Amy Coney Barrett’s majority opinion today as to the permissibility of States counting ballots that are received after Election Day is perfectly reasonable, and well-reasoned.
To answer you very soberly and rationally--I'm very truly on a sadly constrained budget. The teeny handful of Substacks I pay hard money for are because they were true lifelines throughout Our Plague Era and I remain very grateful for that. It was a hard time to live through.
Well, one of them wasn't a lifeline but he very generously comped me a year and I felt honor-bound to pay for a subscription when that year concluded, and considering that he seems to be one of the most slandered guys on social media (and people on social media slander me when I point that out) and is a truly, in my view, extraordinary writer, I feel eating a little less cheddar cheese in order to pay the annual cost is a worthwhile sacrifice.
I do like your writing very much, Michael, and am grateful you allow free readers to comment. May your Substack live long and prosper (though sadly without my monetary contribution).
Roberts is a very savvy political operator and he works hard to make the court appear unbiased. The birthright citizenship decision is about to come down and it looks like it could easily go Trump's way. If the court appears to be partisan towards Trump, the Democrats will scream even louder to pack the court.
Bit of a side note here, in contrast to Barrett's sound and sensible reasoning, we have the "Whuh, can you run that past me again" brain farts of Samuel Alito, lending credence to the suspicion that he obtained his law degree by filling out the back of a matchbook cover.
Ok, I found this SCOTUS decision a nothing burger because it doesn’t address who has the right to vote. If only US citizens have the right to vote, then tailoring mail in ballots isn’t such a big deal. But that issue (who has the right to vote) is not on the table so I cannot argue with Barrett’s analysis. So, who has the right to vote in elections for local, state and federal positions? I thought the Constitution was pretty clear on that. And, no, noncitizen’s don’t get a vote. So how do we ensure who is a citizen, could that be positive ID? I think maybe that’s a good start.
Alito's sensible dissent made the case for an election day, not an election month. This wasn't a Republican play to deny people their vote.
“The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” he wrote. “Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days.”
Alito said that “two centuries of historical practice” reinforce his arguments. “From this country’s founding until the late 20th century, election-day ballot collection was the near-uniform practice, with only a few late-arriving exceptions.”
Alito made a case that all states should be barred, by federal dictate, from accepting the receipt of ballots which arrive at any time after Election Day in November. The case pertained to the state law of Mississippi. The idea that the GOP-controlled state legislature and GOP governor near-unanimously enacted a law creating an “Election Month” in Mississippi, because the law allows for ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days, is absurd. Alito also glosses over the abundant historical precedent for counting ballots received after Election Day, namely overseas and military ballots in both World Wars. He argues that his own judicially-decreed views on the proper limitations of “Election Day” should override the ordinary political process undertaken in Mississippi and other states, and a uniform federal dictate should instead be imposed, which would have rendered invalid countless state election laws and procedures going back well over a century.
The Right was hoping that ACB was going to be a reactionary simpleton like Thomas or the wretched Alito. This might be the last nail in that coffin. And she's young. But no matter. The SC exists to serve the Ruling Class, and always has.
The most sober and rational piece I've ever read from you.
Hardly any fun at all!
I'm honored. You should upgrade to a paid subscription if I've bestowed you with such pristinely rational insights. Just sayin'!
To answer you very soberly and rationally--I'm very truly on a sadly constrained budget. The teeny handful of Substacks I pay hard money for are because they were true lifelines throughout Our Plague Era and I remain very grateful for that. It was a hard time to live through.
Well, one of them wasn't a lifeline but he very generously comped me a year and I felt honor-bound to pay for a subscription when that year concluded, and considering that he seems to be one of the most slandered guys on social media (and people on social media slander me when I point that out) and is a truly, in my view, extraordinary writer, I feel eating a little less cheddar cheese in order to pay the annual cost is a worthwhile sacrifice.
I do like your writing very much, Michael, and am grateful you allow free readers to comment. May your Substack live long and prosper (though sadly without my monetary contribution).
He does write well.
Who’s being slandered? All three of your pace subscriptions are people who write under aliases. Can’t really slander someone who’s under an alias.
I have more paid subscriptions than that!
OK, but your profile shows the bad cat,Eppigius and simulator only. I’m just being nosy. Who’s the heavily slander person?
I don't know why he's not listed on my profile's subscription list. I just checked my receipts and it's active.
Actually, I see now, one founding membership to simulator, two paid memberships and one hidden or private
Roberts is a very savvy political operator and he works hard to make the court appear unbiased. The birthright citizenship decision is about to come down and it looks like it could easily go Trump's way. If the court appears to be partisan towards Trump, the Democrats will scream even louder to pack the court.
Bit of a side note here, in contrast to Barrett's sound and sensible reasoning, we have the "Whuh, can you run that past me again" brain farts of Samuel Alito, lending credence to the suspicion that he obtained his law degree by filling out the back of a matchbook cover.
Ok, I found this SCOTUS decision a nothing burger because it doesn’t address who has the right to vote. If only US citizens have the right to vote, then tailoring mail in ballots isn’t such a big deal. But that issue (who has the right to vote) is not on the table so I cannot argue with Barrett’s analysis. So, who has the right to vote in elections for local, state and federal positions? I thought the Constitution was pretty clear on that. And, no, noncitizen’s don’t get a vote. So how do we ensure who is a citizen, could that be positive ID? I think maybe that’s a good start.
Alito's sensible dissent made the case for an election day, not an election month. This wasn't a Republican play to deny people their vote.
“The acceptance of these late-arriving ballots effectively postpones the date on which the electorate’s choice is made, and federal law precludes that postponement,” he wrote. “Election day is a specified date, not a span of multiple days.”
Alito said that “two centuries of historical practice” reinforce his arguments. “From this country’s founding until the late 20th century, election-day ballot collection was the near-uniform practice, with only a few late-arriving exceptions.”
Alito made a case that all states should be barred, by federal dictate, from accepting the receipt of ballots which arrive at any time after Election Day in November. The case pertained to the state law of Mississippi. The idea that the GOP-controlled state legislature and GOP governor near-unanimously enacted a law creating an “Election Month” in Mississippi, because the law allows for ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five business days, is absurd. Alito also glosses over the abundant historical precedent for counting ballots received after Election Day, namely overseas and military ballots in both World Wars. He argues that his own judicially-decreed views on the proper limitations of “Election Day” should override the ordinary political process undertaken in Mississippi and other states, and a uniform federal dictate should instead be imposed, which would have rendered invalid countless state election laws and procedures going back well over a century.
The Right was hoping that ACB was going to be a reactionary simpleton like Thomas or the wretched Alito. This might be the last nail in that coffin. And she's young. But no matter. The SC exists to serve the Ruling Class, and always has.
Now I’ll bet you're one of the people who raged against Trump for fixing the Supreme Court in his favor. Am I right?
I'll bet you're a big dummy: https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/$s_!gx27!,w_1456,c_limit,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F36b4d98b-9f7f-413f-883d-6dd0693d5c06_1320x640.png
In the words of Calvin Coolidge, “You lose.”
In the words of Calvin Coolidge, “You lose.” However, I'm delighted to hear I lost my bet too.
Bullshit.
Solid counter-argument.