Closing Thought–18Oct21

I have been asked to participate in protests to be held in DC at the Supreme Court building……I cannot take part as I am still fighting a family matter that requires my presence in all my glory.

Unlike the days of protests in the 60s and 70s no one cares what we think…especially the supreme court.

While I support the protests I think that the attempt will be no better than a fart in the wind.

Why do I feel this way?

The Supreme Court is more conservative than it’s been in almost a century. ​​Its new term begins today, and by next June, when the term ends, Americans might finally understand what that means. Public opinion of the court is already at a record low after the court allowed a strict abortion law to go into effect in Texas in early September. Now, the justices are preparing to hear the court’s first major gun rights case since 2010 as well as a case on the future of abortion in the U.S. Both cases could result in decisions that are far more extreme than most Americans want. 

In the past, a desire to preserve the court’s apolitical reputation kept the justices from straying too far from public opinion. That could happen again — in fact, Chief Justice John Roberts has so far proven remarkably adept at producing decisions that protect the court’s reputation and that are often portrayed as more moderate and mainstream than they really are. 

This term, though, the other conservative justices might be fine with taking a very public right turn. Neither expanding gun rights nor overturning Roe v. Wade would be popular, yet the court is considering both — a sign of how conservative it has already become. The question now is whether the risk of a backlash is enough to keep the conservative majority from, say, overturning Roe in an election year. 

“The justices are plainly conscious of public attitudes toward the court,” said Lawrence Baum, a political science professor at Ohio State University. “But that’s only one consideration for the justices and not necessarily the most important one — particularly on issues like abortion or gun rights where they may have intense personal preferences about the right outcome.”

Why The Supreme Court Probably Doesn’t Care What Most Americans Think About Abortion Or Gun Rights

The judges get all ‘butt hurt’ when they are called ‘political hacks’ and yet that is exactly what they are.

When we allow a political group like the Federalist Society pick our judges then we get what they are ‘political hacks’…..it is that simple pretending does not change the fact.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS News

The Supreme Court is making the news almost daily…..many of us are calling for some sort of reform with the Court…..something has to be done to try and control these political hacks that are suppose to be neutral to the political antics of the political parties…..they are not.

One of my concerns is that these judges are not acting in a responsible way and are being unduly influenced by outside players….

In a letter to Roberts, Reuters reported, the Democratic lawmakers questioned whether Roberts had done enough in his role as the presiding officer of the Judicial Conference of the United States to uphold the integrity of the federal judiciary and enforce ethic rules.

Warren and Jayapal cite a Wall Street Journal report that revealed 131 judges failed to recuse themselves from cases involving companies in which they or their family members owned stock—a scope of ethics violations the lawmakers called “stunning.”
 
The letter cites legal precedents from the code of conduct that require judges to recuse themselves from all cases where financial interest is involved, calling the extensive ethic breaches, at least in part, “a direct result of the inadequate processes for judicial accountability.”
 
“These conflicts of interest have affected hundreds of cases and the integrity of the justice system,” the letter reads.
The letter references other instances in which Supreme Court justices similarly did not recuse themselves from cases despite potential financial conflicts, including through ownership of individual stock, as further evidence of a “systemic failure that requires accountability.”
 
Warren and Jayapal argued that their comprehensive ethics legislation—the Anti-Corruption & Public Integrity Act—if passed—would close the large gaps in the U.S. judicial ethics system by requiring public release of disclosure reports, overhauling the recusal system, and barring judges from owning individual stocks.
 
Biden put together a commission to look at the Court and suggest changes that could be made….(really this was a worthless time waste)…..

The first word from President Biden’s commission charged with exploring changes to the Supreme Court was mostly about what the panel hasn’t done. “The Commission did not attempt to discern whether the Court is beset by a crisis of legitimacy today, nor do we take a position on whether the Court’s independence is at risk or whether it has become too anti-democratic,” said a draft document released before a meeting Friday. The panel was asked to consider specific changes, but its final report, to be presented to Biden in mid-November, won’t included actionable recommendations, CNN reports.

That was more or less the plan, but the cautious, hesitant approach evident in the drafts still irritated people, mostly Democrats. “This was not even close to being worth the wait,” said Brian Fallon of Demand Justice, who criticized the “the paralysis-by-analysis” approach, per the New York Times. On one major proposal, adding members to the court, the drafts show members seem to agree that would be legal but not on whether it “would be wise,” per MSNBC. The documents cited polls showing the idea is unpopular. The commission is focusing too much on the politics of expansion and not enough on potential benefits, said Sherrilyn Ifill of the NAACP.

Many Republicans don’t want to see the panel doing anything more, saying expansion would upend norms and already has received too much attention, per the Washington Post. “Far-left progressives are clearly trying to expand their political power under the guise of ‘court reform,'” said Kelly Shackelford of First Liberty Institute. Two conservatives quit Friday, leaving 36 members on the panel. Although the commission sidestepped the legitimacy question, a Gallup Poll in September found the Supreme Court’s approval rating down to 40%.

There’s more support for imposing 18-year term limits on justices. But members aren’t sure how that could be done. It might take a constitutional amendment, or maybe just a statute. Some members don’t want to do anything that could “encounter so many constitutional problems.” Biden threw cold water on that idea anyway on Friday night when he was asked if he supports term limits. “No” was his answer. Laurence Tribe, a constitutional law expert on the panel, isn’t sure about term limits, either. But he worries about the effects of rejecting every potential improvement because of possible risks. “Many people, and I include myself in this, believe we are indeed in a ‘break-the-glass’ moment,” he said.

Did you really think that there was going to be any help by this Commission?  If so, then you have been asleep for the last 40 years.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

 

Next SCOTUS Session

If it’s October then it is time for SCOTUS to set their session docket…..it will be an interesting session since the American people think the court is doing a lousy job…

A new Quinnipiac University poll indicates that just 37% of Americans approve of the way the Supreme Court is handling its job, the lowest rating registered by the polling firm since they began tracking in 2004.

49% of Americans disapproved, while 13% had no opinion. Predictably, views on the nation’s highest court vary based on party affiliation; 47% of Republicans said they approved of how the court was handling its job, while 40% said they disapproved. 

(business insider)

The court has been a hot bed of political action….it has become a cabal of political hacks….to that accusation Roberts fired back with the court only concerns are judicial not political….

This from a court that was picked by the slime of the Federalist Society…..the court has been remaking society for decades….the court that gave corporations personhood….but it is not political…..

That said here is the new docket (partial docket)…

The Supreme Court has begun a momentous new term, back in the courtroom after a nearly 19-month absence because of the coronavirus pandemic. Eight of the nine justices took the bench at 10am Monday for the first arguments of the new term. Justice Brett Kavanaugh is participating remotely from his home after testing positive for COVID-19 late last week. Mississippi and Tennessee’s dispute over an underground aquifer is among today’s cases, reports the AP, with the court on Monday affirming a lower court ruling that said District of Columbia residents aren’t entitled to voting representation in the House of Representatives. The AP separately looks at the notable cases that will top this term:

  • Abortion. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Supreme Court’s major decisions over the last half-century that guarantee a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide. Lower courts blocked Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy, but a more conservative Supreme Court has agreed to review those rulings. Arguments are Dec. 1.
  • Guns. New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen is a case that could expand gun rights in the US and involves the right to carry a firearm in public. The case involves New York’s restrictive gun-permit law. New York state is among six states that limit who has the right to carry a weapon in public. Arguments are Nov. 3.
  • State secrets. United States v. Zubaydah and FBI v. Fazaga are two cases that involve what the government claims are “state secrets.” The first case the court will hear involves a Guantanamo Bay detainee who a lower court said was tortured in CIA custody. He’s seeking information from two former CIA contractors. Arguments are Oct. 6. The other state secrets case involves a group of Muslim residents of California who allege the FBI targeted them for surveillance because of their religion. Arguments are Nov. 8.
  • Boston Marathon bombing. United States v. Tsarnaev is the Biden administration’s effort to have the death sentence reinstated for Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. Arguments are Oct. 13.
  • Campaign finance. Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate is a challenge by Sen. Ted Cruz to rules about limits on repaying a candidate for federal office who loans his or her campaign money. Cruz made a loan to his campaign above the limit of $250,000 expressly to challenge the law. He won in a lower court. Arguments haven’t been scheduled.

Bold Justice: SCOTUS is back in session!

https://www.npr.org/2021/10/04/1041713663/the-supreme-courts-conservatives-cook-up-a-stew-of-abortion-guns-religion-and-mo

But look at the docket….abortions, gun rights, business, religious rights…..sounds political to me.

Whatcha think?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

One Big Union, Now!

The union leader Trumka has died……

The president of the AFL-CIO, Richard Trumka, has died. He was 72, and the cause of death was not immediately revealed. Trumka headed the powerful labor organization since 2009, when he moved up to the post from the next level down, secretary-treasurer, a job he’d had since 1995. Before that he’d been the president of the United Mine Workers of America, the New York Times reports. Trumka started his career as a coal miner, the third generation in his family to work that job, the Hill reports. When he was elected president of the United Mine Workers of America in 1982, he was only 33, and the youngest leader that organization had ever had, NPR reports.

His death got me to thinking about the labor movement in this country….in a word…SAD.

As a past organizer for the IWW I have always thought that there should be one union that represents the workers…instead of the willy nilly representation they have today.

And then there is the conserv Supreme Court that has NO use for labor or unions…..

Since 1956, the Supreme Court has applied a well-established framework to businesses that wished to exclude union organizers from their property. On Wednesday, however, the Court effectively scrapped that framework — one that was already fairly restrictive of union organizing — and replaced it with something far more restrictive.

In the process of deciding Wednesday’s case, Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid, the Court also rewrites much of its existing Fifth Amendment law. Then it adds caveats to its new rule that resemble the reasoning behind an infamous anti-labor decision from more than a century ago. The Court’s decision is rooted in value judgments about what sort of regulations are desirable and what should be forbidden — namely, those protecting workers’ rights. And it was handed down on a party-line, 6-3 vote.

https://www.vox.com/2021/6/23/22547182/supreme-court-union-busting-cedar-point-hassid-john-roberts-takings-clause

Biden has tried to stem off the anti-worker attacks with Executive Order….

Among the 72 initiatives packed into the far-reaching executive order President Joe Biden signed Friday are steps that labor advocates welcomed as important victories for U.S. workers, including a provision calling for the limitation of noncompete clauses that drive down wages by preventing employees from quitting for better-paying jobs.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2021/07/09/biden-applauded-executive-order-targeting-insidious-anti-worker-practices

Among some of the portions of the EO…..

  • Make it easier to change jobs and help raise wages by banning or limiting non-compete agreements and unnecessary, cumbersome occupational licensing requirements that impede economic mobility.
  • Lower prescription drug prices by supporting state and tribal programs that will import safe and cheaper drugs from Canada.
  • Save Americans with hearing loss thousands of dollars by allowing hearing aids to be sold over the counter at drug stores.
  • Save Americans money on their internet bills by banning excessive early termination fees, requiring clear disclosure of plan costs to facilitate comparison shopping, and ending landlord exclusivity arrangements that stick tenants with only a single internet option.
  • Make it easier for people to get refunds from airlines and to comparison shop for flights by requiring clear upfront disclosure of add-on fees.
  • Make it easier and cheaper to repair items you own by limiting manufacturers from barring self-repairs or third-party repairs of their products.
  • Make it easier and cheaper to switch banks by requiring banks to allow customers to take their financial transaction data with them to a competitor.
  • Empower family farmers and increase their incomes by strengthening the Department of Agriculture’s tools to stop the abusive practices of some meat processors.
  • Increase opportunities for small businesses by directing all federal agencies to promote greater competition through their procurement and spending decisions.

All this is good but does not go far enough….workers need to have political power not just some economic things…..power is only way to insure the worker is protected from all the conserv attacks on their livelihood.

And what happened to these pledges?

Basically typical political rhetoric…..”I got your vote so now you can go f*ck yourself”.

Time for the workers to stop thinking small potatoes and work for the political power they deserve.

What they have now is NOT working for their benefit….too many compromises and little political clout.

We need that One Big Union and not what is representing the worker now…..the IWW is the answer….the only answer.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS Scorecard

I have little positive to say about our Supreme Court…..personally I think it is too much an ideological hotbed of ideological stupid.

These ‘people’ are suppose to be the guardians of our republic but they cannot do an accurate job through the lens of party politics.

A recent scorecard of the Court was published of what the American people think of SCOTUS….

What do they think?

Just 49% of Americans approve of the performance of the Supreme Court, down from 58%—a 10-year high—a year ago. That’s according to a Gallup poll conducted from July 6 to 21 and released Wednesday. It brings the court’s first approval rating below 50% since 2017, per CNN. That year, Gallup cited “a wide gap in partisan views of the court,” per the Washington Post. This time, the approval rating was the same among Democrats and Republicans at 51%, but 46% among independents, per USA Today. In previous years, opinions have been more divided. For example, in 2015, when the court upheld the Affordable Care Act and legalized same-sex marriage, 76% of Democrats approved, compared to 18% of Republicans. In 2018, following President Trump’s Supreme Court nominations, 72% of Republicans approved, compared to 38% of Democrats.

The latest rating follows a busy term which saw the court reject a third challenge to the Affordable Care Act, considered a win for Democrats, and uphold Arizona election laws that a lower court had ruled as discriminatory, seen as a victory for Republicans. “The mix of rulings may have helped keep Republicans from viewing the court as a conservative ally, or Democrats from perceiving it as too ideologically extreme,” which would be notable “given that the court now has six justices nominated by Republican presidents compared with three nominated by Democratic presidents,” Gallup said. Some 57% of moderates and 52% of conservatives said they approved of the court, compared to a third of liberals, per the Post. More than 60% of liberals said they disapproved—well above the national disapproval rate of 44%. The margin of error rate is plus or minus 4 percentage points.

The Court is there to interpret the Constitution as it pertains to our rights as citizens….not to make policy.

When we allow organizations like the Federalist Society to pick our judges we get a crappy court…a court that makes ruling according to political ideology…the Constitution is only secondary.

If this continues then we will not need the Congress (I have mixed emotions about that thought)

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

SCOTUS–This Is What We Get

One of the more recent opinion offered by the Supreme Court was one that upheld the attempts to suppress the vote (at least in Arizona)……and as usual since I am an opinionated SOB I had something to say on this ruling……

 
Like I stated…this is what we get when we allow an agenda group like the Federalist Society pick our judges.
 
To explain the damage that this situation can implement….

In many ways, the recently completed Supreme Court term was our first comprehensive look at one of the most consequential legacies of the Trump presidency: his imprint on the court. 

Understanding the full impact of former President Donald Trump’s 6-3 conservative supermajority is challenging at this point, though. On the one hand, this term saw the highest share of unanimous rulings in the last three years. On the other hand, the court’s last two major rulings broke down along 6-3 ideological lines. But that seeming inconsistency may have more to do with divisions among the court’s conservatives over how fast to move — not in what direction. Make no mistake, the court is moving in a conservative direction, and the conservative justices are in the driver’s seat.

The Supreme Court’s Conservative Supermajority Is Just Beginning To Flex Its Muscles

The damage that these conservative ideologues can do is almost incalculable….

“The harmful rulings coming out of this court make it critical that Congress pass legislation to protect voting rights and shore up our democracy,” Jealous added. “We also have to build a strategy to reinforce the importance of fair courts and fair-minded judges, so we can counter the decadeslong efforts by the far right to pack our courts, including our Supreme Court, with ultraconservative judges.”

PFAW’s analysis came just a day after a pair of 6-3 SCOTUS rulings on Arizona’s voting restrictions and California’s dark money disclosure rules that led Senate Majority Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) to dub Thursday “one of the darkest days in all of the Supreme Court’s history.”

https://www.rawstory.com/gop-supreme-court/

Since the Supreme Court is suppose to be the highest authority in the land for the interpretation of the Constitution and law….what could be next in the fight against this voter suppression attempts?

The decision, though, was a blow to those who believe voting access is more important than rooting out fraud — and that’s most Americans, the latest NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll found. Fifty-six percent said making sure that everyone who wants to vote can do so is a bigger concern than making sure that no one who is ineligible votes.

“It very much narrows the path of challenging these many, many voter obstacles that states are instituting across the country,” Debo Adegbile, an anti-discrimination attorney, told NPR’s Nina Totenberg.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/03/1012777226/whats-next-for-voting-rights-after-the-supreme-courts-decision

I say screw SCOTUS!

The fight must go on and using whatever legal tactic one can imagine.

Every American old enough to vote should have easy access to the machinations of voting…..this country should be doing everything possible to see that we all have the right and the easy access to the polls.

Stand for liberty or sit down and STFU!

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Brnovich v DNC

???

WTF, Professor?

If you are scratching your head then let me explain….this is the landmark SCOTUS decision to crap on voting rights……

From the majority opinion….

Arizona law generally makes it very easy to vote. Voters may cast their ballots on election day in person at a traditional precinct or a “voting center” in their county of residence. Ariz. Rev. Stat. §16–411(B)(4). Arizonans also may cast an “early ballot” by mail up to 27 days before an election, §§16–541, 16–542(C), and they also may vote in person at an early voting location in each county, §§16–542(A), (E). These cases involve challenges under §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) to aspects of the State’s regulations governing precinct-based election-day voting and early mail-in voting. First, Arizonans who vote in person on election day in a county that uses the precinct system must vote in the precinct to which they are assigned based on their address. See §16–122; see also §16–135. If a voter votes in the wrong precinct, the vote is not counted. Second, for Arizonans who vote early by mail, Arizona House Bill 2023 (HB 2023) makes it a crime for any person other than a postal worker, an elections official, or a voter’s caregiver, family member, or household member to knowingly collect an early ballot—either before or after it has been completed. §§16–1005(H)–(I).

Justice Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion and in doing so gives the court a much needed civics lesson…..

If a single statute represents the best of America, it is the Voting Rights Act. It marries two great ideals: democracy and racial equality. And it dedicates our country to carrying them out. Section 2, the provision at issue here, guarantees that members of every racial group will have equal voting opportunities. Citizens of every race will have the same shot to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. They will all own our democracy together—no one more and no one less than any other.

Her opinion is lengthy but is much needed for the voter to know what just happened in SCOTUS…..

Slowly but slowly we are losing the battle of having a voice in this government…..and illustrates what we get when we let some outside ultra-conservative group pick our judges for us.

Time for a change in SCOTUS and in the country…..we can no longer depend on the Court to have our backs from assaults on our rights as Americans.

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Screw The Damn Voter!

Once again the majority on the Supreme Court has proven that they are a pack of gutless spineless ideologues.

That is basically what the US Supreme Court has just stated!

Red states are running rampant with a wide array of bills on issues such as gender and abortion and education and then there is the big push to suppress the vote.

State after Red State has spent all of 2021 so far finding ways to suppress the voter access to their right.

This is what we get when we embrace a party and not the needs of the nation’s people…..people with an agenda and NO actual policies.

I say this is what you get because of the latest decision handed down by SCOTUS.

It is what we get when we allow some agenda driven group like the ultra-conservative Federalist Society pick the judges that will interpret the Constitution for the nation.

What the Hell am I ranting about?

The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld voting restrictions in Arizona in a decision that could make it harder to challenge other voting measures put in place by Republican lawmakers, per the AP. The court, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a lower court ruling in deciding that Arizona’s limits on who can return early ballots for another person and refusal to count ballots cast in the wrong precinct are not racially discriminatory. The federal appeals court in San Francisco had held that the measures disproportionately affected Black, Hispanic, and Native American voters in violation of the Voting Rights Act. Justice Samuel Alito wrote for a conservative majority that the state’s interest in the integrity of elections justified the measures. The court rejected the idea that showing that a state law disproportionately affects minority voters is enough to prove a violation of the law.

In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan wrote that the court was weakening the landmark voting rights law for the second time in eight years. “What is tragic here is that the Court has (yet again) rewritten—in order to weaken—a statute that stands as a monument to America’s greatness, and protects against its basest impulses,” she wrote. “What is tragic is that the Court has damaged a statute designed to bring about ‘the end of discrimination in voting.’ I respectfully dissent.” Kagan was joined by the court’s other two liberal justices. The challenged Arizona provisions remained in effect in 2020 because the case was still making its way through the courts. President Biden narrowly won Arizona last year, and since 2018, the state has elected two Democratic senators.

The Supreme Court is suppose to be the arbiter of the laws of the land….a neutral umpire if you will….so far they are failing in that duty….when decisions made according to political ideology and not the spirit of the Founders wishes…this is what we get…..disenfranchisement of a portion of society.

I apologize if this post reads like a disjointed mess…..but when I read this decision I went into a screaming rant……

These old farts have just basically made it much harder for the people to exercise their right as a citizen…..these tools should be making it easier to vote not helping find ways to suppression a portion of our society from exercising a basic right.

This what we get!

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

A Change For SCOTUS?

The referee of this republic is the Supreme Court…..they interpret and set laws for the nation. As it is today it is where ideologues go to push a certain set of principles….no longer are these 9 judges an independent and impartial umpire for the laws of this country.

There has been a movement for the expansion of the court from 9 judges to 13. The Dems are offering up this bill…but will it ever see the light of day?

President Biden signed an executive order to set up a commission dedicated to studying possible reforms to the Supreme Court, including an increase in the number of justices on the bench. Congressional Democrats, however, aren’t waiting for the results of the panel’s report due out in six months, instead moving to introduce legislation Thursday on expansion of the court. The bill, led by Sen. Ed Markey and Rep. Jerry Nadler, proposes upping the number of Supreme Court justices from nine to 13—a move that can only be carried out via an act of Congress. The legislation is a reaction to what NBC News calls “an undercurrent of progressive fury” after then-President Obama nominated Merrick Garland in March 2016 to fill Antonin Scalia’s spot after the latter had died, and Mitch McConnell, then the GOP Senate majority leader, denied a vote on Garland.

McConnell’s reasoning: It was an election year, and he felt the incoming president should be the one to fill Scalia’s slot, which Trump nominee Neil Gorsuch eventually took. Democrats’ anger was further stoked when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September and the GOP swept Amy Coney Barrett onto the bench just days before the 2020 election. “This bill marks a new era where Democrats finally stop conceding the Supreme Court to Republicans,” political activist Brian Fallon says, per NBC News. The Intercept notes that the number of seats on the court bounced around earlier on in US history, going up to 10 before falling back to nine in 1869, where it’s stayed since. NBC and Vox note the bill is unlikely to become law in the near future, with the GOP pushing back hard against it as a radical move. Biden himself has wavered on fully supporting such an expansion, though he hopes to receive some clarity from his newly formed commission.

Personally I do not see how the rise to 13 would change anything at all on the court.  And yes I have an idea on this as well and I let my thoughts be known here on IST……https://lobotero.com/2020/09/25/i-have-lots-to-say-about-scotus/

But none of these changes will occur,,,,the Senate will make sure that nothing is done to change the make-up of the Supreme Court.

While change needs to happen with SCOTUS but this bill will not change anything but the number of judges…..the partisan BS will continue.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–25Feb21

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the referee in our political system…..unbiased opinions based on the facts and the Constitution……so when a justice helps propagate a lie then the whole system is in danger.

What am I talking about?

Something that a long standing SCOTUS associate said recently…..

While it may not have been a complete surprise that Clarence Thomas dissented from his more liberal colleagues in a Supreme Court election case on Monday, what is causing some head whips is his apparently firm support for former President Trump’s debunked claims of election fraud. The case the high court declined to hear came out of Pennsylvania, where Republicans challenged an extension to the deadline for mail-in ballots due to the pandemic. Thomas, along with Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch, disagreed with their colleagues’ decision to turn the case away, with Thomas arguing that even though the number of affected mail-in ballots wouldn’t have turned the election in Trump’s favor, the Supreme Court still should have addressed the underlying legal questions in case future votes see a narrower gap. His reasoning, however, as laid out in a 11-page dissent, relied partly on baseless fraud claims pushed by Trump and his allies, reports USA Today.

Thomas’ argument, which mentions “fraud” 10 times, per CNN: that even though rampant fraud wasn’t evident in the Pennsylvania case, mail-in ballots are especially vulnerable, and “an election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence.” He also quoted a New York Times article calling fraud risk “vastly more prevalent” for mail-in ballots than during in-person voting—the same article said “fraud in voting by mail is far less common than innocent errors”—and mentioned “the high degree of subjective judgment” in tallying ballots. Alito and Gorsuch’s dissent didn’t bring up fraud. Per Slate, voter fraud with mail-in ballots is “vanishingly rare.” CNN notes that Thomas’ wife, Virginia Thomas, has also pushed the fraud narrative. Prominent Democrats are pushing back, and a UC-Irvine election law expert suggests Thomas shouldn’t even have addressed it, telling USA Today it’s an issue “wholly divorced from the actual legal question in the case.”

There has been NO evidence of widespread voter fraud and yet Thomas helps spread a lie…..does not bode well for the independence of the Supreme Court.

The Court has become too partisan to be a true “referee’ in the working of the government and nation.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”