Chief Justice Roberts Sides With Liberal Justices Splitting Vote 4-4 In Key 2020 Election Decision

K. WalkerOctober 20, 2020

25 2 minutes read

FILE - This Jan. 21, 2013, file photo shows U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, followed by Justice Antonin Scalia, arriving at the West Front of the U.S. Capitol in Washington, where Roberts will administer the oath of office to President Barack Obama. A Supreme Court term that is starting Monday, Oct. 6, 2014, with a lack of headline-grabbing cases may end with a blockbuster that helps define the legacy of the court under Chief Justice Roberts. That's because the justices appear likely to take on the issue of same-sex marriage and decide once and for all whether gay and lesbian couples have a constitutional right to marry. (AP Photo/Win McNamee, Pool File)

Can we all just admit that Chief Justice John Roberts who consistently sides with the libs actually is one or nah?

The Supreme Court voted 4-4 with no explanation on an appeal by Pennsylvania Republicans pushing back against a Pennsylvania Democrat bid to extend the voting deadline in the state until November 6.

The split decision means that the ruling of the lower court stands.

An evenly divided U.S. Supreme Court allowed a three-day extension for the receipt of mail-in ballots in Pennsylvania, giving Democrats a boost in a state that could determine the presidential election.

The justices, voting 4-4 and giving no explanation, rejected a Republican bid to reinstate the state’s requirement that ballots arrive by 8 p.m. on Election Day, Nov. 3. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court extended the deadline until Nov. 6, even if the ballots lacked a legible postmark showing they were mailed by Election Day…

…Pennsylvania is allowing no-excuse mail-in voting for the first time in 2020. A measure passed last year by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed by the Democratic governor said those ballots had to be received by 8:00 p.m. on Election Day.

Pennsylvania Democrats had argued at the state Supreme Court that due to an increase in the number of mail-in ballots requested by voters the pandemic and the U.S. Postal Service warning that there would be delays in mail delivery, the no-excuse law that was signed into law just last year should be ignored.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court allowed an extension in a 4-3 decision.

The Pennsylvania GOP appealed arguing that the state court ruling didn’t just defy the 2019 Pennsylvania no-excuse mail-in voting law, but it also violated federal laws that establish a single nationwide election day.

The Pennsylvania Republican Party argued to the U.S. Supreme Court that the state court ruling “has created a strong likelihood that ballots cast or mailed after the scheduled election day will count in the upcoming general election.”

The breakdown underscores the impact Amy Coney Barrett could have if, as expected, she secures Senate confirmation next week to fill a vacancy on the court. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the court’s three Democratic appointees in voting to allow the extension.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh would have granted the Republican request and reinstated the Nov. 3 deadline. The court deliberated for almost two weeks over the case.
Source: Bloomberg Politics

With no explanation, we have no idea why Chief Justice Roberts decided to side with the libs… again.

From Obamacare to DACA, access to abortion to the Second Amendment, and giving the nod to Nevada permitting Caesar’s Palace to function at half-capacity during a pandemic while limiting church attendance to 50 people, and now extending the election deadline past the law on the books, Chief Justice Roberts has indeed been a disappointment to conservatives. Vice President Mike Pence said that recently in an interview with CBN News.

Most conservatives, unlike many liberals, understand that an Originalist/Textualist SCOTUS picks will disappoint them. That’s happened with both of Trump’s picks, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and probably will with Amy Coney Barrett once she dons the robes. Heck, even Originalists don’t always agree — Thomas and Scalia disagreed sometimes. But the issue here is with the startling regularity that Chief Justice Roberts opposes his alleged ideological peers on the Court to side with Liberal activist Justices that are willing to legislate from the bench with zero accountability.

What do you think?