Supreme Court 'beclowned itself' by entertaining MAGA rage-bait in new case: expert
A legal expert ripped the Supreme Court for "beclowning itself" after some of the justices entertained MAGA rage-bait during a recent oral argument session.
Steve Vladek, a law professor at Georgetown University, said during the most recent episode of "The Court of History" podcast on the Legal AF Network that some of the court's justices seemed to be more focused on policy issues than interpreting the statutory question at hand in a case called Watson v. R.N.C. The case is about whether federal election law permits mail-in ballots from being counted after election day, and the Supreme Court's decision could have a major impact on the upcoming midterm elections.
"I think this case is remarkably stupid," Vladek said about the Watson case. "The Supreme Court largely beclowned itself during the oral argument because the case is ostensibly about interpreting a statute, and the whole oral argument was dominated by policy concerns and hypotheticals that the justices apparently were getting from white right-wing media about all kinds of fraud that hasn't ever been documented."
The Watson case is being argued at a tumultuous time for American election law.
A recent Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Callais effectively allowed states to gerrymander their election maps for partisan purposes, even if it creates a racially discriminatory outcome. That ruling gutted protections under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Vladek noted that American elections have counted mail-in ballots, also known as absentee ballots, after election day since at least the 1840s. Military members stationed overseas frequently vote by mail, as do some senior citizens and people with disabilities.
Vladek also said that the argument the plaintiffs put forward could backfire on Republicans who hope lower voter turnout will work in their favor.
"The most revealing evidence of how stupid this case is, is that the obvious implications of the argument are that not just later arriving mail-in ballots are unlawful, but early voting is unlawful," Vladek said. "If the argument is that Congress makes election day, and you can only vote on election day, that seems like a problem for early voting, too."
While that argument seemed unreasonable, Vladek also noted that four justices appeared to agree with the reasoning.
"Once you've got four, I worry about five or six," Vladek said.