Court rules states can count ballots that arrive late if postmarked on time. 
Executive Orders Don’t Preempt the Law
Please consider MICHAEL WATSON, MISSISSIPPI SECRETARY OF STATE, PETITIONER v. REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE, ET AL.
JUSTICE BARRETT delivered the opinion of the Court. Three federal statutes set the day for the election of Representatives, Senators, and the President. A Mississippi law permits the counting of absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. We must decide whether the federal election-day statutes preempt Mississippi’s law. They do not.
The Constitution’s Elections Clause empowers state legislatures to “prescrib[e]” the “Times, Places and Manner of holding” congressional elections. Art. I, §4, cl. 1. Congress may “‘override’” most of these choices. Foster v. Love, 522 U. S. 67, 69 (1997) (quoting U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U. S. 779, 833 (1995)). By “default,” however, “responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections” belongs to States. Foster, 522 U. S., at 69.
As Alexander Hamilton put it, the Constitution lodges power over congressional elections in state legislatures “primarily” and in Congress “ultimately.” The Federalist No. 59, p. 362 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). The Constitution’s system for Presidential elections is similar. State legislatures may “direct” the “Manner” of appointing “Electors” to vote for President and Vice President. Art. II, §1, cl. 2. But “Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes.”
BARRETT, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and GORSUCH, JJ., joined, and in which KAVANAUGH, J., joined as to all but Parts II–C–2 and III.
The Question at Hand
Due dates for absentee ballots have shifted over time. During the Civil War, States that allowed absentee voting imposed an election-day deadline for ballot receipt. See infra, at 11–12. But during World War I, States began counting absentee ballots received after election day. See 1918 Md. Laws p. 130; 1919 Kan. Sess. Laws pp. 252–253; see also Cal. Political Code ch. 14, §§1359(b)–(c), 1360, pp. 363– 364 (1923). Today, roughly 30 States count at least some absentee ballots mailed by election day but received afterward. See National Conference of State Legislatures, Table 11: Receipt and Postmark Deadlines for Absentee/Mail Ballots (May 18, 2026), https://www.ncsl.org/elections-andcampaigns/table-11-receipt-and-postmark-deadlines-forabsentee-mail-ballots. Mississippi is among them. In Mississippi, certain residents, like college students away from home and senior citizens, may vote in federal elections by absentee ballot. Miss. Code Ann. §23–15–713 (Cum. Supp. 2025). These voters may dispatch their ballots by mail or common carrier. See §§23–15–637(1)(a), (3). All absentee ballots must be “postmarked on or before the date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five (5) business days after the election.” Ibid.
The question before us is a narrow one about timing. Plaintiffs do not challenge the manner in which Mississippi carries out federal elections. They do not, for example, challenge the general practice of absentee voting. Nor do they challenge the use of the Postal Service or a common carrier to transmit ballots. Although the election-day statutes refer to a particular “day” for the election, plaintiffs do not contend that everything must occur on that day. For instance, they do not object to early voting or dispute that officials may count votes and certify a winner after election day. Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of Congress’s authority to regulate federal elections. The sole question before us is whether counting ballots postmarked by election day, but received up to five days later, violates the federal election-day statutes.
B The federal election-day statutes do not preempt Mississippi’s law. The defining element of an “election”—the term used in all three federal statutes—has always been the electorate’s choice of candidate. And a related federal statute, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA), confirms that while federal law dictates when ballots must be cast, state law dictates when they must be received
Trump Howls
Truth Social: In light of the tremendous loss in the Supreme Court today concerning Voter’s Rights, and the fact that “people’s” votes are allowed to be counted LONG AFTER an Election is over, it is more important than ever to pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT, which is,
- ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PHOTO I.D. (IDENTIFICATION!).
- ALL VOTERS MUST SHOW PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP.
- NO MAIL-IN BALLOTS (EXCEPT FOR ILLNESS, DISABILITY, MILITARY DEPLOYMENT, OR TRAVEL!).
There is no excuse for a politician, or otherwise, to be against the above three requirements. There is only one reason to oppose — CHEATING! The House of Representatives has approved this vital Act, THREE TIMES. The United States Senate seems unable to do so. In a time when there is a powerful Communist Movement taking place in our Country, one more dangerous than World War I, World War II, Pearl Harbor, or September 11th, all Dumocrats, and our five Republican Senate Hold Outs, Lisa Murkowski, Susan Collins, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, and Mitch McConnell must vote to SAVE OUR COUNTRY. There can be no more excuses! Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DONALD J. TRUMP
Trump needs support of all the Senators he trashed.
Spotlight Barrett
I thought the Court would side with the Republican National Committee (Trump was not involved in the case, but Trump sure hoped for a different ruling).
Barrett surprised here, but for excellent reasons.
Flashback June 13, 2026: What Are the Odds Trump’s Executive Order Blocking Mail-In Votes Stands?
Essentially zero. Let’s discuss why.
Trump’s Second Executive Order
On March 31, the White House reported Trump issues second executive order on elections, giving U.S. Postal Service unprecedented control over mail voting.
DC Court Ruling
The district court in DC denied a preliminary injunction against the ruling. Justice Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, sided with Trump as noted by the Court Listener.
That ridiculous ruling will be Trump’s last legal win in this matter.
ArtI.S4.C1.2 States and Elections Clause
Please consider the Constitution Annotated review of ArtI.S4.C1.2 States and Elections Clause
Article I, Section 4, Clause 1:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.
Nowhere in the Constitution or subsequent law is there a provision for the president to issue executive orders on voting rules.
What About Ballot Counting Deadlines?
Under Mississippi law, a voter’s mail-in ballot is counted if it is postmarked on or before Election Day and arrives within five business days of the election.
In March, the Supreme Court heard a challenge to Mississippi law in MICHAEL WATSON, MISSISSIPPI v. No. 24-1260 REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE.
I read all 170 pages.
The oral argument was long and technical, focusing on text (“cast”/”day”), history (19th-century practices, absentee voting for soldiers), federal statutes (e.g., UOCAVA for overseas/military), and practical concerns like finality, fraud risks, recall hypotheticals, and voter confidence.
It was a tedious read, and I don’t recommend it.
- Conservative justices showed skepticism toward Mississippi’s position (the state allowing the grace period).
- Justices Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh pressed hard on finality (“when is the choice truly made?”), recall risks (e.g., could a voter send it back via FedEx?), appearance of fraud from late-arriving “stashes” that flip results, and line-drawing problems. Gorsuch was particularly active in hypotheticals challenging the petitioner’s definitions. Barrett grilled on consistency with early voting and finality before Election Day.
- Liberal justices (Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson) were more supportive of the state, emphasizing history of state flexibility, no federal prohibition on reasonable receipt windows, longstanding practices in many states, and that Congress didn’t clearly preempt this. Sotomayor pushed back on selective historical readings.
- Barrett is a potential swing here—she probed both sides but seemed uneasy with loose finality.
A ruling against grace periods (my expected outcome) would tighten deadlines and reduce one source of late “dump” claims.
However, it wouldn’t transform California’s multi-day/weeks-long count into same-night results.
I failed to heed my own comment “Barrett is a potential swing here—she probed both sides but seemed uneasy with loose finality.“
Barrett was indeed the deciding vote.
I was sure there were four votes willing to side with the RNC and either Barrett or Roberts would have made this ruling go the other way.
Note the implications.
Trump Will Lose Every Executive Order on Elections
This case confirms my Q&A.
Q: What Are the Odds Trump’s Executive Order Blocking Mail-In Votes Stands?
A: Essentially zero. Let’s discuss why.
Vote counting and Trump’s EO blocking are two different things.
The fact the Court broke against the RNC has very broad implications.
Here is the key sentence. “We must decide whether the federal election-day statutes preempt Mississippi’s law. They do not.“
Strike the word Mississippi. Barrett will rule the same way on any case in any state.
By similar rationale, Barrett will not let Trump stamp out any state’s rights on any election rules including Trump’s preposterous mail-in voting, federal post office rules, etc.
I was already confident of that. “Essentially zero” speaks for itself.
But all ye doubting Thomases now have a case to judge by. I am pleased to report it’s over if you cannot even win this one.
Trump’s Voting Claims Are False
In case you missed it please see Trump’s Voting Claims Are False. So What Is the Save Act Really About?
Let’s discuss Trump’s claims and the solid evidence on fraudulent voting.
Trump’s Feeble Hope
Trump’s last feeble hope is the SAVE Act.
As I have been commenting since March, it’s hopeless. On Polymarket, the odds of H.R. 22 (SAVE Act) signed into law in 2026 are back down to 8 percent.
That’s about 6 or 7 percentage points too high.
Even if it did pass, I feel strongly the Supreme Court would rule the law unconstitutional.
The SAVE Act won’t pass, and that’s a good thing.
For discussion, please see Three Reasons the Save Act Is Unconstitutional
Synopsis
While the Act aims to enhance election integrity, its unconstitutionality stems from encroaching on state powers, conflicting with established federal law, and erecting discriminatory barriers to voting.
The purpose of the act is to disenfranchise women and minorities who tend to vote Democratic.
The act is not about “voter ID” or it would not be written the way that it was.
If enacted, the Save Act would likely face immediate legal challenges, similar to prior state efforts. Courts would swiftly strike the act.
If Trump tries to do this by Executive Order as threatened, there is a near 100 percent chance of swift court strike down, and the Supreme Court will not come to Trump’s aid.
Damn, another I Told you so … “If Trump tries to do this by Executive Order as threatened, there is a near 100 percent chance of swift court strike down, and the Supreme Court will not come to Trump’s aid.“
Well that was fun.
The whole point of the Save Act and these executive orders is to steal the election.
We won’t get to test my theory the act is unconstitutional because it won’t get that far.
Reasons the SAVE Act Is Dead
- It’s not a budget reconciliation item. That means it takes 60 votes to pass.
- There are not 50 votes to kill the filibuster.
- Majority leader Thune won’t bring it up, and there are not 50 votes to replace Thune.
- Even if the Senate replaced Thune, point two stands.
Mindless fools on X keep insisting the Senate replace Thune. Even if they did, points one and two apply.
Senators Against Nuking the Filibuster
- Senate Majority Leader Senator John Thune (SD)
- Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (KY)
- Senator Kevin Cramer (ND)
- Senator Roger Marshall (KS)
- Senator Thom Tillis (NC).
- Sue Collins (ME)
- Senator Lisa Murkowski (AK)
That is at least seven in a setup where team Trump cannot afford to lose more than three.
Those senators argue that nuking the filibuster would irreversibly change the nature of the Senate and that long-term principles should outlast temporary legislative agendas.
Point number two is the impossible to crack nut. It is truly hopeless, and for what? All this bickering to pass a bill that is likely unconstitutional anyway.
Congress cannot by vote give itself powers granted in the Constitution to states. I would rather not test that theory, but the point is moot. The SAVE Act is going nowhere.
Infighting Results
- Stupid infighting continues to the benefit of Democrats.
- Trump’s attacks on Thom Tillis caused him to bow out. He will be replaced by a Democrat.
- Trump’s attacks on Sue Collins have her on a collision course for defeat. That’s my base case.
- In Texas, Trump knocked out Senator Cornyn who voted with Trump over 90 percent of the time in favor of Ken Paxton. Republicans will now have to spend hundreds of millions of dollars defending a seat Cornyn would have won easily. Paxton may lose.
This can change, but right now, I have Ohio and Alaska in the Democrat column along with Maine and North Carolina.
If so, that’s a Senate headed for Democrat control even without Texas or my other wildcards which are the farm states of Iowa and Nebraska.
So keep up the infighting guys if you want to lose not just two but potentially seven Senate seats.
So far, I am the only one I know looking at this extreme possibility of a 7-set swing. It’s not my base case, but it would not be shocking (to me) either.
No, I am not a Democrat, nor a Republican. In general, I can’t stand most of them.
Rather, I am just discussing the odds. My Supreme Court track record speaks for itself.
By the way, Barrett has been an excellent Trump pick.
Barrett did not rule the way liberals wanted on abortion, but on other occasions she has voted against Trump. For example, she voted against Trump on tariffs.
I congratulate Trump for an excellent pick!
In case you missed it, please see Republicans Finally Prove Election Fraud, Wider Search Needed
A South Dakota man is charged with two felony counts for forging 16 signatures.
That post is a real hoot on where the fraud genuinely is.
Related Posts
February 20, 2026: Supreme Court Strikes Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs In 6-3 Vote (I Told You So)
Forgive me for bragging, but I got every justice correct.
May 7, 2026: Trade Court Sends Trump’s Section 122 Tariffs Down the Drain
Gee, I get another Tariff “I Told You So.”
June 29, 2026 : Supreme Court Blocks Trump From Firing Fed’s Lisa Cook (I Told You So)
The Supreme Court makes a big exception for the Fed.
In California a mail-in ballot need only be hand dated to be considered valid. Basically it’s on the honor system in a low trust election environment. You can claim ‘no proof of widespread fraud’ but what constitutes proof? what constitutes fraud when the laws of the state make legal what any rational person would consider to be highly suspect or inviting fraud.
ZH: 83% Of French In Favor Of Deportation Of Criminals And Long-Term Unemployed Foreigners
I bet the number in the United States is even higher. The sentiment is also tied to voting, hence the overwhelming majority of Americans who want to require ID to vote.
Roberts should have sied with Barrett. there is clearly no legal reason for another ruling. All voters are entitle to vote up to election day. if mail in ballots are legal, and clearly they are the dissents don’t say otherise requiring them to arrive no later than the voting day means mail voters in fact have an earlier deadline. having it be postmarked no later than the election day and allowing 5 days fro it to get there is very reasonable.
he did
I voted by “absentee” ballot in the 1976 election. I was in the service, stationed overseas.
I have no idea when my ballot was received, but I never doubted that someone did count it.
Trusted the system, still do.
“Should we have paper ballots? Let’s put it up for a vote. We’ll count it on electronic machines… hehehe.”
My idea for mail-in voting is that the deadline for a postmark on a mail ballot be changed to 7 days prior to election day. This will give a full week for all ballots to be received.
Any ballots received with a postmark date AFTER the close date or after midnight on the day that election polls close, get tossed.
Counting of mail-in ballots begins when the expiration date arrives (i.e. 7 days prior to the poll voting). This gives election authorities a full week to complete the counting and any necessary signature validations, etc.
In order to ensure security and no influence voters on election day at physical polling places, the mail-in ballots must be counted by machine with no one having access to the totals until the close of polls on election day. The exception to this rule is for ballots that are erroneous and are kicked out of the machine for human attention.
Okay let me engage with this in good faith. This is fine but it creates an issue when someone asks “so did anyone see these counted?” The way we do it now, we can tell you who exactly counted all of those ballots by feeding them into the machine. Unless hundreds of people collaborate on fudging votes, it’s impossible to screw with them. Making it a process like this would ironically make it easier to mess up votes and then go “it was the machine I swear!”
I’m unsure why this is suddenly an issue for voters other than Trump making false claims. We’ve spent decades building this system and it works flawlessly.
Even stranger is the fact he was a massive winner in terms of mail in votes in the last election because that’s one of the areas his campaign focused on to increase Republican voting overall.
We trust machines for many other critical processes. Surely we could make a machine that could count correctly? 😁
We could even have it certified and proven accurate before each counting session, if necessary to assurage the sensibilities of people like yourself.
Counting votes by human hand is a key reason why the results are so slow.
As well as inaccurate at times. Humans are not flawless and can’t be made to be so. Machines can be flawless, and with alarms and bells and whistles going off, if they ever stray from the programs written for them. That’s why we should be using machines, and same day results, and anything not counted is tossed. With humans, like is CA for ex. They can take months to massage the data to spit out what they wish it too, and nobody knows the wiser. With machines PROGRAMMED CORRECTLY this would be a non issue. No problem counting , no problem finding cheaters via alarms or glaring discrepancies, that cause the machine to stop until it’s corrected. It will show obvious fraud nearly immediately.
– We’ve spent decades building this system and it works flawlessly.
> No it doesn’t, and it is literally proven to be riddled with fraud. Go back and read the earlier post by Jojo. It’s a perfect illustration of voter fraud in abundance! While only one illegal vote could sway an election, although highly unlikely, under the current distrusting crap they call voter rolls (dead people, non-citizens, etc.) it is more than likely to occur on a regular basis, and it obviously is doing so as a result. This is ALL PROVEN already, so no denying it. It’s also why they won’t turn over the voter rolls. Hmm… yeah sure, nothing to see here, as it’s all been covered up , and/or ignored along the way is all. I know people are not stupid enough to believe it doesn’t exist, unless they can’t read, or distinguish facts from fiction.
Counting of ballots should be as they come in so by election day, all but a few are left to be counted. Under your idea, everything is counted by the big day.
I would agree with this but the only problem is the potential for corruption, such that if an election was close enough, someone on the inside could get word to counter operatives to “find xx more votes”.
Not counting until election polls close alleviates this issue.
Machines can count really quickly!
Exactly!
You are disnefranchising the rights of voters by saying one group may only vote prior to a certain date while all others get the later date. Vote counting has zero to do with vote casting. All valid votes must be cast on or before (as allowed in the state) election date.
You failed the IQ test. Why are you still posting here?
No one is being disenfranchised! You can get off your lazy rear end and go to the polling station if you can’t decided on who you want to vote for until the final 7 days of the election!
And no, I don’t car eif you are crippled, bed ridden, have ebola or anything else.
AGAIN, you have the opportunity to vote by mail up until 7 days prior to the election. Then you have 7 days until the close of in-person voting to still vote.
It’s as simple as counting to 3. To those struggling, it goes like this: 1, 2, 3 see how easy that was… So 7 days would be 1, 2 but all the way to 7! It’s very easy to follow,,.
Beware of fake postmarks.
What is the point of someone messing with fake postmarks?? Just send in time and move on.
How would you get a piece of mail with a fake postmark into the regular stream of mail so it could be counted?
in California you don’t even need that – a hand written date on the ballot is sufficient to be considered valid. Ripe for fraud.
Its not quite a moot point but I imagine this won’t be important in decade or so when we are all voting by our phones.
Real ID online verification is coming fast given so many states are outlawing minors access to social media. I had to do one to get my tax refund (the IRS no longer mails checks starting this year) so that’s another reason most people will get one along with access to porn.
So in a decade or so mail in voting will go the way of the dinosaur as everyone will be voting by phone / PC app which is going to force the ID issue that everyone claims to want.
In the mean time as I noted to Mish above, Mail is under Federal control and all post marking is done by machine (software) so it shouldn’t be too hard to *magically* make those machines stop post marking a few days ahead of election night in the right districts to invalidate as many mail in votes as needed.
If you want my opinion it’s a sham we’re not voting by phone already. We have the technology, we have the ability to make fallback options, we would have pulled it off easily if we had the tech back in the 70s.
ID to use the internet would cause a breakdown though. People are sick of being spied on already, and our government is looking more like Russia’s by the hour. A digital bill of rights is non-negotiable before that happens and I don’t see it happening. Also, it is not technologically viable. VPNs have to exist, and those make ID moot. The only way to set the internet up like that is to become a full authoritarian shithole like China or Russia. And I don’t see America living long enough to turn into that.
You can use a VPN of course. But tech companies under US control (and EU and Australian control) which is most of big tech is going to comply with the Real ID component because they must. So regardless of where your VPN makes you appear to be accessing from, you won’t be able to use the site without one. So 3rd world countries will be forced into Real ID or their populace will be frozen out of certain sites.
I already found out I could not get a tax refund mailed to me so I had to sign up for one or not get a refund. It won’t be stopping there regardless of what you hope for.
Did you file a paper return?
I filed my taxes by e-file. They requested my bank info, and refunded me within a couple days.
A month later, I received a letter from the Treasury, asking me to register my bank info, for their database. (I discarded it).
The e-file system apparently does not save the bank info.
Except that model you propose would make it impossible for businesses to do transnational commerce privately, so it won’t happen. Not to mention the market forces against it. If anything, it would create a large market pressure to create something ungovernable.
Remember, this is technology that was designed to survive a nuclear war and hostile attempts at interception. It is private at the very base level by design. Trying to change that means trying to change TCP/IP, which is nonsensical on a technical level.
The laws in question are written by people who don’t understand that, but would love an Orwellian society like you describe. They won’t get it, but they will get people pissed off enough to change us out of the 20th century mindset. History never repeats itself, but it always rhymes.
I think you misunderstood what I meant. No one is going to change TCP/IP (though there are other protocols that do in fact run on the network).
Rather you’ll be forced to use a Real ID to do anything meaningful besides some basic viewing of ESPN or some such. For example they could have Amazon require a Real ID to purchase and deliver anything in the USA. Sure you can view stuff on Amazon from your VPN that has you in Timbuktu but you wouldn’t be able to buy anything which would render Amazon useless to you. Same with other sites like say requiring Real ID to post on Reddit / Facebook / Twitter/X or Real ID to use Uber and so on. At the VERY grassroots level they could make your ISP require it for you to even go online in the first place so by then the VPN wouldn’t even matter at all.
None of that hinders business 2 business in the least and it will all be done ‘for the children’ as it always is.
You guys get tax refunds? Wow.
and this bit, “So in a decade or so mail in voting will go the way of the dinosaur as everyone will be voting by phone / PC app which is going to force the ID issue that everyone claims to want.”
People have no clue or idea what’s coming, a total surveillance state courtesy of scumbag repubs. An ID to use a PC? and ID to watch porn? an ID to travel? An ID to purchase goods or services? An ID to drive “your” car?
Yup, it’s all coming. Glad I’m out.
So what exactly is your area of expertise? You seem happy to spout on everything under the sun.
My area of expertise is profits, that should explain the tax situation and it should explain the projection analysis.
My town has been voting by machine for a few years now. I have volunteered to use them and help validate their accuracy from the start. We have not had 1 issue. The machine automatically shuts down for ANY discrepancy. You have a swift and easy procedure to handle such. The one to cause the alarm gets pulled aside and placed into an envelope with 2 people to witness and 2 people to stay with them until they are counted as time permits throughout the day. No vote has not been counted same day, no vote with a discrepancy was placed through as it can’t be, it shuts down. It works, works fast, works well, and is supported by your license matching up with the voter roll information. If there is a discrepancy, it’s fixed then if possible. If not, it’s placed aside in an envelope with 2 people watching over them until they can be addressed. Procedure will determine the best route to do so. Not sure what the issues are, unless made up. I do it, watch it, tested it, support it, and ourTown has had no issues at all as of yet anyway.
Barrett has continued to surprise me. She makes well-reasoned, intelligent arguments and decisions, regardless of politics. While I may be significantly more disdainful of “religious liberty” than she is, I like finding her to be a true conservative judge. Not trying to change the world, just trying to be correct about the law. If you don’t like the law, change Congress, not the Supreme Court.
She’s absolutely been the best of the conservative bunch by far. Thomas is demented and needs to be retired, Roberts is a stubborn fool, and the rest need to be investigated. Didn’t one of them rape someone?
That was Kagan.
At least 3 Mishlin stars for Jon’s post
Are you still mentally in kindergarten, awarding stars to kiddies?
You get a bald turkey award for your comment.
Another mental kindergarten playmate pipes in.
I’d rather be a kindergartner than a filthy old socialist leech boomer.
Hope he doesn’t encounter an unfortunate accident any time soon.
“Today’s decision leaves open opportunities for voter fraud that may further undermine Americans’ faith in the integrity of this country’s elections.”
“It is undeniable that a prohibition on counting late-arriving ballots would provide an additional hurdle for bad actors seeking to stuff ballot boxes when early election results suggest a tight race. The majority incorrectly removes this safeguard from federal law,” Alito wrote.
Somehow these theoretical actors were powerful enough to stuff the ballots… but not powerful enough to stuff them prior? Very logical Alito! When are we getting term limits again?
Maybe they “stuff ballot boxes” in north Jersey, where he’s from.
The goal is not if it passes. Its the doubt it sows in the system. Hes pulling the communist card now. Guess hes having to go that route since his base realized all those socialist programs the republicans cut benefit republican the same if not more than dems.
This. We can all see the words “January 6 but bigger” written on Trump’s face as he bloviates about how fake every single election is. Guy’s obsessed with winning, do we really think he’s gonna take a crummy midterms lying down?
Its more to it than just being a sore loser. First its about keeping power for himself and he is backed by wealthy who benefit ( musk etc) and the true believers (voters). Plus grifters ( conservative media and talk radio and everyone one else who is making a buck.
Second his back is in the corner with the epstien files his family corruption. For the files he has a lot of wealthy people depending on him to keep them out of jail.
Thats a lot of pull
It flounders where it matters though because there needs to be manpower for that. He has none. Most of his supporters are old, fat, fat and old, or disabled. Just go watch the footage of “freedom 250” if you want a sampling of his fearsome warriors. Meanwhile the fighting age demographic hates him. Overthrowing a democracy eventually requires one’s rubber to meet the road, and cash alone doesn’t do it. He either respects the results or goes down with one of the saddest tantrums of all time as the rest of the GOP has to flee the sinking ship.
If these jerk-offs would get around to fixing REAL_WORLD problems, then Mish’s analysis could move on as well to REAL issues: hunger, fake pandemics, a bought-off Media, Inflation issues, and so on. STOP ALL WARS that simply feed Congress and the MIC with loot stolen from us.
YOUR perception of what is a problem most likely doesn’t match what others see as problems.
I’m disappointed in the ruling, Mish, but not surprised. The U.S. is an unserious country with its embrace of vote by mail, and even extending the grace period. The ONLY time there’s a chain of custody in VBM is once they return to the election center. Who knows who really voted, or what other strange turns were taken during the process? In Oregon they find 1000+ foreign nationals registered to vote…sure they removed them but stopped looking further. You have to keep the faith UP in a faith-based election system.
This is not about who voted, It is not about election day.
It is 100% about counting votes and who gets to decide on when.
I expected this to go the other way, But Barrett’s rationale seems compelling. She made the right ruling.
I just added more paragraphs from Barrett. I should have put them in before, but I had seen them when I wrote the post.
Look at what Barrett said and tell me how it’s wrong.
Superficially, this is meaningless. But if Team Trump cannot win this case. they cannot win ANY case.
Looking through my lens – doing anything which relaxes any kind of “standard” on a system of voting which by definition is already insecure, is…i’ll say it again, another sign of an un-serious country. Coming to a “constitutional” decision doesn’t make it a “good” decision. A lot of bad policy is perfectly constitutional and this is another example. Team Trump needs legislation, not EO’s…but that;s “Harrrrrrrrrd” and would likely require he not primary and bash the votes he needs. /sarc
Over the decades the very few instances of voter fraud that have been prosecuted are almost always Republican voters or operatives.
The Save Act is them trying to rig every election of the future. That is why Trump said Republicans would never lose another election. He knows it’s cheating. Big time cheating. Perpetual cheating. That is what he wants. Trump wants to cheat on every election of the future.
Legislation cannot (at least should not) be able to fix this issue.
The Constitution gives a lot of lattitude to states
elections in modern times are very clean affairs. go back 50 and 100 and 200 years and study how they did it all. was standard affairs to have men with beer and food to bribe folks AT the ballot box halls. ranchers used to bring fistfulls of votes of their hands, both mexican and amerikan. same goes for factory owners. all the panties in knots today make me LOL. crumbling evil empire under the donald epstein. democracy works. idiots elect idiots and do idiot things. always have. always will. democracy works. end of story.
All these pontificating experts re voting fraud have to do, is read ten or so dead presidents biographies/autobiographies to know what WE know!
Exhausting…
Absolutely nothing new under this sun.
I like, “if you’re not cheating, you’re not trying ”
But that’s just me…
You need to examine very robust systems, yes, like here in PA created by (R)s. Bar coded for tracking and the elimination of duplicate ballots, verification before you can get a VBM, tracking on a public site to where your vote is (from sending by the gov’t to receipt, if there was an error, and final tabulation).
ONLY problem is the (R)s didn’t want counting to start until election day, which causes questions in the MAGA world about credibility.
no comments?
The World Cup is on…
Does the Supreme Court have an army to back this up?
No army needed. How is Trump going to force what states do?
One presumes the king thinks he can tell the army to do it because he’s got the sense of the talking dream fish heads in the Sopranos. That does not mean he has an army, but it should be noted he totally thinks he does.
That’s easy. Check out the key sentence in the ruling “if postmarked on time”.
Mail is under FEDERAL control. Maybe a week before the election ends just stop postmarking mail in votes (it’s done by machine, I used to do software for these machines once upon a time) especially in certain key districts.
Wildly against the letter of the ruling but after the election day what can anyone do without violating the whole election process entirely.
At that point one would assume SCOTUS gets involved again. Or Trump gets thrown out because the military has to step in when elections fall flat and people get ugly. Your call, but either way it doesn’t end well.
He will simply declare their votes invalid, and refuse to abide by the results. He may not be able to get away with it in the end, but he can string it out in court for a couple years.
What the states do doesn’t matter.
Until they all just declare him moot and stop listening to the federal government. What’s he going to do? Invade half the US with a nonexistent army while having an approval rating in the 30s?
usmc and ice v state troopers
I think this has been a good week for SCOTUS. Now the president can get further out of control and fire everyone when dems take everything by storm, and the only person Republicans can blame is their idiot leader. Birthright is going to be a landslide, and Trump is locked into blocking legislation in his attempt to ram the SAVE act through.
It’s very sad to see this nation going through it like this, but at least we can see the fever won’t last forever. I’m not enthusiastic it doesn’t get worse beforehand though. Scary and sad, that’s all I can say.
Potus is a democratic socialist plant.
How else to explain the unexplainable?