4 ms·

This is false. The remedy was requested in oral arguments before the district court. This was pointed out in the dissent by Justice Ginsberg, but completely ign

This is false. The remedy was requested in oral arguments before the district court. This was pointed out in the dissent by Justice Ginsberg, but completely ignored by the majority. You can see this in the record off the original district court case, captured on RECAP. https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16989159/democratic-national-committee-v-bostelmann-marge/ https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16989159/democratic-nat... As a result of the Supreme Court's order, tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens did not receive an absentee ballot, despite putting in a lawful request prior to the deadline. We will never know how many votes were not counted as a result, nor how many people were infected while standing in line to vote because their absentee ballot did not arrive in time. I also find it interesting to note that the majority did not sign their names to the decision, hiding behind a "Per Curium" byline. This is highly unusual, as the per curium designation is usually reserved for obvious and unimportant cases. The dissenters, in contrast, had no problem accepting personal responsibility for their opinion.

tathougies 7y ago
So I'm reading https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.45522/gov.uscourts.wiwd.45522.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.45522/..., which is the original complaint. In it the democratic party asks: > while allowing all ballots postmarked on or before election day but received within a minimum of 10 days thereafter to be counted This states that a ballot postmarked before April 7 but received up until the 13th should be counted. The Supreme Court said this is fine. The district court instead ordered that ballots postmarked before April 13th be counted. This is not the same as being postmarked before April 7 but received by the 13th. The Supreme Court 'struck down' an order mandating that ballots postmarked after the 13th be counted. They did not strike down the order that said that ballots received after election day (but mailed on or before election day) be counted. Can you cite where in the complaint you see the party asking for the court to order any ballot postmarked before the 13th (rather than the 7th) be counted? EDIT: I'm not trying to be combative, I just want to understand where you're coming from, and I don't see what you claim is there in the original complaint you cited.

tathougies 7y ago

So I'm reading https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.45522/gov.uscourts.wiwd.45522.1.0.pdf https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.wiwd.45522/..., which is the original complaint. In it the democratic party asks: > while allowing all ballots postmarked on or before election day but received within a minimum of 10 days thereafter to be counted This states that a ballot postmarked before April 7 but received up until the 13th should be counted. The Supreme Court said this is fine. The district court instead ordered that ballots postmarked before April 13th be counted. This is not the same as being postmarked before April 7 but received by the 13th. The Supreme Court 'struck down' an order mandating that ballots postmarked after the 13th be counted. They did not strike down the order that said that ballots received after election day (but mailed on or before election day) be counted. Can you cite where in the complaint you see the party asking for the court to order any ballot postmarked before the 13th (rather than the 7th) be counted? EDIT: I'm not trying to be combative, I just want to understand where you're coming from, and I don't see what you claim is there in the original complaint you cited.