PROTECT YOUR DNA WITH QUANTUM TECHNOLOGY
Orgo-Life the new way to the future Advertising by AdpathwayHoly SMOKES!
Who would have ever seen this coming? I mean, everything's a crapshoot nowadays, honestly.
6-3, baby. The states, if I read this correctly, had no standing to challenge Trump's executive order.
The Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration Monday in a case over President Donald Trump’s executive order restricting mail-in voting, though it remains unclear how much can be implemented before the fast-approaching midterm elections.
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 with some states beginning to send mail ballots to voters in just a few weeks.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority didn’t decide the legality of Trump’s order, instead ruling that states who sued did not have the legal right to challenge it.
“The Court’s disposition of this application does not mean that any measure taken by the Government to implement the Order will necessarily be lawful. On that score, time will tell,” the majority wrote in an unsigned order.
It's a start.
Unrestricted mail-in has undermined--at the least--public perception of election integrity. https://t.co/ay40rHfgF4
The postal service had already been working on protocols to implement the order, even in the face of ridicule from those states heavily invested in the mechanism.
They are set up to go, and I cannot imagine what the implications might be for a race like the California governor's race, should this order be upheld going forward. If you think about the miraculous numbers of mail-in ballots that surfaced for days after Spencer Pratt looked like he had a spot in the LA mayor's race locked in, what will this do to the November ballot counts between Becerra and Steve Hilton?
...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 Cynthia 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.
The usual suspects are 'exploring their options,' so you know this is a very, very good thing that has to have them quaking in their boots.
So you're in favor of mass ballot fraud. Got it!
— John The Main Guy (@JohnTheMainGuy1) August 24, 2026TRUMP'S NOT THE BOSS OF ME!
Not so fast. Today’s SCOTUS decision does NOT deal with the substance of Trump’s unconstitutional Executive Order and does not mean his illegal attempt to restrict mail-in voting will go forward.
Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania — or in any state.… https://t.co/a2ERcRxOdp
...Donald Trump does not run elections here in Pennsylvania — or in any state.
We’ll see the Trump Administration in court. In the meantime, I'll keep defending Pennsylvanians' right to free, fair, and secure elections.
Trying to figure out exactly who's being harmed and why legal options need to be explored for a safer, more secure election has some people scratching their heads.
It is a conundrum🤷🏼♀️ #sarc
No ID requirements that Dems claim will stop married women and minorities from voting. A count of how many are issued and the max expected to return. (Attempted explanations on the harm caused by that part will be entertaining 😜)
But the legal minds I usually follow pretty intently are tickled to death at both the 6 ayes and the language, but also carefully parsing the language itself.
The circumstances have changed since the original lawsuit went forward. The 'harms,' once subjective and hypothetical, can now be quantified, and that may change the dynamic going forward as this is revisited.
Tempering my initial thought -- the Court, with the cooperation of the liberals, "rushed" this decision out for a prudential reason.
It's finding of a lack of standing on the part of the States is tied to when the complaints were filed and the status of the record then -- no… https://t.co/IR5UpLvadg
...It's finding of a lack of standing on the part of the States is tied to when the complaints were filed and the status of the record then -- no "Proposed Regulation" and no "Final Regulation." All the supposed harms were hypothetical.
But there are now both Proposed and Final Regulations and the Plaintiffs are now going to be able to point to the provision and say "We will be harmed in the following way if this goes into effect."
That is not the kind of hypothetical they had to make back in April when the complaints were filed.
The Court is signaling to all involved that the facts now are different than the facts in April and the outcome on the question of standing might be different now.
I do not think it is a coincidence that the Trump Admin. announced it had a Final Rule back on Friday and the Court issuing this decision today.
There are only about 75 days left before the election. Whether Judge Talwani or some other Judge now tries to tie up the Final Order to prevent it from being implemented is something we'll see later this week and next.
A certain dissenter did not disappoint...
She writes for the glorification of her ego. https://t.co/h4AeVZtMze
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) August 24, 2026It's a win.
As always, more to come as this all shakes out.
Editor's Note: Unelected federal judges are obstructing President Trump's agenda and ignoring the will of the people.
Help us expose out-of-control judges determined to halt President Trump's mandate for change. Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
.png)
.jpg)
English (US) · 
French (CA) ·