Justice Samuel Alito decided he had some things to get off his chest this week, and boy did he let it rip. After Justices Amy Coney Barrett and John Roberts joined the three liberal justices to uphold Mississippi's law allowing mail-in ballots to be received up to five days after Election Day (as long as they are postmarked before), Alito penned a dissent so scorching you could probably feel the heat from the parking lot. As USA Journal reported, the case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, has turned into a full blown family feud among the court's supposed conservative wing.
Alito argued that the concept of Election Day being, you know, a single day has been the standard since the founding of the nation up until roughly five minutes ago in historical terms. "From this Nation's founding until the last few decades of the 20th century, a period that spans the enactment of all three election-day statutes, having an 'election' on a particular day meant completing ballot collection on that day," he wrote. Seems pretty straightforward, but apparently not straightforward enough for two of his colleagues.
He did not stop there. Alito warned that the majority opinion "spawns a slurry of troubling election-law questions and risks further undermining Americans' confidence in election integrity." He also pointed out that prohibiting late arriving ballots would provide "an additional hurdle for bad actors seeking to stuff ballot boxes when early election results suggest a tight race. The majority incorrectly removes this safeguard from federal law."
Then came the grand finale: "Today's decision is inconsistent with the terms of the election-day statutes, contemporary election-law principles, two centuries of historical practice, and the case law on the question presented. It opens up and fails to resolve a host of questions for state election officials and courts. And it creates a serious risk of further undermining public confidence in our elections and our system of self-government. I therefore respectfully dissent."
"Respectfully" is doing a lot of heavy lifting in that sentence.
Barrett wrote the majority opinion essentially saying that ballots postmarked before Election Day but received after it are perfectly fine. Roberts, ever the reliable wildcard among Republican appointees, joined her. For those keeping score at home, Donald Trump spent an enormous amount of political capital getting both Kavanaugh and Barrett confirmed. Kavanaugh's confirmation hearings were a national spectacle involving fabricated allegations from multiple accusers who faced no consequences. Barrett's confirmation was rammed through under intense opposition.
All that effort, all that drama, and now Barrett is siding with the liberal bloc on one of the most fundamental questions in election law. Roberts, of course, has been doing this routine for years, so nobody is exactly shocked there. But Barrett joining in has to sting for the folks who went to bat for her.
Alito, meanwhile, continues to be the one guy on the court who reads the Constitution and says exactly what it says without adding creative interpretations. At 76, the man is not slowing down, and based on this dissent, he is not interested in making friends either.
Read more conservative news commentary at: USA Journal News
