• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

There's frequently a lot of bad and reactionary analysis out there about SCOTUS decisions, but Kavanaugh's concurrence is truly just an entire piece of hot trash.

Rarely does either side really engage in judicial activism (as people claim they want to define it, rather than just using it to describe any decision they don't like - which is generally what people do) but this is one of the clearest examples you will ever see. He reverse engineers his position predominantly based on the idiotic belief that we need the votes counted on Election Day or it makes it easier for candidates to cry "wolf" if votes counted after Election Day (provisional, mail-in, and absentee ballots) were to "change" the election's outcome.

Of course what he glosses over is that this is just completely made up. The media/AP calling a state's outcome on the night of the election doesn't mean the election's outcome is "changed" if a candidate gets more votes tallied (which had already been cast and received). It just means that candidate won the election. There was no change because state's don't certify elections for weeks after Election Day for this exact reason. Simply because the media wants to turn the election into a sporting event, one night only, there is a winner and a loser TONIGHT doesn't change the laws regarding election certification.

Kavanaugh is literally just making shit up. It's honestly one of the more shocking opinions I've read from SCOTUS with no basis in reality beyond whatever conservative reality Kavanaugh decided to create for himself. It's the definition of activism and conservatives who claim to condemn judicial activism should call this out for what it is. This is your chance!
 
I mean look what's missing from this concurrence (hint: meaningful citations)

"[States who have laws that ballots must be received by election day not just mailed by election day] want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election."

Citation? Again, these ballots are not "flip[ing] the results" of an election. They are just the election results.

"And those States also want to be able to definitively announce the results of the election on election night, or as soon as possible thereafter."

Citation? The first part of the sentence is objectively false to the extent that he's using this to argue that states have ever actually announced election results the night of. States do not definitively announce the results of the election on election night - regardless of whether they "want" to or not. Also, again, citation?

"Moreover, particularly in a Presidential election, counting all the votes quickly can help the State promptly resolve any disputes, address any need for recounts, and begin the process of canvassing and certifying the election results in an expeditious manner. See 3 U.S.C. s. 5."

This citation to the safe-harbor provision of federal law concerning the state's need to certify election results within 35 days of the election or they won't have their electors recognized for the EC doesn't make any sense as to an explanation for Kavanaugh's view If he's using this citation to point out that there is a federal statute that ensures states move relatively quickly, that's fine, but it's bizarre that he cites this at all since this section has been under pretty heavy criticism in general post-2000 since it provides no practical way for states to resolve close elections (can't conduct a thorough and meaningful recount in that time period).

TLDR; Kavanaugh is literally making shit up without citation and this is definitionally judicial activism. Appalling rationale for his concurrence unbecoming of a SCOTUS justice.
 
Last edited:
Definitely seems like the Republicans overplayed their hand in making the supreme Court partisan. If people don't trust it as a non-partisan, objective institution, then they either won't accept the decisions or would support reforming the structure of the Court.

Probably wishful thinking though.
 
So the gop lead in the less than supreme court is 3 completely partisan hacks (thomas, kavanaugh, barret).

Maybe moscow mitch's party break will see his blackened hands fall off.
 
BeachBumDeac said:
Definitely seems like the Republicans overplayed their hand in making the supreme Court partisan. If people don't trust it as a non-partisan, objective institution, then they either won't accept the decisions or would support reforming the structure of the Court.

Probably wishful thinking though.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's wishful thinking, in that if they start overturning highly popular things that most people now take for granted, like the ACA or abortion rights, I definitely think they'll be a massive public backlash, and support for expanding the Court will rise exponentially. If the Democrats don't expand the Court right away, give this 6-3 hard-right majority a couple of years to overturn previous progressive rulings and/or block any new progressive or liberal legislation or actions as unconstitutional, and Republicans may well find their beautiful new partisan Court to be a serious political liability in 2022 and future elections. Ultimately this all depends on how aggressive the 6 GOP justices are going to be in going after earlier progressive SC rulings, overturning lower court rulings on voting rights, civil rights, etc. and blocking Democratic laws and presidential actions. If they want to push it, they're almost certainly going to get a massive push back in the form of increasing support for Court expansion, and their own delegitimacy (if they care.)
 
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused a plea from Pennsylvania Republicans to put their request to halt a three-day extension of the deadline for receiving absentee ballots on an extraordinarily fast track.

The move meant that the court would not consider the case, which could have yielded a major ruling on voting procedure, until after Election Day.
 
Your party keeps trying to surpress the vote and kavanaugh apparently went off the range with his uncited, bs opinion footnote the other day. #HandSlap
 
deaconson said:
Your party keeps trying to surpress the vote and kavanaugh apparently went off the range with his uncited, bs opinion footnote the other day. #HandSlap
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court allowed longer absentee ballot deadlines in North Carolina after a similar ruling in Pennsylvania, another battleground state.
Wednesday, October 28, 2020 8:51 PM EST
In a pair of decisions welcomed by Democrats, the Supreme Court on Wednesday at least temporarily let election officials in two key battleground states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, accept absentee ballots for several days after Election Day.
 
It shouldn't be controversial to count ballots postmarked on Election Day or before.
 
It's not. Unless you want to retain power by any means necessary.
 
Decision looks like sandbagging to me. People will feel safe putting their ballots in the mail now rather than going to a drop off, then on Nov 3 or 4 SCOTUS will rule to exclude the late arriving ballots. Someone please tell me I’m wrong because that’s exactly how it reads to me. The late ballots are now being segregated under the ruling in case they need to be thrown out later.
 
Unless you assume the three Justices writing are dissenters. They’re not listed that way, and Kavanaugh’s footnote suggests they aren’t.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top