Not sure this is a good decision, but it was basically a reaction to the District Court. As in Bush v Gore, things get dicey when SCOTUS is asked to review a state election law written by a court, rather than by a legislature.https://twitter.com/WSJMattD4/status/1247304424894185474 …
-
-
That said, there really is no good reason for Wisconsin to be holding a primary right now at all.
Show this thread -
Judges are uniquely unsuited to write election laws. SCOTUS continues to struggle with how best to handle situations where the lower court decision has rewritten the law, but comes out again & again against judicial innovations that cut legislatures out of the job.
Show this thread -
Right. The Court is inventing a law out of whole cloth to allow more votes to be counted. It got stuck in that position due to a long train of bad decisions by Gov. Evers, WI legislators, the lower courts, & the litigants.https://twitter.com/POLITICO_Steve/status/1247307174365323264 …
Show this thread -
The unsigned opinion eviscerates Ginsburg's dissent for just totally ignoring the evidence & the procedural posturepic.twitter.com/ogQnGPlJCJ
Show this thread -
The better decision in any sane situation would be to tell the legislature to live with the rules as written or fix them. Unfortunately, we have the Court getting the case the night before Election Day with a pandemic ongoing & nobody trying to resolve thru the political process.
Show this thread -
This is, in any situation, not conducive to good judicial decisionmaking, particularly when the Justices can't even sit in the same room. Thus, a sloppy decision & an essentially lawless dissent.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
This too: "The plaintiffs put forward no probative evidence in the District Court that these voters here would be in a substantially different position from late-requesting voters in other Wisconsin elections with respect to the timing of their receipt of absentee ballots."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It comes down to the word "ordinarily" in the final quoted sentence. Deciding whether the present moment is ordinary, and so whether an extraordinary change can be made by a court, is a matter of judgment. As w many other Reps right now, the maj says, "Not that extraordinary."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I thought SCOTUS commented in Bush v Gore ruling that it shouldn’t be considered a precedent
-
In the most famous sentence from the decision, the Justices wrote, “Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.