The Supremes are at it Again

Of course, the Supreme Court showed its true colors in the abortion decision, a wholesale rejection of established legal precedent for purely political reasons. They tried to cloak their reasoning in what they call, “originalism” – the idea that the Constitution should be interpreted on the basis of history and tradition. This makes as much sense as saying that you should hire a typewriter repairman to explain to you how your new computer works.

Well, the Robed Reactionaries were at it again this week. And this time, if possible, what they did was even more political. The case involves whether mail-in ballots could be counted in Pennsylvania if the voters who submitted them forgot to date them. The Third Circuit said that they could be and, in the election at issue – a Judicial election in Lehigh County – they were counted. The Supreme Court now vacated that decision. This means that it is as if the ruling had never happened. The question that the case decided is now thrown wide open and will engender a whole new slew of lawsuits contesting election results, especially in Pennsylvania where the Senate election could very well decide which party gets control. Mail-in voting is used more often by Democrats. The Republicans are the ones who will benefit by being given this additional ammunition to challenge elections. The Republicans are the “election deniers.” These Supremes are singing the Republican tune as often as Diana Ross’s Supremes sang “You Can’t Hurry Love.”

It would be one thing if the Supreme Court’s decision here was even arguably reasonable. It isn’t. Without getting into all the legal niceties, what the Third Circuit did was just state the obvious – that the mere omission of a date on the ballot is not important in determining whether the ballot is valid. Here’s what they said the facts were:

First, Pennsylvania law says that a ballot is valid only if the voter is at least 18, has been a citizen for at least a month, has lived in Pennsylvania and in the relevant election district for at least 30 days, and is not imprisoned for a felony. No mention of dates on the ballot.

Second, and this is a. good one – both sides agree that all the contested ballots were received prior to the 8:00 p.m. deadline. They were all time stamped as on time by the Election Board when received. What difference would an omitted date on the ballot make?

And, to top it all off, the Deputy Secretary for the Election Board testified that the date is not used “to determine the eligibility” of a voter.

Taking all of this into consideration, the Third Circuit invoked Shakespeare to reject the challengers’ arguments. It said, “Surely, the right to vote is made of ‘sterner stuff’ than that.”

So it would seem, but not to the Robed Reactionaries. They saw a chance to throw another bone to their buddies on the right. And when it comes to helping the right, they don’t care about being right.