Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
“The people I can’t stand are those who strike a delicate balance between logic and absurdity and congratulate themselves for not being extreme.” – Thomas Sowell
Chief Justice John Roberts, who balances his logical decisions with absurd ones, added to the absurd half of his ledger with his refusal to issue a temporary stay on Pennsylvania’s violation of its own election laws. After all, it is only a closely contested swing state; one that could decide the presidential election.
Pennsylvania has decided to accept mail-in ballots as late as three days after Election day, without a legible postmark. This will give dishonest vote counters three days to determine how many votes they need to manufacture to get their desired outcome.
Pennsylvania law states that ballots must be in by 8:00 pm on Election Day and be properly postmarked. The State Supreme Court decided to ignore that law.
Pennsylvania Republicans (and only Republicans) petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a temporary stay against the decision by the Pennsylvania Court. A stay would have required five votes by SCOTUS. It got four. The Chief Justice voted “No” without explanation.
Chief Justice Roberts’ defenders say he maintains a “balance” to protect the reputation of the Supreme Court. Otherwise, people might think the court is “partisan.”
It is an interesting concept. Making bad decisions to protect your reputation. Lifetime tenure was supposed to prevent that.
Some say Roberts is afraid that the Democrats will pack the Court if he makes too many decisions against them. The Democrats are threatening to pack the court anyway, for reasons that have nothing to do with the Chief Justice. In other words, Chief, it didn’t work.
Also, when one strives to maintain a “balance” like that above, he or she will lose the trust of others. According to an article in National Review, neither the liberal nor the conservative Justices trust Mr. Roberts on second amendment issues, which is why they can’t muster the four votes necessary to hear a case.
The Supreme Court sat on the Pennsylvania petition for three weeks before rendering the decision. The internal discussions must have been frustrating for a sane person to hear.
When it comes to reputations, Chief Justice Roberts, there is no substitute for doing the right thing. Be bigger.Published in