Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why would the Supreme Court approve such a thing? Wisconsin law is clear: Election Day is "The Day", no exceptions. And the Wisconsin legislature who has the power to extend it, decided not to, Covid or no Covid.
The Supremes made the correct decision: No, Wisconsin made a state law saying ballots received after Nov. 3 could not be tabulated. And the legislature chose not to change it, even though Covid has been around for more than half a year.
Sounds clear to me. If people don't like it, they should have been complaining to their elected representatives who made the law, not to a Court a thousand miles away who has no power to change it.
Supreme Court rejects Democrats' bid to reinstate mail-in ballot extension in Wisconsin
by John Kruzel - 10/26/20 07:46 PM EDT
The Supreme Court on Monday voted 5-3 along ideological lines, with a conservative majority, to deny a bid by Democrats to reinstate a six-day extension for the receipt of mail-in ballots in Wisconsin, a key battleground state in the presidential race.
Matter for the states Supreme Court, not federal. Supreme Court overstepped.
They are doing their party's bidding by suppressing votes. There is nothing in the constitution that limits voting to one day. Its sad to see how low the SC has sunk. Amy Barett seems qualified, but she will probably turn out to be an activist too.
And had the LEGISLATURE of Wisconsin extended the votes received period by 6 days, there wouldn't even be a case, and if there were, the SCOTUS would remind that party about the exact same rules they used to decide this case - the legislature sets the election rules for the state, so long as those rules comport with the US Constitution. Not executives, not judges, not staff members, sycophants, academia or the media...THE LEGISLATURE.
Did the Wisconsin House and Senate pass a law adding 6 days to the vote deadline, yes or no? No. The governor tried to EO that extension, and that was found to be unconstitutional by the first court, because it was. Then the circuit court not only agreed with the unconstitutional EO, they went ahead and amended in their own timeline for some added unconstitutional nonsense. Neither the governor nor the circuit court are the legislature of Wisconsin, so neither gets to change the election rules of Wisconsin. That Supreme Court majority read the law, applied the Constitution and here we are...with the Wisconsin legislature being in charge of making the election rules in Wisconsin, EXACTLY as the Constitution prescribes.
Law becomes real easy if you read what is written and follow it accordingly.
And had the LEGISLATURE of Wisconsin extended the votes received period by 6 days, there wouldn't even be a case, and if there were, the SCOTUS would remind that party about the exact same rules they used to decide this case - the legislature sets the election rules for the state, so long as those rules comport with the US Constitution. Not executives, not judges, not staff members, sycophants, academia or the media...THE LEGISLATURE.
Did the Wisconsin House and Senate pass a law adding 6 days to the vote deadline, yes or no? No. The governor tried to EO that extension, and that was found to be unconstitutional by the first court, because it was. Then the circuit court not only agreed with the unconstitutional EO, they went ahead and amended in their own timeline for some added unconstitutional nonsense. Neither the governor nor the circuit court are the legislature of Wisconsin, so neither gets to change the election rules of Wisconsin. That Supreme Court majority read the law, applied the Constitution and here we are...with the Wisconsin legislature being in charge of making the election rules in Wisconsin, EXACTLY as the Constitution prescribes.
Law becomes real easy if you read what is written and follow it accordingly.
You’re mimicking Gorsuch who is wrong.
He is interpreting legislature as literal legislature while the constitution defines legislature as the rule making body of the state which encompasses the legislature, governor, courts, etc.
States not being able to make decisions on things that have been determined to be the responsibility of the states?
The question was, WHAT WAS THE STATE'S DECISION? The federal court ruled that the law passed by the legislature was the state's decision, not the governor's action purporting to overrule it.
what is a 'non-vote'? This ruling was about legal citizens who are entitled to a vote but are receiving their ballot in an untimely manner. Republicans are desperately trying to suppress the vote because they are the fringe party.
Matter for the states Supreme Court, not federal. Supreme Court overstepped.
Yet in this case, the Wisconsin Supreme Court had not ruled on the matter; it was a Federal District Judge that had done so.
In that Pennsylvania case, the state Supreme Court had ruled on the matter, hence the US Supreme Court said that state's supreme court ruling prevails.
Warning: so I have been reading, but I have not read either Court decision.
Matter for the states Supreme Court, not federal. Supreme Court overstepped.
Why would it be a matter for the state's supreme court? The US Constitution says it's a matter for the state's legislature. The Supremacy Clause says a state supreme court or governor can't disregard that provision of the US Constitution.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.