F*ck Trump... Impeach John Roberts

tarheelbybirth1 · Monday at 10:00 PM

Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s mail voting executive order | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

How - exactly - do states NOT have standing when the f'n Constitution gives states the right to control their own f'n elections???? Their decision says the USPS has to issue their final rules first. The USPS released their rules FRIDAY! Trump and his Postmaster General are now free to toss mail-in ballots if they don't like the envelopes.

LafayetteBear · Monday at 10:19 PM

Meh. That decision was not on the merits of anything because Trump has yet to implement his EO. But that is coming. The Demos had better be ready, and I mean hair trigger ready, for him to pull off some kind of stunt shortly before Election Day. He needs to do it early enough for the USPS to put it into effect in time for Election Day, but I have no doubt he will try. I think Trump is a dead bang loser on this issue if it gets that far. He has no place trying to regulate elections. It's either the states or Congress, if Congress passes legislation implementing that regulation. Good luck getting something passed. His best chance is taking another swing at the Save Act in the Senate, where it has thus far stalled. States like Alaska, Montana and Wyoming rely on mail in voting. Their senators are not in favor of getting rid of mail in voting.

Anon1750875978 · Monday at 10:23 PM

This won't ever get through.

If anything, it will add motivation to Dems and Indees.

tarheelbybirth1 · Monday at 10:41 PM

LafayetteBear said:
Meh. That decision was not on the merits of anything because Trump has yet to implement his EO. But that is coming. The Demos had better be ready, and I mean hair trigger ready, for him to pull off some kind of stunt shortly before Election Day. He needs to do it early enough for the USPS to put it into effect in time for Election Day, but I have no doubt he will try. I think Trump is a dead bang loser on this issue if it gets that far. He has no place trying to regulate elections. It's either the states or Congress, if Congress passes legislation implementing that regulation. Goo luck getting something passed. His best chance is taking another swing at the Save Act in the Senate, where it has thus far stalled. States like Alaska, Montana and Wyoming rely on mail in voting. Their senators are not in favor of getting rid of mail in voting.

The USPS has already released their protocols. It's run by a Trump appointee. The SC had absolutely no reason to shadow docket this other than to throw the situation into chaos by lifting the temporary restraining order. How do states proceed with mail-in ballot delivery - which has to start in the next few weeks - if they don't know what the rules will be when it's time for those ballots to be returned? SCOTUS doesn't have to settle the issue - they just have to drag out the resolution of the case through the election. Ruling that Trump violated the Constitution after the election will be meaningless.

TigerGrowls · Monday at 10:43 PM

tarheelbybirth1 said:
Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s mail voting executive order | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

How - exactly - do states NOT have standing when the f'n Constitution gives states the right to control their own f'n elections???? Their decision says the USPS has to issue their final rules first. The USPS released their rules FRIDAY! Trump and his Postmaster General are now free to toss mail-in ballots if they don't like the envelopes.

Did you tools care when the state of TX sued over the 20 election and SCOTUS kicked it out stating that TX had no standing???

tarheelbybirth1 · Monday at 10:59 PM

TigerGrowls said:
Did you tools care when the state of TX sued over the 20 election and SCOTUS kicked it out stating that TX had no standing???

You mean the one where they said Texas didn't have standing to question how four other states ran their own elections? You do understand that the Constitution gives states the right to run their own elections... it doesn't give them the right to run the elections of other states. You get that, right?

You truly are a complete dumbass. And don't bother responding - I won't reply to anyone as stupid as you again. Shouldn't have this time.

TigerGrowls · Monday at 11:04 PM

tarheelbybirth1 said:
You mean the one where they said Texas didn't have standing to question how four other states ran their own elections? You do understand that the Constitution gives states the right to run their own elections... it doesn't give them the right to run the elections of other states. You get that, right?

You truly are a complete dumbass.

No. Texas sued that the federal presidential election was fraudulent and that the effect of the fraud would disenfranchise their state which ended up occurring with the biden led invasion at the southern border. This costed TX billions so no bubba you are the complete dumbass-.

LafayetteBear · Monday at 11:20 PM

TigerGrowls said:
Did you tools care when the state of TX sued over the 20 election and SCOTUS kicked it out stating that TX had no standing???

Texas had no (read: zero) facts to back up its voter fraud claims. Trump and the states that filed these cases lost repeatedly, and in summary fashion. It wasn't close. Yet MAGA acolytes continue clinging to these fictional claims. It's sad.

TigerGrowls · Monday at 11:35 PM

LafayetteBear said:
Texas had no (read: zero) facts to back up its voter fraud claims. Trump and the states that filed these cases lost repeatedly, and in summary fashion. It wasn't close. Yet MAGA acolytes continue clinging to these fictional claims. It's sad.

No case was ever heard bear. Dismissed. Part of the establishment steal and coverup.

RagnarLothbrok · 2026-08-25T05:16:42-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s mail voting executive order | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

How - exactly - do states NOT have standing when the f'n Constitution gives states the right to control their own f'n elections???? Their decision says the USPS has to issue their final rules first. The USPS released their rules FRIDAY! Trump and his Postmaster General are now free to toss mail-in ballots if they don't like the envelopes.

Yeah, I don’t understand how states don’t have the right to challenge issues related to elections. And executive orders can also be challenged, so I don’t understand the logic of this ruling. I would need someone to expound upon it a lot more to square that circle.

RagnarLothbrok · 2026-08-25T05:19:51-0500

LafayetteBear said:
Meh. That decision was not on the merits of anything because Trump has yet to implement his EO. But that is coming. The Demos had better be ready, and I mean hair trigger ready, for him to pull off some kind of stunt shortly before Election Day. He needs to do it early enough for the USPS to put it into effect in time for Election Day, but I have no doubt he will try. I think Trump is a dead bang loser on this issue if it gets that far. He has no place trying to regulate elections. It's either the states or Congress, if Congress passes legislation implementing that regulation. Goo luck getting something passed. His best chance is taking another swing at the Save Act in the Senate, where it has thus far stalled. States like Alaska, Montana and Wyoming rely on mail in voting. Their senators are not in favor of getting rid of mail in voting.

Amazing the lengths Trump will try to go to in order to reject democracy and circumvent the will of the people. Perhaps more disappointing is the SCOTUS’s willingness to acquiesce him.

RagnarLothbrok · 2026-08-25T05:22:23-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
You truly are a complete dumbass. And don't bother responding - I won't reply to anyone as stupid as you again. Shouldn't have this time.

He is one of the few people I actually took the time to hit the ignore function for. It’s mind “bottling” the breadth of some people’s stupidity and desire to wear said stupidity as a badge of honor.

Huey Grey 2 · 2026-08-25T06:34:42-0500

LafayetteBear said:
Meh. That decision was not on the merits of anything because Trump has yet to implement his EO. But that is coming. The Demos had better be ready, and I mean hair trigger ready, for him to pull off some kind of stunt shortly before Election Day. He needs to do it early enough for the USPS to put it into effect in time for Election Day, but I have no doubt he will try. I think Trump is a dead bang loser on this issue if it gets that far. He has no place trying to regulate elections. It's either the states or Congress, if Congress passes legislation implementing that regulation. Goo luck getting something passed. His best chance is taking another swing at the Save Act in the Senate, where it has thus far stalled. States like Alaska, Montana and Wyoming rely on mail in voting. Their senators are not in favor of getting rid of mail in voting.

I don't agree that this is a losing issue for Trump. He can now direct the USPS to refuse to deliver ballots for Democrats. A clear harm happens. Blue state sue. Then what? Roberts overturns the emergency injunction issued by a lower judge until they can study the issue more. Millions of blue ballots don't get delivered. And after the election Roberts says harm mat have occurred but it's too late to do anything now?

Scrubby · 2026-08-25T06:50:06-0500

States run elections but not the post office. Pretty simple....

Look at all this wailing over fortifying election security. Mail in ballots have been a known vector of voter fraud for a long time before fauci's pandemic. Dems freaking out over this gives the game away. They know that cheating is the only way they can possibly win.

Keep crying, OP.

Titanhawk · 2026-08-25T08:22:01-0500

Huey Grey 2 said:
I don't agree that this is a losing issue for Trump. He can now direct the USPS to refuse to deliver ballots for Democrats. A clear harm happens. Blue state sue. Then what? Roberts overturns the emergency injunction issued by a lower judge until they can study the issue more. Millions of blue ballots don't get delivered. And after the election Roberts says harm mat have occurred but it's too late to do anything now?

How would you know they are Democrat ballots unless you used to manipulating this?

alaskanseminole · 2026-08-25T08:39:46-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s mail voting executive order | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

How - exactly - do states NOT have standing when the f'n Constitution gives states the right to control their own f'n elections???? Their decision says the USPS has to issue their final rules first. The USPS released their rules FRIDAY! Trump and his Postmaster General are now free to toss mail-in ballots if they don't like the envelopes.

I voted via mail-in years while on Active Duty. iirc, I got Bush elected with my mail-in, miltiary FL vote.

Huey Grey 2 · 2026-08-25T08:55:48-0500

Titanhawk said:
How would you know they are Democrat ballots unless you used to manipulating this?

Um because Trump said specifically that he's targeting blue voters?

Ghee Buttersnaps 2 · 2026-08-25T09:02:04-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
You truly are a complete dumbass. And don't bother responding - I won't reply to anyone as stupid as you again. Shouldn't have this time.

You'll deprive yourself of pure entertainment, then. He's the gift who gives and gives and gives.

Rifler · 2026-08-25T11:44:26-0500

RagnarLothbrok said:
Yeah, I don’t understand how states don’t have the right to challenge issues related to elections. And executive orders can also be challenged, so I don’t understand the logic of this ruling. I would need someone to expound upon it a lot more to square that circle.

By law, participation in federal elections is limited to US citizens,... Given that the states are individually responsible for managing the voting process, they also bear responsibility for ensuring that only US citizens are voting in elections with federal impact,... Trump is using the Post Office in an attempt to ensure that states are doing their job,.. No state election law is being overridden by the process,... Problems will arise when the Fed's list of US citizen voters doesn't match a state's list of US citizen voters, and someone is denied US Postal delivery of a mail in ballot,... That's when "standing" will be present.

Aardvark86 · 2026-08-25T11:54:28-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s mail voting executive order | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

How - exactly - do states NOT have standing when the f'n Constitution gives states the right to control their own f'n elections???? Their decision says the USPS has to issue their final rules first. The USPS released their rules FRIDAY! Trump and his Postmaster General are now free to toss mail-in ballots if they don't like the envelopes.

While I think that’s overstating things a bit re the usps aspects of the case, I think the fundamental tension/discomfort here is how on the one hand the court is quite willing to recognize the “generalized” interest of the executive to develop policies in federal agencies for purposes of the balance of harms test on the stay, but on the other hand they are not willing to recognize the states’ generalized interest in their delegated election authority for purposes of standing analysis.

I am also wondering a bit whether this is leading to a broader no justiciability principle for executive orders (at least to the extent they don’t create binding obligations on third parties)

btw, if I had to place a bet, from the prose I’d bet Gorsuch rather than Roberts was the principal author here.

Jerome Silberman · 2026-08-25T11:55:51-0500

RagnarLothbrok said:
Yeah, I don’t understand how states don’t have the right to challenge issues related to elections. And executive orders can also be challenged, so I don’t understand the logic of this ruling. I would need someone to expound upon it a lot more to square that circle.

Thete's no joy in trying to understand a body that picks and chooses precedent and norms that only suit it's ends while clearly being influenced by another coequal branch.

Doubt, confusion and destabilization will be the real world legacy for the Roberts court. Just another domino in the destruction of institutions and a trurn towards the process's legitimacy being dictated by the end goal.

Aardvark86 · 2026-08-25T11:59:30-0500

RagnarLothbrok said:
Yeah, I don’t understand how states don’t have the right to challenge issues related to elections. And executive orders can also be challenged, so I don’t understand the logic of this ruling. I would need someone to expound upon it a lot more to square that circle.

While the court recognized states’ constitutional authority to set the rules of elections absent congressional enactments, it essentially ruled that the eo didn’t actually force the states to do or not do anything … yet … as it just directed federal agencies to explore various things, and thus didn’t injure them. For my money this is probably better characterized as a ripeness decision than a standing decision.
Left open the ability to challenge rules once promulgated which as bear pointed out will surely happen.

dpic73 · 2026-08-25T12:00:48-0500

Aardvark86 · 2026-08-25T12:14:53-0500

dpic73 said:

Yep. While I don’t know the details of the usps rule, the states will have a strong opening position. The constitution talks about the states and the congress as first and second in line (or at least 1a and 1b)

so it seems to me that the usps rule is going to have to be grounded in some provision or statute that does give the executive strong and specific authority to enforce, and it's probably going to have to have some tie to the 'take care' clause..

fwiw, here’s the rule, and there is an extensive discussion of the authority issue.

https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2026-17238.pdf

Based on a quick scan, I doubt the generalized invocation of article ii is going to cut it. There’s also a lot of crappy arguments on both sides relating to authority. I suppose the best argument relates to general postal service crimes. But even granting that, it strikes me as difficult for authority based in statute to overcome constitutional delegations.

RockyMtNole · 2026-08-25T12:18:33-0500

Trump’s goal isn’t necessarily to win, but to cause chaos and see what happens. He has nothing to lose at this point.

Rastafarian · 2026-08-25T12:38:16-0500

People don’t understand how radical John Roberts is. Somehow he got painted as the moderate but he’s even more radical than Thomas Kavanagh Alito. He’s very much wanting to roll back any equal rights legislation.

Jerome Silberman · 2026-08-25T13:02:59-0500

Rastafarian said:
People don’t understand how radical John Roberts is. Somehow he got painted as the moderate but he’s even more radical than Thomas Kavanagh Alito. He’s very much wanting to roll back any equal rights legislation.

I don't know what his motivation is, but he clearly is okay with his court operating well outside of how the court conducted himself in his own lifetime.

LafayetteBear · 2026-08-25T13:06:42-0500

Scrubby said:
States run elections but not the post office. Pretty simple....

Look at all this wailing over fortifying election security. Mail in ballots have been a known vector of voter fraud for a long time before fauci's pandemic. Dems freaking out over this gives the game away. They know that cheating is the only way they can possibly win.

Keep crying, OP.

Speaking of giving the game away, your Orange Demigod votes by mail in ballot.

Scrubby · 2026-08-25T13:38:51-0500

LafayetteBear said:
Speaking of giving the game away, your Orange Demigod votes by mail in ballot.

So what? What point do you think you actually made here? He can still vote by mail too, now with more security to reinforce democracy.

LafayetteBear · 2026-08-25T13:59:55-0500

Scrubby said:
So what? What point do you think you actually made here? He can still vote by mail too, now with more security to reinforce democracy.

That it is hypocritical and absurd for Cheeto to whine about the evils of mail in voting when he votes by mail himself. Every election. I would have thought that was obvious, even to you.

Aardvark86 · 2026-08-25T14:27:30-0500

Rastafarian said:
People don’t understand how radical John Roberts is. Somehow he got painted as the moderate but he’s even more radical than Thomas Kavanagh Alito. He’s very much wanting to roll back any equal rights legislation.

Again, while I don't actually think Roberts wrote this, I think you're directionally right in some respects but overstating things in calling him a radical.

1. You are absolutely correct that Roberts has been more at the tip of the spear when it comes to equal protection jurisprudence, stemming from his early years in govt practice. First, recall that a lot of the modern versions of EP (eg, diversity, etc.) trace back to Bakke (a 5-4 decision) and some of the unintentional/disparate impact cases. So in fairness, while those cases set the modern course, they lacked the unanimity of Brown and have always had an element of controversy which some branded 'radical' in its own right. Sometimes we forget that there's plenty of very good scholarship to support the idea that the remedial powers expansions of courts in the 60s and 70s were in fact a radical departure from what came before.. Second, I think he's troubled - as justice o'conner was -- with questions like 'when does this end?' and 'how do we define success?' Maybe that's a policy or even a political issue rather than a legal one, but it's a fair question in light of...
2. I think most of Roberts' reputation for moderation (aside from the fact that he is neither Alito nor Thomas) stems from his role as the chief, and he takes a lot of time considering the institutional reputation and role of the court. That manifests itself in a jurisprudence - and a fairly traditional one at that - that does look to procedure before addressing substance. So while I don't think there's any doubt that the court has tended to let the administration go on the emergency docket and on procedural stuff, probably to avoid constitutional crises or in deference to the political processes solving things, when cases get there on the merits, his record is more balanced in my opinion.
3. Where the story is more complicated, IMO is on core institutional issues. Fundamentally, I think a lot of the biggest cases to come out of his court have been in the vein of strengthening Article I (or insisting it strengthen itself). Loper Bright, Major Questions, etc. The problem is that the current Congress -- unlike any congress in my memory -- seems to be totally uninterested in accepting the invitation to defend its own prerogatives and to view its first job as representation rather than party. That's while they're going to get shellacked this november. That said, Roberts does have the Kavanaugh streak from time to time of being cautious to let the Executive do his thing, particularly when things are more arguably in his scope of work. My personal hope is that in the big arc of things, the former outweighs the latter.

He's probably my third favorite justice up there, behind Gorsuch and Kagan.

Finance85 · 2026-08-25T16:00:15-0500

LafayetteBear said:
Meh. That decision was not on the merits of anything because Trump has yet to implement his EO. But that is coming. The Demos had better be ready, and I mean hair trigger ready, for him to pull off some kind of stunt shortly before Election Day. He needs to do it early enough for the USPS to put it into effect in time for Election Day, but I have no doubt he will try. I think Trump is a dead bang loser on this issue if it gets that far. He has no place trying to regulate elections. It's either the states or Congress, if Congress passes legislation implementing that regulation. Goo luck getting something passed. His best chance is taking another swing at the Save Act in the Senate, where it has thus far stalled. States like Alaska, Montana and Wyoming rely on mail in voting. Their senators are not in favor of getting rid of mail in voting.

This ^

It would be nice if people, supposedly educated, would actually read and understand court decisions before going on public message board tantrums.

There's still a nationwide injunction in place against Trump in the Massachusetts District Court.

All that said, there's still a possibility Trump can find some obscure legal reason to keep trying to take another bite of the apple. That's what Trump does.

RockyMtNole · 2026-08-25T16:14:17-0500

Finance85 said:
This ^

It would be nice if people, supposedly educated, would actually read and understand court decisions before going on public message board tantrums.

There's still a nationwide injunction in place against Trump in the Massachusetts District Court.

All that said, there's still a possibility Trump can find some obscure legal reason to keep trying to take another bite of the apple. That's what Trump does.

This is correct, but I think some concern is warranted when the court makeup is 6-3, and you know Trump has 2 guaranteed votes regardless of the issue.

LafayetteBear · 2026-08-25T16:20:30-0500

RockyMtNole said:
This is correct, but I think some concern is warranted when the court makeup is 6-3, and you know Trump has 2 guaranteed votes regardless of the issue.

Can't argue with this ^^^^. Which is why Democrats have to be ready to seek judicial intervention on a moment's notice, because that is what they're likely to get.

RockyMtNole · 2026-08-25T16:22:28-0500

LafayetteBear said:
Can't argue with this ^^^^. Which is why Democrats have to be ready to seek judicial intervention on a moment's notice, because that is what they're likely to get.

I fully expect him to order the USPS to delay ballots, wherever the issue is in the courts.

tarheelbybirth1 · 2026-08-25T16:26:14-0500

Aardvark86 said:
Again, while I don't actually think Roberts wrote this, I think you're directionally right in some respects but overstating things in calling him a radical.

1. You are absolutely correct that Roberts has been more at the tip of the spear when it comes to equal protection jurisprudence, stemming from his early years in govt practice. First, recall that a lot of the modern versions of EP (eg, diversity, etc.) trace back to Bakke (a 5-4 decision) and some of the unintentional/disparate impact cases. So in fairness, while those cases set the modern course, they lacked the unanimity of Brown and have always had an element of controversy which some branded 'radical' in its own right. Sometimes we forget that there's plenty of very good scholarship to support the idea that the remedial powers expansions of courts in the 60s and 70s were in fact a radical departure from what came before.. Second, I think he's troubled - as justice o'conner was -- with questions like 'when does this end?' and 'how do we define success?' Maybe that's a policy or even a political issue rather than a legal one, but it's a fair question in light of...
2. I think most of Roberts' reputation for moderation (aside from the fact that he is neither Alito nor Thomas) stems from his role as the chief, and he takes a lot of time considering the institutional reputation and role of the court. That manifests itself in a jurisprudence - and a fairly traditional one at that - that does look to procedure before addressing substance. So while I don't think there's any doubt that the court has tended to let the administration go on the emergency docket and on procedural stuff, probably to avoid constitutional crises or in deference to the political processes solving things, when cases get there on the merits, his record is more balanced in my opinion.
3. Where the story is more complicated, IMO is on core institutional issues. Fundamentally, I think a lot of the biggest cases to come out of his court have been in the vein of strengthening Article I (or insisting it strengthen itself). Loper Bright, Major Questions, etc. The problem is that the current Congress -- unlike any congress in my memory -- seems to be totally uninterested in accepting the invitation to defend its own prerogatives and to view its first job as representation rather than party. That's while they're going to get shellacked this november. That said, Roberts does have the Kavanaugh streak from time to time of being cautious to let the Executive do his thing, particularly when things are more arguably in his scope of work. My personal hope is that in the big arc of things, the former outweighs the latter.

He's probably my third favorite justice up there, behind Gorsuch and Kagan.

They're looking at changing mail-in ballots less than two weeks before they have to be mailed out in NC and, I assume, other states. The ballots and envelopes are already printed. If those have to be changed now to comply with whatever the USPS requires... how does that not constitute harm? At the very least, Purcell should apply - we're too close to the mechanics of the election for any changes to be thrown in.

Aardvark86 · 2026-08-25T16:32:20-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
They're looking at changing mail-in ballots less than two weeks before they have to be mailed out in NC and, I assume, other states. The ballots and envelopes are already printed. If those have to be changed now to comply with whatever the USPS requires... how does that not constitute harm? At the very least, Purcell should apply - we're too close to the mechanics of the election for any changes to be thrown in.

To be clear, the courts order dealt with the eo not the rule. I don’t have much doubt that the rule should create standing if it obligates the state. At the least it’s an interest as great as the exwcutive branch’s.

Tom Paris · 2026-08-25T17:50:34-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
Supreme Court clears way for Trump’s mail voting executive order | AP News

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court opened a path Monday for possible implementation of President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be put in place before the fast-approaching midterm elections.

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump’s order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.

How - exactly - do states NOT have standing when the f'n Constitution gives states the right to control their own f'n elections???? Their decision says the USPS has to issue their final rules first. The USPS released their rules FRIDAY! Trump and his Postmaster General are now free to toss mail-in ballots if they don't like the envelopes.

We have American citizens totally good with fascism. Both sides bins still thinks elections will be free and fair.

Tom Paris · 2026-08-25T17:51:50-0500

tarheelbybirth1 said:
The USPS has already released their protocols. It's run by a Trump appointee. The SC had absolutely no reason to shadow docket this other than to throw the situation into chaos by lifting the temporary restraining order. How do states proceed with mail-in ballot delivery - which has to start in the next few weeks - if they don't know what the rules will be when it's time for those ballots to be returned? SCOTUS doesn't have to settle the issue - they just have to drag out the resolution of the case through the election. Ruling that Trump violated the Constitution after the election will be meaningless.

I will never understand why Biden didn’t force out Trump’s appointee. Immediately. It’s what Trump would have done.

Tom Paris · 2026-08-25T17:52:22-0500

TigerGrowls said:
Did you tools care when the state of TX sued over the 20 election and SCOTUS kicked it out stating that TX had no standing???

Because they didn’t. Dupe.

F*ck Trump... Impeach John Roberts

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Senior

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

All-American

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

All-Conference

All-American

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman

All-Conference

Heisman

Heisman

Heisman