Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Definitely complicated. There are sound reasons why judges are nominated by the executive branch rather than chosen by voters. But the fact that who is chosen has become such a politicized factor -- indeed, a weapon -- by the executive branch points out the need for reform to restore what I believe is intended balance.This is why "I'm voting for this presidential candidate instead of that one because this one will appoint Supreme Court Justices whose rulings I'll like better" is a huge pet peeve of mine.
There's a very good reason why federal judges aren't elected by voters. Acknowledging this, voters should respect the fact that they're not supposed to choose judges. The natural implication is that voters shouldn't choose judges indirectly by electing presidents on the basis of whom they'll appoint as judges.
The federal judiciary has been inappropriately politicized in a number of ways. IMO, any presidential candidate who runs on a platform of promising to nominate politically attractive judges, and any voters who respond favorably to that kind of campaign, are part of the problem.
It's complicated, though, and it's tough to blame the voters themselves.
To carry on your continuum metaphor, at the other end of that spectrum you have an executive branch who acts on the premise of "I'm nominating Smith (as wqell as Jones and Jackson) because I know he/they will form a majority opinion that will uphold/overturn Roe v. Wade" when that upholding/overturning is opposed to what the majority view on that ruling is.Â
Ideally checks and balances help with this, but we've seen very clearly that these checks and balances leave a lot to be desired. Where the judiciary is able to make and enforce law counter to what the majority of Americans feel is reasonable and just, it starts to get dangerous.
At the end of the day, you need different viewpoints to be represented in the highest court in the land for the very reason that the diversity ideally brings better decisions. What we seem to have, in my opinion, is a system that works against ensuring that diversity and balance is present and preserved in favor of partisan political aim.
Isn't the issue that ballots postmarked on or before election day that arrive after midnight on election day are now not obligated to be counted?Layperson's understanding here...
But If I am reading all of this correctly then the WI ruling seems like it was pretty simple. State decided that the ballots need to be in by 8pm election day because that is what law says. A federal court went the other way and said no, you have to extend, because covid. Appeals court overturned that ruling saying it usurped the state's authority to set election laws and that this violated a supreme court precedent of not interfering too close to an election. Supreme court then decided the same.Â
Seems kavanaugh is catching a lot of flack for his comments re:Â "late arriving ballots". People saying absentee ballots arriving many days later in other states as proof that late arriving ballots happen often. This seems misguided to me since those arent late arriving ballots in the context of the laws of those states. Whereas in WI anything after 8pm is.Â
Kavanaugh's ruling that “States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after election day and potentially flip the results of an election” seems to work both ways -- NOT counting votes that meet the letter of the law as they were mailed in prior to the deadline and delivered afterwards (whether because COVID prevented many from voting in person, they were slow to be delivered thanks to real or manufactured mail disruption, etc.) sews just as much suspicion of impropriety IMO.
Last edited by a moderator: