In this case, the lower court had rejected WI’s deadline extension, and a 4-4 tie at the US Supreme Court would have the same practical effect as a 5-3 vote affirming the lower court. In either case the lower court’s decision would stand.
In the PA case, however, the PA Supreme Court had approved the ballot deadline extension and so a 4-4 tie at the US Supreme Court would have a very different effect (in this case it would leave the PA Supreme Court’s decision in place) from a 5-3 decision overturning the decision. There is discussion about that the appellants in this case intend to reapply to the US Supreme Court now that ACB is seated and with her in place, the votes will be there to overturn the PA Supreme Court. There was speculation at the time of Roberts’ vote that he had ruled as he did with the expectation that ACB would soon be seated, perhaps with a view towards deferring a final decision until the Court was fully constituted.
Both sides probably have dirt on Roberts and that makes him the vote that "can be persuaded." The only problem is that because both sides know his dirt, he has to seesaw back and forth on rulings so as to not piss one side off too much. i.e. he votes with liberals on a big one, now he owes the conservatives a big vote, and vice versa.
So why the hell did Roberts vote ALLOWING the extension in PA??
He sees the writing on the wall. Previous ruling was 4-4. He couldnt stall any longer with a new judge being seated.
Sickening, if true.
Note that the context here is different.
In this case, the lower court had rejected WI’s deadline extension, and a 4-4 tie at the US Supreme Court would have the same practical effect as a 5-3 vote affirming the lower court. In either case the lower court’s decision would stand.
In the PA case, however, the PA Supreme Court had approved the ballot deadline extension and so a 4-4 tie at the US Supreme Court would have a very different effect (in this case it would leave the PA Supreme Court’s decision in place) from a 5-3 decision overturning the decision. There is discussion about that the appellants in this case intend to reapply to the US Supreme Court now that ACB is seated and with her in place, the votes will be there to overturn the PA Supreme Court. There was speculation at the time of Roberts’ vote that he had ruled as he did with the expectation that ACB would soon be seated, perhaps with a view towards deferring a final decision until the Court was fully constituted.
Both sides probably have dirt on Roberts and that makes him the vote that "can be persuaded." The only problem is that because both sides know his dirt, he has to seesaw back and forth on rulings so as to not piss one side off too much. i.e. he votes with liberals on a big one, now he owes the conservatives a big vote, and vice versa.
Trying to appear centrist? Sometimes go right, sometimes go left?
He has learned to fear. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.