The Supreme Court “has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election.”

This is not — as so many Obama appointees seem to believe — a question of whether “My alteration is minor, or it makes the process fairer and easier for the voter”.

The principle is “Don’t change the rules to satisfy your views as to what is “fairer” or “easier”.

DON’T CHANGE THE RULES — it’s not your job.

Elections are about the political branches of government, and politics. Changing the rules accomplishes the goals of one political point of view at the expense of an opposing political point of view.

THAT is what elections are for. //

dging markvol
15 hours ago
That's exactly right. If you can hand in your vote to an authority, then you can vote in person.

I've said this in other posts, but this is the death of our republic. Many judges are doing this. They are rewriting laws they disagree with. This is blatantly unconstitutional. These judges, for the most part, are near the top of the field. They graduated from top law schools and often worked at top law firms. They know what they are doing is unconstitutional, but they do it anyway.

And it wears down the system. Even if most of the rulings get overturned, some will get through. More importantly, it sets the precedent that judges are allowed to issue unconstitutional rulings. In essence they wear down the constitution. The constitution then means nothing. And that, my dear friend, is the end of our republic.

A wise man once warned us to try and keep it. I think we failed in that endeavor. Maybe I'm wrong. I hope I'm wrong. But I doubt it.