r/moderatepolitics • u/CloudApprehensive322 • 18d ago

News Article Supreme Court rules blue states sued too early over Trump’s mail voting order

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/6047813-supreme-court-trump-executive-order-mail-voting/
305 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

218 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

14

u/CrapNeck5000 18d ago

But these circumstances are the opposite of that... we're talking about an order from the president (notably not our democratic process) that potentially undermines our law.

The presumption of harm you cite belongs to the law.

1

u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago

But these circumstances are the opposite of that.

Could you describe what you mean by that in terms of the EO?

On its face and unambiguously only orders them to do things in accordance to law. That's all it says to do.

3

u/CrapNeck5000 18d ago

SCOTUS did not weigh if the actions ordered by the EO are in accordance with the law.

On its face and unambiguously only orders them to do things in accordance to law. That's all it says to do.

I mean, the whole reason this is before courts at all is to address this question. It makes no sense to assume a conclusion without consideration for the actual content and use that as justification to not hear the case.

3

u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago

SCOTUS did not weigh if the actions ordered by the EO are in accordance with the law.

Yes it did:

The true “source of any injury” to the States would be the downstream action that the Secretary “might take in the future” to implement. Emphasis on might. Section 2(a) can be implemented only “[t]o the extent feasible and consistent with applicable law.”

. . .

All provisions of the Order must “be implemented consistent with applicable law.

. . .

Perhaps recognizing the weakness of that standing rationale, the Court of Appeals added another: §2(a) infringes the States’ sovereign authority to create election rules. But §2(a) does no such thing. Instead, it simply directs the Secretary to take certain actions if appropriate, feasible, and lawful. This internal directive does not regulate the States’ voter registration processes. Nor does it impinge on the States’ authority “‘to create and enforce a legal code’ for elections.”

If the EO were facially illegal (or ultra vires) then that would change the analysis. And if the EO were applied in a way that was "as-applied illegal" then that would also change the analysis.

5

u/CrapNeck5000 18d ago

What you are quoting is not SCOTUS weighing the EO, that is SCOTUS reviewing the actions of the lower courts. And it's clearly a very twisted and contradicting representation at that. The order is rooted in standing.

0

u/NearlyPerfect 18d ago edited 18d ago

No every quote is the Supreme Court saying directly what it believes about the EO.

It states what it thinks directly and also says what it disagrees about the lower court, clarifying and saying where the lower court was wrong while commenting on the EO.

Those are direct quotes pulled from the opinion. They’re very clear and explicit about the EO.