA HA!

[idziak4ever1234]

13. Good one!

[rso]

6. Scotus

It’s the same as a couple of weeks ago, Roberts voted with the liberals, as ACB did not participate.

[Sherman A1]

8. Good news

[Trumpocalypse]

14. FYI

[StarfishSaver]

37. No, it's not

See my post above.

[Mike 03]

10. This is great. I'm curious about Barrett not voting.

Did she recuse herself, or just "not vote" for some other technical reason?

Thanks for posting!

[Marius25]

11. She recused herself.

[regnaD kciN]

16. Hopefully, this sets the precedent...

...that she’ll need to be consistent and recuse herself for all decisions regarding the campaign of the president who appointed her.

[Marius25]

20. It definitely won't.

Nothing to read into Justice Barrett's failure to participate in this case - it was because she didn't have time to study the briefs, not because she made a decision to recuse. So her lack of participation here has no predictive value for future cases.

[FBaggins]

27. Nope

She hadn't read any of the filings and wasn't in a position to participate.

[bluestarone]

30. I hear this, BUT

Why do i feel like that will make NO DIFFERENCE in how she will vote, when and if it comes up again?

[orangecrush]

40. Holy crap!

[Marius25]

41. Don't get excited, it's because she didn't have time to read the case.

[orangecrush]

45. I'm happier than Trump

Getting a golden shower!

[Roland99]

12. Whoa!

[Mme. Defarge]

17. So, what does this mean

for the SC Wisconsin decision?

[StarfishSaver]

38. Nothing.

[Marius25]

18. This isn't actually entirely good news.

Kavanaugh changed his position and says that there could be reason to consider throwing out ballots after the election if they arrived late.

[orangecrush]

44. Good news for democrats

Bad news for thugs.

[Marius25]

47. It's not, because it allows them to revisit the case

after the election and throw out the ballots that were put to the side.

[durablend]

19. With 6 days left

I'm assuming they'll try it a third time, because...why not?

[Keth]

21. Second attempt, huh?

I thought once the Supreme Court ruled, that was it. No seconds or thirds.

p.s. I applaud the ruling.

[FBaggins]

28. Parties ask for reconsideration all the time

It isn't usually granted... but 4-4 decisions are more likely to be reconsidered if a 9th justice is added (rather than one of the nine having recused).

[StarfishSaver]

43. This wasn't a reconsideration

The GOP asked the Supreme Court to stay the state Supreme Court's order extending the deadline from November 6 to November 12, pending the court's ruling on the merits of the case. The Court deadlocked 4-4, meaning the stay was not granted since 5 votes are required to grant a stay. Therefore, the state court's ruling remained in place.

Then the GOP asked the Court for an expedited ruling. Today, the Court denied that request but reserved the right to rule on the case after the election.

This means that after the election, the Court could (and very likely will if it looks like it will make a difference to the outcome of the results in Pennsylvania) overturn the state court's extension of the deadline and order all ballots received after the original deadline to not be counted.

[DIVINEprividence]

22. This will demoralize the GOP

Love it

[Renew Deal]

23. They did the right thing

They can't be changing opinions a week apart.

[soothsayer]

24. Nervously I'll think this is so they'll look like they're fair so they can steal the election

It’s a lingering fear

[smb]

25. I Suspect Barrett Thinks A Facade Of Fairness Will Ease Pressure To Expand The Court nt

[soothsayer]

26. Oh good call

[people]

33. Barrett did not vote . . .

Shocking good news!

[OnDoutside]

34. HOWEVER....

@stevenmazie · 2h

BREAKING: Supreme Court *rejects* Pennsylvania Republicans’ second attempt to block extended ballot deadline. Justice Barrett did not participate in deliberations over this case. Per the Public Information Office: "Justice Barrett did not participate in the consideration of this motion because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings."

@stevenmazie · 2h

[correcting earlier tweet]: there are no dissents, but Justices Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas file a heated statement lamenting that the litigation got this far.

@stevenmazie
WOW: the Alito, Gorsuch & Thomas statement also indicates the PA petition could be re-considered AFTER the election and ballots could be thrown out THEN Justice Kavanaugh seems to have switched sides from the earlier PA order, abandoning Gorsuch, Alito and Thomas's position. The prospect of the Court taking cert on this question after Election Day was apparently a bridge too far for Kavanaugh.

And no wonder! That is basically an invitation for another Bush v. Gore. BUT: the order says "additional opinions may follow" which means we could see a majority opinion explaining why the motion to expedite cert was denied and/or concurring ops from individuals justices. SO THIS IS NOT (NECESSARILY) THE FINAL ARRAY OF TAKES FROM THE JUSTICES.

@stevenmazie · 1h

Imagine you’re a Pennsylvania voter. SCOTUS just told you your ballot can arrive three days after Election Day and still be counted. But three justices ALSO said your ballot could be thrown out LATER once the court has thought things through.

Those three conservative justices could not have possibly created more voter confusion six days before the election.

Bartleby
@the_scrivener · 2h Replying to @stevenmazie

AND making it very clear that they're game not only to rule *after* the election, but are inclined to throw out all of those ballots despite being lawful under the current state of affairs.

[StarfishSaver]

35. This is not good news. Not bad news. But not good, either

The Court simply reserved the right to later overturn the extended deadline and restore the November 6 deadline for receiving ballots and, therefore, invalidate every ballot received after that date.

Tell everyone you know in Pennsylvania who still intends to vote absentee but hasn't yet returned their ballot, DO NOT MAIL IT but take it to the board of elections or a drop box well before November 6 (to be safe, do it before November 3) so that the Supreme Court cannot throw out their vote because it was received after the deadline they re-imposed!

[Jon King]

39. Its a SET UP!!!!

Goodness, do not fall for this. They went out of their way to say they could decide this after the election and PA will keep all ballots after Nov 3rd separate. So if PA is close, they will use this to muddle the election and send it to the PA State legislature whose head has already made noise about awarding its electors to Trump.

And if a few thousand see this as a reason not to drop off ballots the next few days and mail them instead? HMMM...wonder what they are up to??

Come on, this Supreme Court is going to be a rapid dog unleashed on our rights, anything they do is against Dems, guaranteed.

[yellowcanine]

42. Has the Orange one tweeted his displeasure yet?

He must be disappointed in his new toy.

[warmfeet]

46. Continuing in this direction will lead to a very unpleasant outcome.

Quash this shit, now!

Every vote must be counted and every person must have an equal chance to have their vote counted.

[Cha]

48. Amazing.. Rt!

[meow2u3]

49. Glad to hear hell has finally frozen over

I live in Pennsy and I just got through phone banking and I was advising voters to hand deliver their mail-in ballots either to the county elections office or by dropbox just to be on the safe side.

Fair is fair. The reason SCOPA made the ruling allowing ballots to be postmarked by Election Day is because of the coronavirus pandemic, so people won't have to risk their lives to exercise their right to vote. BTW, I'm glad SCOTUS recognized this is a matter of state, not Federal, law.