This is a black eye on Ohio GOPers.

we can just write them off as a GOP campaign office.

The corporate cats will control us, we will lose what we have fought for over the last 250 years...we lose our democracy so what is left..nothing.

into simple terms -- how strong is the Administrations argument against the Ohio GOP?

the author concludes:

"The Obama campaign’s case was originally based on the disparate treatment of classes of voters. Now it has morphed into a kind of general constitutional right not to dismantle a (relatively) well-run election system. As much as I wish our Constitution provided such a guarantee, I’m skeptical that a majority of the Supreme Court will find one lurking there now."

I don't understand how they can constrict voting when the evidence is there of those outrageously long lines from earlier elections.

Considering the arguments the majority at SCOTUS made against counting the votes in Florida, and their handing the Gore Victory over to Bush.

Even if you are putting in CAPS. In fact the Obama campaign is using Bush v Gore as precedent in their brief to the Supreme Court on this case. http://electionlawblog.org/?p=41599

it can possibly counter a Romney steal of Ohio. Maybe Colorado might be winnable too.

"many legal scholars insisted at the time that this assertion was itself dictum -- the part of a legal opinion that is non binding -- and illegitimate, because under the doctrine of stare decisis, courts cannot make rulings whose reasoning applies only to a single case."

Interesting to note that, and then to see how this all plays out.

Thee Extreme Court ruled one county could not act differently than any other so they stopped the vote counting even though florida State Law said it was to be done that way.. Now the argument is to let each county decide what they want to do and how they will allow voting and counting of the vote.. The stickler is that the Bush* v gore decision is the ONLY Supreme Court Decision that is not to establish precedent so they have plenty of wiggle room..

Whether the SC pays any attention to it is another matter but you will find it is being cited as precedent.

How they could deny everyone the opportunity to vote those last few days while some are permitted that right would be incomprehensible. The contortions needed to justify the unjustifiable would be monumental.

Dare we suspect their motives?

...since 2001 and with effing Thomas and Scalia there, they are perpetually up to no good, IMO. Especially NOW. They're nothing but bouncers for the GOP/corporations.

Justice Kagan (as the designated Justice for the relevant circuit court of appeals) was presented with a request that the Supreme Court stay of the appeals court's decision while they consider whether or not to "take" the state of Ohio's appeal of that decision. Justice Kagan had three options. Grant the stay. Deny the stay. Or refer the request to the entire court. She didn't grant the stay which is good. She didn't deny the stay, which isn't necessarily bad since, under SCOTUS procedure, when the designated Justice for a circuit denies a stay request, the applicant for a stay can renew that request before any of the other Justices. In other words, if Kagan had denied the stay request, the state of Ohio could have gone to Scalia or Thomas to ask for a stay. By referring it to the entire court, Kagan forces all of the Justices to consider the issue and decide whether to grant the request. While not unheard of, the court as an institutional matter isn't fond of 5-4 stay decisions, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the decision will be to deny the stay. At that point, there are several options for the court. It could, as the state has requesteed, treat the application for stay as a petition for certiorari and deny the petition, thereby putting an end to the case. It could treat the stay request as a petition for certorari, grant the petition, and summarily reverse the court of appeals, an approach that seems highly highly unlikely. Or it could treat the stay petition as a petition for certiorari and order briefing and arguments on the merits, either on a highly expedited basis or on a regular schedule. My fear is that if the petition is treated as a cert petition and the petition is granted (which only takes four justices), it is likely that a fifth would support a stay while the case is heard on an expedited basis.

So, there you have it...all sorts of options, but nothing has been decided by the court, including whether to "take" the case.

they won't take the case and won't get involved again in any presidential election

Thank God though Kagen passed it to the full group. It is a very smart move.
She would have endangered the legitimacy of Obama's second term had she herself declined.

Thank God for Elena. Smart wins all the time.

Sounds good!

IF the court chooses to act. And knowing them and their obvious motives in recent years...

so theoretically it could go the other way, but they wouldn't do it again

besides-if Rob Portman was talking about Mitt doing it without Ohio, it means their internal numbers show it is out of reach. Without saying it, Rob was conceding the state he is in.

so the point is moot anyhow.(and the justices will know that same thing too).

So smart move yes but for different reasons...

Not because it's right, but the idea of a national election being controlled 50 different ways is pretty appealing to them.

... with those who usually side with "states' rights" voting against the principle and vice versa.

One of the biggest myths in all of American jurisprudence is that the Supreme Court is immune to politics/special interests. It's one of the worst branches in that regard, particularly because it can hide its motives behind a veil of pomp and faux impartiality.

Can you say 1933, anyone?

the base out in droves despite their decision. But I hope they will uphold the lower court.

IN a sense, it will be a moot point. The churches that traditionally do souls to the polls the Sunday before election day in Ohio say about half of their congregations have already voted.

Early turnout in Ohio is measured in terms of % of the vote by (in our case ) Democratic leaning counties.

These numbers are looking good.

Democrats appear to be benefiting from bigger early turnout in heavily Democratic Franklin County (home to Columbus), where more than 62,000 people have cast early votes (about 11 percent of the county’s total 2008 turnout). While the county comprised less than 10 percent of the state’s overall turnout in 2008, it’s so far been 23 percent of the early vote in 2012.

Another Democratic area — Cincinnati-based Hamilton County — is making up about 11 percent of the early vote, even though it was only 7 percent of the overall turnout four years ago.

This data should not be oversold, though. These are more urban areas, which tend to have higher early voting turnout. And other counties paint a different picture.

In the state’s third big population center (and Democratic stronghold), Cleveland-based Cuyahoga County, early voting turnout is so far below the state average. And in one of the GOP’s biggest vote-grossing counties — Warren County — turnout is strong.*

otherwise, those votes will be thrown out.

See, Bush actually won under the "equal protection" laws. They ruled that Bush believed himself to be the winner, and was declared the winner, so it was unfair to take it away from him. The equal protection would work for the people that already cast their ballot.

Frankly, after the shit decision on the Citizens United giveaway of our Democracy, I won't be surprised by any POS legislation from the right wingers on the SC. ALl the more reason to keep Romney out of the White House...

S

He sided with Obama on the ACA. I suspect if it came to a SC vote, he might do something else surprising.

I think it was from an interview with Jeffrey Toobin but I'm not sure. The speaker/interviewee said that Roberts voted the way he did because he was so upset by the politicalization of the court and the image it had after Bush v. Gore and the Citizens United case.

Made sense to me. I don't think he'll let the Supreme Court have a record of stopping voting or interfering with the right to vote AGAIN.

. . . signals any kind of moderate shift by Roberts.

I think in this case the idea that you would allow different early voting periods based on no objective criteria that are intended to accomplish a legitimate governmental interest, would be deemed unconstitutional. Voting rights have been traditionally viewed as "fundamental" which triggers a higher degree of scrutiny.

That said, how this S.C. will rule on this is anyone's guess.

and not partisian

therefore his saying its not the Supreme courts duty will let the other ruling stand.
(which isn't being partisian and not backing the liberals either.

I think Roberts knows that he will be working with a democratic president the next 12 years
and that shortly he will be in the minority anyhow

... just like it was in Florida 2000.

Do they dare intervene again? If they do, the shit will hit the fan.

They were given their jobs with the implicit understanding that they'd deliver certain things when called upon.

Good lord I hope they think long and hard before interfering again.

And I highly suspect that you don't either.

What has no credibility is anybody who claims that they KNOW what SCOTUS will do before the fact.

We saw this in spades as DU was waiting for the SCOTUS ruling on the ACA. There were many DU worry warts saying that they KNEW that ACA was going to be turned down.

Guess what. They were wrong.

I have no idea how SCOTUS will rule on this any more than I did on ACA, and neither does anybody else here. SCOTUS is notorious for not leaking their intentions.

Let it rest. Sit back. Relax. Have a nice glass of wine. SCOTUS will rule when they will. It is no use setting our hair on fire on a case which hasn't even been decided.

Chill, my friends.

Taking away voting from people? Bullshit.

enough to get you into the streets and protest?

The ruling stands as it is.!

Whew!