What Does The SCOTUS Pennsylvania Ruling Mean?

This could be very interesting. Shipwreckedcrew offers a very concise account of what this outrageous ruling could mean, followed by a much lengthier analysis:

Supreme Court Declines To Intervene In Case Challenging Changes To Pennsylvania Election Law Rules — For Now

The interesting part is the "for now," which we'll get to.

What this case is about is pretty simple. The Dem governor of PA asked the legislature to change the election laws. The legislature, controlled by the GOP, declined to do so. So the PA Supreme Court--controlled by Dem judges--stepped in and changed the PA election laws by judicial fiat.

Here's the short version by SWC of what this means:

Late Monday night the Supreme Court issued an Order denying an application for an Emergency Stay to prevent changes to Pennsylvania election law made by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

The Order stated that Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh would have granted the Emergency Stay.  But four Justices opposed the Stay and with a 4-4 outcome, the rules of the Supreme Court are that the requested relief is denied.

The implications of that outcome are two-fold:

First, it means that Chief Justice Roberts joined with the three Court liberals, Justices Breyer, Kagen, and Sotomayor, in voting to allow the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changes to Pennsylvania election laws to remain in place for the upcoming election.  This is a concerning development that he might fall in with the liberals on the various election law challenges that are percolating up in the Circuit Courts of Appeal.

Second, it guarantees that Judge Amy Coney Barrett will be confirmed next week.

Why does this guarantee Judge Amy's confirmation? This is why:

What might this portend for the U.S. Supreme Court?

To start with, this application for Emergency Stay can be refiled — and I expect it will be refiled when Judge Barrett is confirmed. That will generate two interesting questions.

First, will Judge Barrett — at that point Justice Barrett — recuse herself from election-related matters as some liberal commentators have claimed she must do?

Second, if she does not, will any of the four Justices who said today they would have granted the Stay change their vote if the application is refiled?

That is a tricky question from the standpoint of collegiality and tradition.

If you're interested in collegiality and tradition on the SCOTUS, and how that might lead to We The People getting screwed, SWC has lots to tell you. Also, regarding the argument that a Justice Amy should recuse. The argument that she should is based on a 2009 5-4 decision by Anthony Kennedy and four liberals. It's an idiotic decision. I would hope that the four conservative justices, joined by Justice Amy, would put their foot down on Roberts' shenanigans and tell him where to shove his manipulative concept of collegiality. Collegiality is not compatible with that type of behavior.

So, that's where things stand.

I like Don Surber's take on Roberts. He says he used to think Obama had something on Roberts. But now, he says, he knows that Roberts is simply a jerk.