It has become a talking point on the right that Republicans are no longer asking the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify Pennsylvania ballots. That is false. Republicans told SCOTUS it *can* resolve this case without nullifying ballots, but would still prefer to have them nullified. 1/
Republicans face a problem in this case: Throwing out late-arriving ballots won't change the outcome of the election, so Pennsylvania says the dispute is moot.

Republicans' latest brief seeks to avoid this problem by presenting two distinct theories. 2/
Theory #1: Republicans say that the Supreme Court can still provide relief by nullifying late-arriving ballots, even though its actions won't change the outcome of the Pennsylvania election, because counting those ballots still illegally dilutes lawful votes. 3/
In other words, Republicans argue that SCOTUS should still throw out late-arriving ballots, even though it won't change the outcome of the election, to prevent the "dilution" of legal votes and preserve "the integrity of the vote count."

This is their primary argument. 4/
Theory #2: Republicans say the Supreme Court should still resolve the case even if it does not want to throw out any ballots. Why? To settle the law and provide clarity in future elections. Republicans invoke the "capable of repetition yet evading review" doctrine. 5/
Conservatives have seized upon this secondary argument to claim that Republicans do not want SCOTUS to nullify ballots. That is untrue. Republicans still want SCOTUS to nullify ballots—but assert, as a backup claim, that SCOTUS can still decide this case without doing so. 6/
Pennsylvania segregated late-arriving ballots, so it can void them and subtract them from the vote total if SCOTUS demands it. That is the relief Republicans prefer, and the primary theory they use to argue that the case is not moot. 7/
Again, *as a backup argument,* Pennsylvania Republicans also say SCOTUS can rule without voiding these ballots. But that is not their preferred remedy. And anyone telling you otherwise is misrepresenting the facts. 8/
In short, conservatives looking to defend Pennsylvania Republicans at the Supreme Court would sound more convincing if they simply argued that nullifying thousands of ballots is necessary to enforce the Voting Rights Act.🤗

Read the brief here: supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/20/2… 9/9

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Mark Joseph Stern

Mark Joseph Stern Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @mjs_DC

14 Dec
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue orders at 9:30 and opinions at 10. This is the last orders + opinions day of the year.
Big news: The Supreme Court has declined to hear Box v. Henderson, turning away Indiana's request to roll back equal rights for same-sex parents. No noted dissents.

Background: slate.com/news-and-polit…
SCOTUS also issued a terrible AEDPA decision denying a writ of habeas corpus for an ineffective-assistance-of counsel claim to a death row inmate. It's a per curiam summary reversal. All three liberals dissent. supremecourt.gov/orders/courtor… (scroll down)
Read 9 tweets
10 Dec
I would like to engage with this line of argument without any shade to Nate. I want to zero in on three pre-election cases in PA, NC, and MN.

Start with PA: Four Supreme Court justices made it quite clear that they wanted to throw out thousands of legal ballots in this state.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas tried to block a Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision on the basis of a truly radical constitutional theory. SCOPA extended the mail ballot deadline by three days; all four justices thought that was unconstitutional. slate.com/news-and-polit…
SCOTUS' conservatives spent the entire election season instructing federal courts not to intervene in state election processes. Then the PA Supreme Court ordered a modest expansion of voting rights, and four conservative justices tried to shut it down. Appalling hypocrisy.
Read 21 tweets
10 Dec
Good morning! The Supreme Court will issue opinions at 10 a.m. today.
The first decision is a unanimous ERISA pre-emption case (please don't make me describe the holding). Authored by Sotomayor, so we could get more decisions from any justice senior to her. Remember, opinions at released at 10 minute intervals these days. supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf…
For those asking, we are not going to get any action on the deranged Texas lawsuit this morning. The defendant states will not reply until later today.
Read 14 tweets
9 Dec
The attorneys general of the following states just asked the Supreme Court to nullify millions of legal votes:

Alabama
Arkansas
Florida
Indiana
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Utah
West Virginia
It's not clear whether the 17 GOP state attorneys general who asked SCOTUS to throw out millions of votes realize that they are backing a lawsuit designed as pardon-bait for Texas' AG, who is under FBI investigation, not a legitimate legal challenge. slate.com/news-and-polit…
Beyond this, Republican state attorney general offices are increasingly dominated by up-and-coming Federalist Society members. These jobs are a springboard to higher office—some of Trump's worst FedSoc judges previously worked for a GOP AG.
Read 7 tweets
7 Dec
At 10 a.m., the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Hungary v. Simon, which asks whether Hungarian Holocaust survivors can sue Hungary in U.S. courts for stealing their property. @SEHarringtonDC is arguing for the survivors. Listen here: c-span.org/video/?477434-…
Chief Justice Roberts grilling the Justice Department’s Benjamin Snyder is unexpectedly savage
Shorter Roberts: “Mr. Snyder, why is the federal government cowering behind dubious jurisdictional arguments to avoid explaining how this lawsuit will actually cause any friction with Hungary?”
Read 5 tweets
3 Dec
My read on the Wisconsin Supreme Court's decision:

•4–3 to deny Trump's petition outright (Hagedorn + libs)
•6–1 to reject any remedy that involves tossing mail ballots

Only Rebecca Grassl Bradley left open the possibility to tossing ballots. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Hagedorn's concurrence is really good. We are lucky that there is one sane Republican on the Wisconsin Supreme Court. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Here's the language in Chief Justice Roggensack's dissent essentially saying: I'm not going to throw out ballots, but I do think the elections board may have broken the law.

Ziegler joined Roggensack's dissent; Rebecca Grassl Bradley pointedly did not. democracydocket.com/wp-content/upl…
Read 6 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!