Should USPS start to implement the EO, it is hard to imagine that it wouldn't be immediately blocked by the courts. I think that the bigger threat is that Trump federalizes the National Guard under some emergency pretense to intimidate voters as they go to vote. I can imagine CBP and ICE out in force in minority districts scaring citizens from going to the polling places or creating blockages that limit their access. I find that a much more credible threat than a cockamamie plan to restrict mail-in ballots.
“…leading to occasional efforts from each side to nationalize elections…”
Is this a case of “both-siderism” so as to not upset one side (R’s), or have the dems really tried some of these same shenanigans? If so, I’d love a history lesson.
"Although we acknowledge that the President's directives are illegal, the court is obligated to wait until the illegal acts they calls for are actually committed before it can rule on them." That's their best argument? You've got to be kidding?
Agree. I would like a constituional lawyer to explain why a directive requiring an action that is blatantly unconstitutional is not prima facie unconstitutional itself. Doesn’t make any sense to my non-legal mind. But guess that’s the Alice in Wonderland of our country today.
Yes, that is exactly how our system is supposed to work. It is often phrased that Congress is forward-looking, making laws that affect how government will operate; the Executive is present-focused, implementing the laws as they stand today; and the Courts are backward-facing, adjudicating what has happened.
I happen to agree with Nichols, and suspect that SCOTUS will too, that unless and until there is actual harm, there is no standing to sue. Trump may have issued his EO, but until it is implemented, it is only theoretical. That doesn't mean that we wait until USPS actually starts mailing or failing to mail ballots; once they issue preliminary rules and regs, standing becomes actual and lawsuits can begin.
Pre-enforcement challenges resulting in injunctions that prevent implementation are frequently granted, even at the SC level. I think the clarity and specificity of the directive might have some impact. It might be more difficult to enjoin a very vague directive, so that opens up some room for nuances in how the court might proceed.
I don't know why the EO on its face is unconstitutional, since it grants the USPS, an odd, quasi-public corporation formed by the US government, powers not enumerated in the Constitution.
Should USPS start to implement the EO, it is hard to imagine that it wouldn't be immediately blocked by the courts. I think that the bigger threat is that Trump federalizes the National Guard under some emergency pretense to intimidate voters as they go to vote. I can imagine CBP and ICE out in force in minority districts scaring citizens from going to the polling places or creating blockages that limit their access. I find that a much more credible threat than a cockamamie plan to restrict mail-in ballots.
“…leading to occasional efforts from each side to nationalize elections…”
Is this a case of “both-siderism” so as to not upset one side (R’s), or have the dems really tried some of these same shenanigans? If so, I’d love a history lesson.
"Although we acknowledge that the President's directives are illegal, the court is obligated to wait until the illegal acts they calls for are actually committed before it can rule on them." That's their best argument? You've got to be kidding?
Agree. I would like a constituional lawyer to explain why a directive requiring an action that is blatantly unconstitutional is not prima facie unconstitutional itself. Doesn’t make any sense to my non-legal mind. But guess that’s the Alice in Wonderland of our country today.
Yes, that is exactly how our system is supposed to work. It is often phrased that Congress is forward-looking, making laws that affect how government will operate; the Executive is present-focused, implementing the laws as they stand today; and the Courts are backward-facing, adjudicating what has happened.
I happen to agree with Nichols, and suspect that SCOTUS will too, that unless and until there is actual harm, there is no standing to sue. Trump may have issued his EO, but until it is implemented, it is only theoretical. That doesn't mean that we wait until USPS actually starts mailing or failing to mail ballots; once they issue preliminary rules and regs, standing becomes actual and lawsuits can begin.
Pre-enforcement challenges resulting in injunctions that prevent implementation are frequently granted, even at the SC level. I think the clarity and specificity of the directive might have some impact. It might be more difficult to enjoin a very vague directive, so that opens up some room for nuances in how the court might proceed.
Wait, what’s a “federal voter registration form?”
All the voter registration forms I’ve filled out have been made by my local county clerk’s office.
Weird question, has there even been a US president who the Supreme Court never ruled against? William Howard Taft and William Henry Harrison perhaps?
After reading Margaret Talbot's New Yorker piece on John Roberts and the Supreme Court, I have less faith in them to stop something this cosmically unconstitutional. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2026/08/17/john-roberts-profile?_sp=7f32c5cc-cdeb-4703-954e-f610f73002ac.1787067539571
I don't know why the EO on its face is unconstitutional, since it grants the USPS, an odd, quasi-public corporation formed by the US government, powers not enumerated in the Constitution.