U.S. Justice Alito says pandemic has led to 'unimaginable' curbs on liberty
(www.reuters.com)
😷 LOCKDOWN BS 😷
Comments (170)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Alito has been solid.
It's very ironic that the fate of the country, along with next presidency, may be decided by three justices appointed by Trump. And I hate that thought at the back of my head reminding me constantly, that he has a history of hiring the wrong people.
Kavanaugh already managed to fuck him once in the second emergency relief case concerning PA late ballots. Barrett also washed her hands clean of it basically, citing late arrival to the court. We can argue back and forth about it, but PA might have been already in the bag if these two had done their job.
I haven't heard about anything from Kavanagh or Barrett to do with this. Where did you hear of them having involvement?
Basically what happened is PA Supreme Court, being a joke it is, allowed dems election rule change by litigation, agreeing to late ballots being accepted without almost any verification. GOP then petitioned the SCOTUS for emergency relief injunction - to build in a protection for futher litigation (ballot separation). This was the time when SCOTUS had 8 justices. They took the case and it was 4-4 split (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh vs lefties), so the petition was rejected.
About that time Barrett was sworn in, so GOP pushed another version of that same request through courts. Election officials seeing writing on the wall KIND OF agreed to the GOP request, and introduced voluntary measures to separate ballots (normal vs late). The case eventually reached SCOTUS again, days after Barrett was sworn in. There was still time to FORCE those rules into law, and not rely on PA election officials good will (or lack thereof).
This time Barrett decided not to take part in the case, citing late arrival. Which is very convenient explanation, but also doesn't hold water - this was simple case of emergency relief, not full actual case with months of litigation. Unfortunately Kavanaugh also joined lefties that time, so the case was 3-5. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissented, stating that this still can be litigated after the elections.
The thing is, it was MUCH, MUCH easier to fix beforehand. Now it's the complete legal FUBAR, it will require HUGE, unprecedented SCOTUS decision to do the right thing here.
Sauce: https://archive.is/eH4Qk
Thanks for the explanation. I hope these "constitutionalist" judges Trump hired actually stick the the Constitution and realise the gravity of the situation for not just America but the entire world.
I'll also note that ACB could have been confirmed earlier, if Graham et al. had refused to humor the Dems or scheduled the vote for directly after the hearing. The Senate could have had her in place in time to fully hear & prepare the case.
Kavavaugh, Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch all agreed to hear the case. It was Roberts and the other three liberal justices that declined it. Without a majority of justices, the Supreme Court could not accept the case. So it had nothing to do with Kavanaugh.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/supreme-court-declines-to-block-pennsylvania-mail-in-ballot-extension-430244
There were two instances of the "same" case and two different votes (4-4 and 3-5), please read my answer above.
Sauce: https://archive.is/eH4Qk
Oh, ok. I can't find anything about that second hearing. That's news to me. What was that one about?
I added source in my original comments: https://archive.is/eH4Qk
But good judges follow precedents set by the court even if they personally disagree with it.
Yeah, tell that to four left-leaning justices on the court (Breyer, Keegan, Sotomayor, Roberts).
What do we do about past precedents that were set that we know to be wrong?