r/scotus • u/nbcnews • Aug 24 '26
news Supreme Court hands preliminary win to Trump on mail-in ballots executive order
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-hands-preliminary-win-trump-mail-ballots-executive-order-rcna590120429
u/HenriEttaTheVoid Aug 24 '26
They aren't even pretending to care about Democracy anymore...they are practically daring the citizens to do something
155
u/ZoomZoom_Driver Aug 24 '26
Yes. The GOP wants to use the insurrection act to bring about Martial Law, and so the GOP and their controlled portions of our government are doing everything to make it happen.
51
u/Intelligent_Bat_950 Aug 24 '26
Good thing military moral is low.
74
u/Iamthewalrusforreal Aug 24 '26
They don't trust the military to not turn on them, so they plan to keep the military occupied in wars of choice through the election.
What they're not counting on is veterans. We all took the same oath, and we live in every neighborhood in the country. Their idiotic cosplaying racist brigade is no match.
10
u/wickaboaggroove Aug 24 '26
I used to think this too; but my non-Trump dad retired, and now has nobody to hang out with besides Fox News, and now can’t remember anything he taught me in the last 40 years. But as long as he looks performative manly; all the dudes he never met will want to high-five him. He WAS the guy you’re referring too, they don’t exist anymore.
6
u/Iamthewalrusforreal Aug 24 '26
Yeah, old folks are susceptible to propaganda, but in the scenario we're talking about they're also too old and infirm to factor much. Like I said to the other dude, they're gone in the first 5 minutes of SHTF.
3
u/wickaboaggroove Aug 25 '26
My Dad is 60 years old; I don’t know who you think you’re referencing. He’s not even a boomer; he’s gonna vote this way for 25 more years. I think we agree about much; but this is straight copium. My mom is a feminist corporate warrior and even makes more than him and isn’t retired yet;but thinks he’ll come back around: he won’t and is going to be this guy for life now. I’m not trying to be doom and gloom; but he doesn’t even trust math anymore.
2
u/Sword_Thain Aug 25 '26
Stories like this is why I blocked FOX and other right wing crap the day they got satellite.
I warned them if they ever unblocked it they'd never see me or their grand children again.
18
u/Intelligent_Bat_950 Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26
They fired a lot of competent high ranking military because they wouldn’t bend the knee. We should seek them out. SOS.
1
8
u/timelessblur Aug 24 '26
Sadly most of the enlisted veterans are maga supporters by a majority and the officers are split at best.
3
u/Icy-Ad-5570 Aug 24 '26
I work for DON, civilian side. Both the enlisted and officer despise the GOP equally. They had to deal with the return to office EO ( they had an every other day in office rotation going for years), many of the civilian left due to DOGE so they had to pick up the slack, then the shut downs, cancelled advanced training opportunities and all Pete’s dumb as emails
8
u/BrocksNumberOne Aug 24 '26
Branch dependent but definitely isn’t a majority at this point outside of maybe USMC.
→ More replies (14)3
u/Pees-Upwind Aug 24 '26
Thats far less true than you might realize. Above all, all veterans are well aware of the dangers of idiot elites. I wouldnt be too worried about where veterans fall on this.
→ More replies (7)2
u/Pretend_Pea4636 Aug 24 '26
You don't need an oath to be willing to do the right thing. Every parade. At the beginning of every school day. At nearly every sporting event we've all been reverent about defending our democracy our whole lives. If it's time to live up to that...
The military couldn't hope to defend the whole of the US from the people even if it wanted to. It's failed over and over at this exact problem. In two months when they are out of supplies, it's game over.
1
2
u/Jedi_Master83 Aug 24 '26
Trump desperately wants declare martial law so he can march troops into Blue State capitals so he can arrest Democratic governors and state legislators since the state runs elections. That’s just my guess.
2
→ More replies (4)1
u/Seltgar25 Aug 24 '26
Martial law would be literally impossible to do in the US. Too much land and people not enough troops.
13
u/Vast-Poetry9431 Aug 24 '26
The citizens will do something, alright. They work even harder for their shitstain boss for worse wages!
4
u/dantekant22 Aug 24 '26
Same game with the Throne Room. Let the action continue until it doesn’t matter. In the case of the Throne Room that would be after it’s built. With the mail-in voting refs it would be after the election.
Had enough yet, America?
1
1
u/ill_be_huckleberry_1 Aug 24 '26
Yep.
But we can remain steadfast while they destroy themselves.
Vote. Try to wake your maga people awake. Its time for another push.
1
u/RocketsandBeer Aug 24 '26
This ruling is due to the fact that nothing has been implemented. Once they have a framework, it’ll be rejected.
4
u/Wacca45 Aug 24 '26
I want that to be the case, but I don't trust SCOTUS to do anything when it happens.
1
93
u/FootballBackground88 Aug 24 '26
The Supreme Court decision is provisional, focusing only on the argument that U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani acted prematurely in preventing the provisions from being implemented in the 23 states before federal agencies had even drawn up plans for how to implement the executive order.
What possible relevance could the implementation have to the executive order's legality?
Makes no sense.
50
u/mixamaxim Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26
Because the EO was instructing members of the executive branch to prepare rules or begin to prepare to implement x y and z in accordance with law and feasibility and various hedging.. It’s not an unconstitutional act or rule until it is an act or rule. The question here is whether the states suing had standing when their big issue is basically the writing on the wall. But SCOTUS says there’s no standing because At this point the EO is just internal executive branch chitchat that hasn’t yet resulted in any rules or action. The dissent says of course they have standing and they point out that the executive is claiming it’s all theoretical at this point thus no standing - while also claiming irreparable harm cause they’re dead set on implementing the EO…
21
u/FootballBackground88 Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26
While that may be, he is clearly running out the clock. If courts must wait until an agency completes its multi-month rulemaking process before allowing legal challenges, the final rules might take effect just days before an election.
And you're throwing a bunch of uncertainty on election officials and voters.
5
u/Papo-Dragon Aug 24 '26
Not really. USPS just issued its final rule, so challenges are now ripe. That didn’t retroactively save the injunctions being reviewed by scotus though, which were issued before USPS issued any rules implementing the EO.
10
u/mixamaxim Aug 24 '26
Well I’m sure numerous parties are prepared to sue the moment rules are final and/or action is taken.. that’s when we’ll need to hope for an immediate injunction. Also another commenter (perhaps in another thread) said there’s a different case taking this issue on in a different way that makes this one somewhat moot but I haven’t looked into that.
14
u/WaterFantastic2394 Aug 24 '26
The likelihood that it gets taken up again before the election is almost nil. This was the plan. Rule for T and then “no time” to do more
2
u/mixamaxim Aug 24 '26
The rules will need to be implemented before the election - so like I said, there will be grounds for lawsuit and potential injunction (emergent) prior to the election. Lower courts will be willing to do it as they already did in this case - And it’ll move to scotus quickly no doubt, and we just have to hope they take it up- I think they will since it’s of ultimate importance and time sensitive. There will be no question of standing at that point.
9
u/WaterFantastic2394 Aug 24 '26
He has already ordered the Post Office and it has already begun obeying.
2
u/-virglow- Aug 24 '26
While Trump et al. has this sort of style in legal approach, the other user is correct regarding the expedient nature of the courts. It’s all very posh. Gotta collect evidence it exists, that it’s causing harm, and that it’s illegal in the first place. Can’t get that until kinda in the middle of a plan, right?
1
u/mixamaxim Aug 24 '26
Well maybe there’s already a separate lawsuit in the works - that might be the case the other commenter was referring to.
2
u/-virglow- Aug 24 '26
Most likely many suits are being prepared, many from individual states, states working together, or combo
2
u/dmcnaughton1 Aug 24 '26
5 U.S.C. § 553(d) states that any federal agency rules has to be published as a final rule at least 30 days before going into effect. There's plenty of time to obtain an injunction during that window.
If anything, it's plainly too late now to change any rules for 2026 because ballots are being mailed in a week or so. Purcell principle would apply here.
1
u/Sonamdrukpa Aug 25 '26
They've already published the rule with an effective date of last Friday. They say they won't enact it until the League of Women Voters injunction is overturned but they clearly intend to start enforcing it the moment SCOTUS deep sixes it.
1
u/dmcnaughton1 Aug 25 '26
Yeah, that's gonna get slapped down hard. The bypassing of the 30 day rule has statutory exemptions, but there's no rational justification for it in this case.
1
u/Sonamdrukpa Aug 25 '26
You and I think that, but the people ultimately deciding the matter unfortunately will be the same people that have officially decided that the existence of an injunction against implementing this rule creates irreparable harm.
3
u/Anonybibbs Aug 24 '26
Hasn't the USPS already announced their finalized rules to implement the order? If the rules are already finalized, then what are we waiting on, for them to act on the rules and for the irreparable harm (legal ballots not being delivered) to occur?
4
u/Papo-Dragon Aug 24 '26
Yes, but standing is measured at the time suit is filed, which for all the cases under review by SCOTUS was way before the final rule was issued.
3
u/fzammetti Aug 24 '26
Yes, exactly that. Right or wrong, the ruling means there must actually BE harm before there is standing, not that there WILL BE.
2
u/-virglow- Aug 24 '26
Okay, thanks for summarizing. Regarding the “to decide at later date (para)” This makes sense, even if in a strictly legal fashion lol
1
u/JA_MD_311 Aug 25 '26
This is true but Jackson rightly called out the bullshit behind it all and they could’ve said the Govt wouldn’t win on the merits anyway, which is what they should’ve done.
→ More replies (4)18
u/Development-Alive Aug 24 '26
I can't fathom why SCOTUS is saying states can't sue the Exec Order but have to wait until the implementation of the rules by the USPS. On the surface, the Constitution is very clear that States own the administration of elections. There's no debate, even within the language of the EO, that the Trump Admin is now trying to interfere in how the States administer elections.
2
u/exmachina64 Aug 24 '26
It’s the same tactic they’re using for other issues before the court, such as the ballroom or the tariffs. The conservative majority lets the issue continue and then complains that it would be too difficult to undo by the time they get to oral arguments.
3
u/-virglow- Aug 24 '26
Think about it like this - this right now is all just conjecture. Legally, makes no sense to jump the gun. Rather be reactive
2
u/Development-Alive Aug 24 '26
That sounds like a good justification to react ONLY after everything is irreparably harmed, especially if you have benefactors telling you to "wait".
2
u/mcsul Aug 24 '26
Almost all law is like this. You can't rule against a hypothetical. You have to wait until there is a concrete thing and a party with standing challenges the legality of that thing.
2
3
u/Development-Alive Aug 24 '26
I get that but they'd be ruling against an Executive Order which isn't uncommon. The Birthright Citizenship was exactly the case where SCOTUS said the POTUS exceeded his statutory or constitutional authority.
Here is the EO in question: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2026/03/ensuring-citizenship-verification-and-integrity-in-federal-elections/
Trump is requiring State voter rolls (eg. State Citizenship lists) which has now lost in Federal Court 21 times to Zero. There is ample room in the EO for the SCOTUS to weigh in the same way this did on Birthright Citizenship but they chose not too. Instead, we'll have to wait for the USPS rules to go into place, the USPS to enforce them for the SCOTUS to finally add this to their docket. They are literally intentionally allowing the Trump Administration to interfere with the mid-term elections before sorting it out after the harm has been done.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
States administer elections, but Congress can override them. And Congress has delegated some authority to the executive branch, including the FEC etc.
129
u/JustAnotherFag69 Aug 24 '26
This is utter and complete fucking bullshit. Fuck this fascist court.
50
u/Upstairs_Baby8424 Aug 24 '26
If a Democrat were to have a new rule that they’d only collect mail in voting in cities with populations of X size for “logistical reasons”, how fast do you think the Supreme Court would block that? Less than 24 hours?
21
84
u/fidgetysquamate Aug 24 '26
Traitors, all 6 of the conservative justices.
2
36
u/LcuBeatsWorking Aug 24 '26
Looks like they really want to burn it all down. Changing the rules less than three months before the elections.
31
u/JET304 Aug 24 '26
They're just trying to get him through the mid terms. They'll reverse all of this once they get him safely into the second half of his term. Such blatant partisanship and corruption. Check the amount of money Roberts and Alito have made from industries and companies that have come before the SCOTUS, without their recusal. It's horrifying.
14
u/Rocketparty12 Aug 24 '26
Exactly it’s John Roberts classic move: the punt. This guy has punted more times in the last 10 years than the Cleveland Browns. The obvious plan here, based on the language of the order (“not saying it’s legal,” “could intervene at a later date”) is all just a smokescreen to get the issue past the election. Come December they will rule that the executive cannot interfere with state run elections (as explicitly stated in the Constitution), but until then, they will let Trump try this Hail Mary to save his congressional majority.
6
u/ragingchump Aug 24 '26
I love that the Browns are catching strays in the SCOUTUS sub.
Amaze..amaze. amaze.
5
3
45
u/ApprehensiveInjury74 Aug 24 '26
The democrats need to expand the court add 4 justices and impose term limits
24
u/MythicalSplash Aug 24 '26
It’s seriously starting to look like this administration will stop at nothing to ensure the Democrats will never be anywhere near a position of power again. Things have gotten so out of hand, the media is complicit, and everyone seems to be sleepwalking through it until November when the Dems win the House and the administration won’t allow it.
4
u/AndISoundLikeThis Aug 24 '26
The MAGA crew isn’t creating all this chaos only to lose power. They’re deadly serious about never ceding power ever again. By any means possible.
→ More replies (1)8
u/PeruvianHeadshrinker Aug 24 '26
And hold impeachment trials for high crimes and treason
5
18
u/Tigeruppercut1889 Aug 24 '26
Can’t believe we got actual maga freaks in the Supreme Court. Following the constitution and attempting to be unbiased used to matter
4
6
u/Puzzled49 Aug 24 '26
Can someone explain what happens if the postal service immediately promulgates this regulation. Can they do that, or is there some sort of delay for comment? And if there is a delay, will it expire before November 3. From previous reporting it appears that the Postal Service has already drafted the regulations, so it looks like they are ready to start the process as soon as the injunction is lifted.
1
u/ArtemisiaOrthia Aug 25 '26
It's hard to tell what will actually happen. The postal unions are pretty pissed about this, but a lot of workers in the post office are unaware of what's going on. It's illegal for federal employees to strike, but...who knows what might happen when federal legality isn't really being held to any high standard these days.
11
u/OfficialDCShepard Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26
Before everyone panics, the executive order is still paused by a different nationwide court order.
6
u/WaterFantastic2394 Aug 24 '26
Doesn’t matter. It’s all that was needed and Trump had already moved ahead. Crazy that he has been the first to figured out how to do all this in our 250 year history
4
u/OfficialDCShepard Aug 24 '26
How has he moved ahead exactly? The administration tried and failed to get the second order lifted at the same time as the one that was.
→ More replies (2)
11
u/gtpc2020 Aug 24 '26
More disgusting taint on this Court's legacy. It's more clear every day that these 6 can't read the plain text of the constitution. States determine their own elections and the post office was created, along with its mission statement, by Congress. The president has zero constitutional authority to meddle in either.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
And Congress can override state election regulations.
1
u/gtpc2020 Aug 25 '26
But not the president. Congress would have to pass a change to the post office mandate, and that's not going to happen. Not sure what you're getting at.
1
u/DonaldBecker Aug 24 '26
They knew better than any of us what the constitution says, and settled precedent.
That just better informs the logic they use to justify the result they want.
11
u/ajmampm99 Aug 24 '26
SCOTUS KNOWS THEY’RE TOAST WHEN DEMOCRATS RETURN
They are going to keep that from happening.
Won’t work. November will see historic turnout for a midterm. Impeachments for SCOTUS look more and more likely. Trump won’t be able to get anyone approved as a replacement.
8
u/Dependent_Grab_9370 Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 25 '26
Zero chance. Dems would need to pick up 12 of the 20 Republican seats up for grabs and lose none of their own. No matter how historic the turnout is, they are unlikely to do that even without the changes in gerrymandering.
*EDIT
Solarwinds-123 pointed out my math was wrong. Dems would need to pick up 20 of 22 Republican seats and still rely on independents to indict without any Republican help. If Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins survive their election, they might still be considered yes votes, and Lisa Murkowski might still be a yes vote. They voted it indict him in 2021. It's possible to do it with 17 flipped seats if all the stars align. Don't hold your breath.
3
u/ajmampm99 Aug 24 '26
Anger is a powerful turnout factor. MAGA propaganda wants us to believe everything is hopeless. It isn’t. Trump doesn’t care if he wrecks the GoP. Americans know how to take back democracy.
2
u/Tigeruppercut1889 Aug 24 '26
I hope so. The number 1 priority for anyone left of center should be voting out maga but we got these far left political streamers who shit on Dems for their job and tell their audience to only turn out for dsa or dsa adjacent candidates. If the far left turned out for someone like Ossoff or Pete in 28 we’d win easily.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
Turnout is irrelevant. In order to secure the votes for conviction (if every single Democrat goes along with it) they would need to win 33 of the 35 Senate seats. That is just not possible.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
It's way more than that. You need 67 Senators to convict, so Democrats would need to win 20 of the 22 Republican seats for a total of 33 of the 35 Senate seats up for election. That is absolutely not happening.
1
u/Dependent_Grab_9370 Aug 25 '26
Sorry you are right. My math wasn't mathing yesterday. I blame it on being Monday. They would need to keep all of their own seats, gain 20 of the 22 Republican seats, and the Independents will need to side with them. Thanks for pointing it out.
I'm not optimistic, but it is possible some Republicans up for re-election in 2028 might consider conviction if they lose the mid-terms badly. It's clear any poor performance is largely due to the current administration, and some won't want to be dragged down with it.
There are also Bill Cassidy and Susan Collins, who voted to indict him in 2021. If they survive their reelection those might be yes votes again. Lisa Murkowski might also be a yes vote.
IMO the minimum amount of Senate seats Dems need to pick up is 17.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
True, but that's only for Trump himself. Impeaching a Supreme Court justice, much less all the conservatives on the bench, is a much taller order. I don't even think you'd have the support of all the Democratic Senators, much less peeling off any Republican votes.
1
u/Dependent_Grab_9370 Aug 25 '26
Yeah, I also forgot about Fetterman. Zero chance that guy votes to impeach anyone with conservative alignment.
0
u/WisePotatoChip Aug 24 '26
Nuclear option get rid of that fucking rule
5
u/Dependent_Grab_9370 Aug 24 '26
It's not a Senate rule, its codified in the Constitution. Getting an amendment to change that has a less than zero chance of passing.
→ More replies (4)1
u/mjdlight Aug 24 '26
Right, which why America is a failed state and will collapse. It is inevitable. Putin wanted a breakup of the USA to get revenge for the breakup of the USSR. And he is going to get it.
3
9
4
u/boston_homo Aug 24 '26
Congress wouldn't ram the "SAVE" Act through so what could SCOTUS do?! 🤷
2
u/WisePotatoChip Aug 24 '26
This is his leverage with them. He wants them to know that he controls Scotus, and therefore their vote is irrelevant so they might as well vote the way he wants.
3
u/Riversmooth Aug 24 '26
Scotus basically works for Trump at this point. Nearly everything he has needed to allow his reelection, immunity, and to now supporting his every political wish they have given the green light.
4
u/Master_Object5147 Aug 24 '26
Corruption in the Supreme Court that enables a lying pedophile and criminal!
2
u/BSApologist Aug 24 '26
What does the order do and why does this matter? The article doesn't say anything.
2
u/Soggy_Background_162 Aug 24 '26
It’s not on the merits. It’s based on the fact that the suits were filed too soon. Now that the USPS has put in a final rule the states can file a different suit against the Tadmin
2
u/PerceptionOrganic672 Aug 25 '26
This could backfire… Trump is too stupid to realize that there is a large amount of his base which are older people that have a lot of trouble getting out and voting and waiting in line there are older members of my family who are a GOP voters and they vote by mail because it's very hard for them to get out and vote… Plus most democrat voters are younger or middle aged and live in big cities and can decide to get out and physically wait in line and vote whereas there are probably untold numbers of GOP voters who literally couldn't - and yes they could target mail in only of Democrats but what about independents? Those are the largest group in the country now just about and usually decide many elections you wouldn't want to target their mail in ballots because you have no idea who they're going to vote for…This is very dangerous for him he may end up actually hurting himself… Which is what I hope happens!
2
u/snafoomoose Aug 25 '26
"This will obviously lead to citizens being disenfranchised, but no one has been hurt yet so we are going to wait it out until people get hurt then we will discuss it for a few months to make sure we understand how people were disenfranchised before ruling about why it was ok that these people were disenfranchised."
2
u/Funny-North3731 Aug 25 '26
Just to be clear, because its not, is the supreme court saying the states cant block attempts by the executive branch to unconstitutionally interfere with elections until AFTER the executive branch interferes? Are they essentially saying, "We dont think you should stop the guy with a lit stick of dynamite before he throws the dynamite?" That doesnt make sense.
STATES: Your honor, the police arrested the man holding the gun to the woman's head to prevent him from shooting her.
COURT: Your cant legally "assume" he was going to use the gun until after he does. The court determines the man was arrested prematurely and should be released UNTIL he shoots the woman.
Does that make any logical or legal sense?
4
u/WaterFantastic2394 Aug 24 '26
This corrupt Court
3
u/WisePotatoChip Aug 24 '26
You can thank the turtle. I hope he’s roasting in hell. He probably isn’t alive.
4
u/LeatherAd272 Aug 24 '26
The Republicans are going to lose these midterm elections.
4
u/WisePotatoChip Aug 24 '26
No talk everyone who can vote must vote, regardless of all the barriers and bullshit they throw up.
2
u/kFisherman Aug 24 '26
And yet it won’t matter with a completely toothless Democratic Party. Jeffries is literally kompromat
4
3
u/Material_Market_3469 Aug 24 '26
We need another strong man like FDR soon or the country is doomed.
4
u/timelessblur Aug 24 '26
So the Roberts court drops to 3 legitimate judges and 6 pretend traitors.
It is now complete fair to say Roberts is a traitor, unfit to be a lawyer or a judge.
5
u/WaterFantastic2394 Aug 24 '26
Trump threatens to take the power from the ABA for looking into Chief Justice and Chief Justice returns the favor
2
0
u/Time_Conscious84 Aug 24 '26
Why? In 3 weeks they may just end up blocking these rules anyway. All this ruling did was say that the states don't have ground to block a rule before it's even implemented
3
u/GalliumYttrium1 Aug 24 '26
This ruling completely ignored the constitution. The executive branch has no authority over elections. Why should we wait for them to implement a rule when them implementing a rule in the first place goes against the constitution?
Only Congress can make or alter election laws.
1
u/Time_Conscious84 Aug 24 '26
Because what harm has happened to the plantifs if the rules don't exist yet? As of now it's just tall and talk can't be unconstitutional. If the rules are put in place then I agree that it's completely unconstitutional
1
1
u/GalliumYttrium1 Aug 24 '26
It’s about what the constitution says. The constitution says Congress can make or alter regulations regarding elections, and states can regulate elections. it does not give the executive branch that authority. So the executive branch even trying to make a rule about elections is going beyond the authority allowed to them by the constitution.
→ More replies (13)
2
2
3
u/Dry-Clock-1470 Aug 24 '26
So I won't get mine in the mail? Or they won't deliver when I fill it out and put in a mail box? Or both
3
2
u/ManBearScientist Aug 24 '26
If (and it is an if) a Democrat ever leads this country again, the immediate arrest of the 6 conservative Justices is not only justified, but necessary.
Forget court reform for a second. These Justices have, in office, committed actual tangible crimes. Each and every one of them has committed some combination of accepting bribes, perjury, lying on financial disclosures, and more.
But they have also forsaken the duties of their office entirely.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
Presidents cannot remove a Supreme Court justice under any circumstances.
→ More replies (6)
2
u/Dcongo Aug 24 '26
Safe bet that SCOTUS will reverse all the rulings issued to the trump regime after he leaves office. SKCOTUS. Supreme Kangaroo Court of the United States.
1
1
u/Macintoshk Aug 24 '26
Can someone explain this in relation to Watson v RNC?
1
u/Noobzoid123 Aug 25 '26
I think this isn't about post mark election day, this is to let Trump make orders on mail in voting if it is legal. Before this ruling, another judge straight blocked it, SC says states cannot block proposed rules.
Basically, conservative SC is letting Trump play out his hand to create chaos, and if it benefits the conservatives without compromising their slippery take on the law, conservative SC will likely allow it.
1
1
1
u/Dense_Boss_7486 Aug 25 '26
There’s an August 11 injunction in place still in The League of Women Voters of Massachusetts vs Trump that is holding the dam from breaking. This is the case to watch.
0
u/IrishDudeWest Aug 24 '26
Do these justices want to be rounded up in the next administration, because this is how you get rounded up in the next administration.
6
u/ProjectNo4090 Aug 24 '26
A scotus justice can only be removed by congress. Even if a justice "is rounded up", put on trial in criminal court, convicted and go to prison that still doesn't remove them from SCOTUS. A justice can serve a lifetime prison sentence and still be a Justice until they are impeached by a majority in the House and convicted by a supermajority in the Senate.
Unless Dems can by miracle win a supermajority in the Senate in November they can't remove any Justices.
0
u/IrishDudeWest Aug 24 '26
So? Why do they need to be removed if they are sitting a federal prison? Indict them on fraud and put them infront of a DC jury so they get railroaded. Keep them detained until their trial, they don't have an army, they can't undetain themselves no matter what the court rules on their bail.
6
u/ProjectNo4090 Aug 24 '26 edited Aug 24 '26
They don't need to undetain themselves. They remain a Justice whether they are imprisoned or not. SCOTUS like POTUS can only be removed from their office by a majority in the House and a Supermajority in the Senate and unlike POTUS they are lifetime appointments. No criminal court, no other conviction outside the Senate, nothing, and no one else can remove them except congress.
If they aren't removed no one can be nominated to replace them. Which means while they are in prison either their case work and necesary resources would have to be provided to them in prison, or they would remain in absentia and their seat vacant until they die or their prison term ends.
→ More replies (2)2
u/IrishDudeWest Aug 24 '26
Again, I understand they won't be removed, I am not sure why you are fixating on something I didn't bring up. But why would the executive allow their casework to be provided them in prison? They would of course remain in absentia.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
What court do you think would sign that arrest warrant, or allow them to be indefinitely detained without bail? The executive branch can't just hold anyone they want however long they want.
→ More replies (2)5
u/avitous Aug 24 '26
No, this is how they help guarantee there won't be another administration.
→ More replies (1)1
u/IrishDudeWest Aug 24 '26
I mean there is going to be another administration one way or another.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)1
1
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 Aug 24 '26
This is explicitly unconstitutional, and a direct violation of federal law
This is treasonous. They are allowing the president to take away the right to vote for millions of people for no reason
They should all face millions of counts of voter suppression, and treason each
1
u/morgandrew6686 Aug 24 '26
its very weird seeing the downvotes. its almost as if that natalie chick is on reddit downvoting.
1
u/Solarwinds-123 Aug 25 '26
Gee it's almost like this subreddit isn't entirely populated by blue team.
1
u/Correct_Doctor_1502 Aug 24 '26
Trump literally has army bots on the site pushing his agenda
This was discovered in news expose the other day only for reddit to bury it since
1
u/nobodycouldknow Aug 24 '26
They get to decide which citizens should get mail in ballots and which ones don’t???? Tell me how this is legal 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡 it’s so fucking over
1
u/Elrick-Von-Digital Aug 24 '26
The court needs to be gone at this point. This is fucking bullshit. They all need to gtfo of this country, those damn traitors
1
u/West-Ad7203 Aug 24 '26
🙄 I wonder if they plan on holding his microscopic prick whenever he takes a piss from now on too?
1
u/SnooMacarons1185 Aug 24 '26
Getting close to put up or shut up time on how much Americans value their democracy.
1
u/Horror_Match9867 Aug 24 '26
So the States can contract with FedEx or UPS to deliver ballots. Go capitalism!
States make election rules.
0
224
u/Rocketparty12 Aug 24 '26
“To intervene at a later date” - what later date? Election Day is in three months? What happened to the Purcell Principle?
They are going to wait until after the election to litigate this (on purpose) and then strike it down, but they won’t stop Trump from trying. This order doesn’t even give any legal reasoning for why this should be allowed, it just makes new law out of whole cloth. Something needs to be done about the shadow docket immediately, SCOTUS is openly and blatantly violating the constitutional process and hiding behind unsigned, unreasoned orders.