June 30, 2026
SCOTUS "Just Keep on Counting!"
Timothy Birdnow
The U.S. Supreme Court Jesters, in a 5-4 split, said states can continue counting ballots long after election day so Democrats may count and count until they win.
What I find interesting about this is that it flies in the face of what the Supreme Court said in the election of 2000, namely that you can't just count and count until you get the results you want. They pulled the plug on Al Gore then. Why are they supporting this now?
Well, because unfortunately we have Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the majority opinion.
American Thinker looks at this in a piece this morning.
John Rober, er, Roberts joined Barrett and the liberals on the Court naturally.
The opinion decided five business days are good. But why five days AFTER the election? Why not say all mail in ballots must be there by election day? If we are going to pick arbitrary deadlines why have any at all?
The article states:
In his dissent, Justice Samuel Alito stated that Justice Amy Comey Barrett's opinion was clearly inconsistent with the plain text of the laws and of historical practice and precedents, adding that it "risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity."
Yawp. Deadlines are DEADLINES, cutoffs. If the text of the Constitution says election DAY it does not mean election week. We have a filing day for taxes and if I should mail mine in several days late I get a penalty. Should I not then be able to use this same argument and send in my taxes late and insist the IRS accept it without penalty? I dare Amy Coney Barrett to try THAT experiment.
Ad deadline exists for a reason. It is a cutoff to prevent the sort of thing that the Democrats are trying to do in places like California, manufacture votes to overturn election results they don't like.
The article continues:
But SCOTUS rulings are no longer about interpreting the Constitution, legal precedent — or right or wrong — but about advancing a political agenda.
This ruling is doubly damaging, as it calls into question the legitimacy of the Supreme Court itself, a disaster for the republic, but also further degrades any possible confidence in election integrity and results, the death knell for a "democracy.” Given the existing political climate and pervasive doubt about the validity of our elections, this ruling is an existential threat to the United States as it approaches its 250th birthday celebration.
He's right; it strikes at the very heart of our electoral system and by extension to the Republic itself. When there are no rules to counting votes the votes themselves no longer matter, and when the votes don't matter we no longer have a constitutional republic. We have an arbitrary system of government and the votes are a a charade.
I'm not sure who told Trump to nominate Conehead Barrett but whoever it was really effed up. She's terrible. So is Roberts and I said so at the time but nobody listened.
Barrett was solidly pro-life and that went in her favor. But that' s about the only good thing about her.
I don't know why it's so hard to pick good people who won't turn left once on the Court. We've seen it time and time again with people including Roberts and Stephen Bryer and Sandra Day O'Conner and a hst of others.
At any rate I'm not sure what is so confusing about the words in the Constitution. Barrett doesn't seem to know what the meaning of is is (to quote Bill Clinton).
So which is it; is there a cutoff to vote counting as was ruled by SCOTUS in 2000, or is there not? Seems to me this case was already settled before Barrett stuck her nose in it.
I submit this for your consideration:
While the counties began to comply with this request, they became concerned that they could not meet the state deadline for certifying election returns to the Florida Secretary of State within seven days of the election. The Florida court upheld the deadline but allowed the counties to amend their returns and found that the Secretary of State could use the amended returns. Palm Beach, Broward, and Miami-Dade Counties missed the seven-day deadline. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris required counties seeking to make a late filing to submit a written explanation for why it was necessary. She found that none of the explanations met the criteria that she had imposed on herself for determining whether late filings would be admitted. Harris thus certified Bush the winner of the election in Florida after receiving overseas absentee ballots.
A few weeks later, Gore's campaign obtained an order from the Florida Supreme Court for a statewide manual recount. On the next day, December 9, the U.S. Supreme Court ordered a stay of the recount. Writing for the five-Justice majority, Antonin Scalia argued that the votes that were ordered to be counted were not legally cast, and thus a recount could cause irreparable harm to Bush and the legitimacy of the democratic process. The dissenters felt that not ordering a recount would undermine the legitimacy of the democratic process and that the Court should be careful about taking actions that could determine the result of an election, which lay outside the judicial power.
Get that? The late votes were not legally cast and thus another manual recount was not justifiable.
Well, counting votes coming in late meet this same criteria now - many are not legally cast.
The very same logic that was applied in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 is applicable here. What is different? Nothing except there are different people on the Court now and Roberts and Barrett couldn't be bothered to read Bush v. Gore.
I wonder if these two aren't worried they have been making too many pro-Trump rulings in recent days and wanted a "makeup call" as is often seen in sports. That's to maintain the illusion of even-handedness in sports, and it may well be an attempt by these two to try to make themselves appear "unbiased" to the media. That's a game you can't win.
This was a terrible ruling and it needs to be reviewed down the road. Congress, of course, could fix this by passing a law requiring certification of the vote in, say, three days of the election or doing some other such thing but then the lower courts would undoubtedly rule against Congress and it would be back to SCOTUS and the same idiots who made this terrible ruling.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:27 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 1102 words, total size 8 kb.
28kb generated in CPU 0.0242, elapsed 0.2077 seconds.
35 queries taking 0.1936 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
35 queries taking 0.1936 seconds, 184 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
