Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


(10,681 posts)
Thu Feb 25, 2021, 01:51 PM Feb 2021

The Supreme Court Is Not Finished With Elections

The Supreme Court Is Not Finished With Elections
The justices are about to consider whether the Voting Rights Act applies to policies that restrict the vote.

When the Supreme Court on Monday rejected Pennsylvania Republicans’ after-the-fact effort to invalidate late-arriving mailed ballots, it was tempting to suppose that the country’s courthouse doors had finally closed on this most litigated of presidential elections.

If only it were that simple.


But the three justices who would have accepted the cases — Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch — issued dissenting opinions that provide both a road map and a rationale for the Supreme Court’s future intervention in the quintessentially state matter of how to conduct elections.

Remember Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 presidential election, in which five justices voted to overturn the Florida Supreme Court’s handling of a statewide recount? That decision was based on a theory of equal protection so wacky that the majority opinion insisted that “our consideration is limited to the present circumstances” — that is to say, don’t dare invoke this poor excuse for an opinion as a precedent.


He went on to warn that fraud was “more prevalent with mail-in ballots,” citing as evidence a 1994 Federal District Court case, an article in this newspaper from 2012 and the 2018 Republican ballot-harvesting fraud in North Carolina. Such occurrences, he said, raise “the likelihood that courts will be asked to adjudicate questions that go to the heart of election confidence.” This was the reason, he argued, that the Supreme Court should have taken and decided the Pennsylvania cases before the next election cycle.


We are fortunate that many of the cases we have seen alleged only improper rule changes, not fraud. But that observation provides only small comfort. An election free from strong evidence of systemic fraud is not alone sufficient for election confidence. Also important is the assurance that fraud will not go undetected.

In other words, Justice Thomas would have it both ways: If there was fraud, the court needed to intervene, and if there was no fraud, the court needed to intervene because the fraud might simply be undetected. Despite his disclaimer, the entire structure of his opinion, suggesting that something bad had happened even if no one could prove it, is fairly read as validating the essence of the Trump narrative.

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The Supreme Court Is Not Finished With Elections (Original Post) dajoki Feb 2021 OP
Judge Thomas' theory is what is known as "unfalsifiable" MadLinguist Feb 2021 #1
Since his wife publicly supported the coup Freddie Feb 2021 #2


(802 posts)
1. Judge Thomas' theory is what is known as "unfalsifiable"
Thu Feb 25, 2021, 02:01 PM
Feb 2021

In other words, utter trash as a legal opinion. This fool needs to be put out to pasture already.
And save the last dance for Anita Hill, when we celebrate


(9,377 posts)
2. Since his wife publicly supported the coup
Thu Feb 25, 2021, 02:13 PM
Feb 2021

Justice Thomas should recuse himself on any election-related cases.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The Supreme Court Is Not ...