Supreme Court Blesses Trump's Mail-In Ballot Executive Orders by Vote of 6 to 3

Standing, baby.

The procedural bar of standing -- the requirement that a litigant have an actual and particular legal interest in a case before allowing him to press sue -- giveth.

And it also taketh away.

Here, it giveth. It giveth good and hard.

One America News @OANN

Supreme Court Sides With Trump Admin on Mail-In Ballot Restrictions

The Supreme Court has lifted an injunction blocking President Trump's election integrity order in 23 states, clearing the way for new restrictions on mail-in ballots ahead of the midterms.

Under the order, USPS can check its distribution of mail-in ballots against a DHS-maintained list of citizens. The DOJ and USPS say they will move to implement the changes immediately.

Fox:

Trump scores Supreme Court win on mail-in voting restrictions before midterms

The Supreme Court allowed the Trump admin to enforce revised mail-ballot restrictions

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court handed the Trump administration a victory on Monday, allowing it to enforce President Donald Trump's "election integrity" executive order restricting mail-in voting ahead of the November midterms.

The high court lifted an injunction that had blocked the order in 23 states that challenged it after the administration appealed in July.

The U.S. Postal Service and Justice Department said they would immediately implement the revised mail-ballot restrictions after the ruling.

Most immediately, the ruling clears the path for the U.S. Postal Service to check its distribution of mail-in ballots against a list of citizens maintained by the Department of Homeland Security. But it's also a significant political victory for the Trump administration as it has advocated against the widespread use of mail-in-voting, citing what it believes is a heightened vulnerability to tampering and voter fraud.

Most recently, Trump slammed what he called a suspiciously high volume of mail-in-ballots cast for [Nythia] Raman in the 2026 LA mayoral race primaries.

"You know, they don't have voting booths; everything's by mail. I don't think a Republican can win in California unless you pass the Save America Act," Trump told Fox News, referring to GOP legislation to narrow the scope of mail-in voting and voter-ID requirements.

"They're going to have to get rid of mail-in voting."

Like many onlooking conservatives, Trump pointed out that, after election night, the vast majority of Democratic votes had been for Nithya Raman, creating a delayed outpouring of support.

Fox News Digital has not reviewed any particular case of election fraud tied to the LA mayoral race.

Even so, Trump's original executive order looked to eliminate any ambiguity. Titled "Preserving and protecting the integrity of American elections," it directed federal agencies to compile citizenship-based lists of eligible voters and ordered the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail-in ballots only to people appearing on those approved lists.

"Several Federal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 1015 and 611, prohibit foreign nationals from registering to vote or voting in Federal elections. Yet States fail adequately to vet voters' citizenship, and, in recent years, the Department of Justice has failed to prioritize and devote sufficient resources for enforcement of these provisions," the executive order reads.

Where critics of the order saw a federal effort to dictate the terms of state-run elections, the court on Monday sided with the administration, stating that the way the executive order was made put requirements only on federal agencies.

In essence, the order didn't put any new requirements on the states themselves.

"[It] directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to take appropriate action to create and distribute State Citizenship Lists. This provision is an internal directive from the President to a subordinate. It imposes no obligations on the States, so they 'suffer no concrete harm from' it, and without concrete harm, there is no standing," the court wrote.

Obviously the three braindead woke women dissented.

AP's story is full of bias, obviously:

The decision leaves room for additional court challenges that could further slow Trump's order, and other similar cases have already been filed. The U.S. Postal Service laid out how it would implement the order last week, but time is running short to impose major changes. North Carolina is sending out ballots Sept. 4 overseas and to military voters, and other states will quickly follow suit in just a few weeks.

...

While the emergency order is not final, it does have the potential to create chaos around voting across the country, with Trump often questioning the integrity of elections and the nation's highest court again the possible arbiter of a political controversy.

...

The three liberal-leaning justices publicly dissented, with Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson writing that the rule "lets another shoe drop in the Kafkaesque nightmare that our precedents have been steadily creating for certain plaintiffs who seek to bring election-related challenges."

...

Mail balloting has long been a favorite target for Trump, who has claimed that it breeds fraud despite strong evidence to the contrary and his own use of the voting method.

Which "experts" did you consult? The same leftwing "experts" you always consult, right? Did you consult a single expert who believes that mail-in voting increases fraud, as it obviously does?

The leftwing media always claims that "experts" support its own leftwing biases. And yet the media never consults any other "experts" but the hand-picked lefties whose opinions they know in advance. That's why they call them. They know what they're going to say.

This is a racket that we need to address: The media is itself non-expert, but claims it can render expert opinions because it has consulted "experts" and is just relaying their opinion.

And yet, there are of course many experts who disagree.

But these are not cited.

Because the media has decided these experts are wrong.

But dinky-brained "journalists" went to three years of journalism school and have absolutely zero subject-matter expertise in any discipline. They are experts in nothing. This means, that in a dispute between experts, they are absolutely unqualified to determine the winner and loser. They don't know what the fuck they're talking about.

But in case after case, the media -- which tells you you must always rely on "experts" and must not "do your own research" -- does its own research and decides which experts are right and which are Lying Racists, despite the experts themselves having failed to make that conclusion.

They obviously did this with covid, in all disputes involving it, from masking to vaccine injury to the covid origin to the need to lock ourselves in our homes for a year. Some experts gave them the leftwing version of the story, and other experts disputed it -- but these know-nothing uneducated non-expert simpletons and fools decided Who the Real Experts Here Are and ruled -- WITHOUT EVIDENCE -- that all dissenters from this media-fabricated "consensus" were conspiracy theorists, frauds, and liars.

I'd really like to see more people challenging the non-experts of the media about their qualifications, or lack thereof, to settle disputes between actual experts. It's a very big question, especially today, as the media's favorite tactic for deciding the "truth" is to claim they know who The Real Experts Here Are and declare them to be in the right, based on nothing but their dinky, pathetic J-school degree.

posted by Disinformation Expert Ace at 02:42 PM

| Access Comments