Supreme Court going soft prior to the actual election challenges

So you'll let your guard down.

The Supreme Court left the status quo intact in a pair of swing-state election cases on Wednesday, turning aside Republicans who aimed to block a ballot-receipt extension in North Carolina and declining to expedite a Republican challenge to the Pennsylvania deadline, while leaving the option of weighing in on that case after Election Day.

[...]

No justice publicly dissented from the high court’s decision not to take up the Pennsylvania dispute in advance of next Tuesday’s election.

In a statement accompanying the denial in Pennsylvania, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that while “it would be highly desirable to issue a ruling” before the election, he “reluctantly conclude[s] that there is simply not enough time at this late date.”

[...]

Alito noted in the Pennsylvania case that the secretary of the commonwealth issued guidance to local election officials earlier on Wednesday to segregate ballots received after the close of polls but before the Nov. 6 deadline, cracking the door for a potential post-election decision.

[...]

Alito’s statement suggested that he believes those ballots could still be tossed, even if a ruling comes after Election Day.

[...]

In North Carolina, the court declined to block an extension of the state's ballot return deadline. Normally, ballots postmarked by Election Day there can be counted if they are received within three days of the election, but a pandemic-related change pushed that to nine days. Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito all said they would have blocked the extension in North Carolina, and no other justice publicly noted their dissent.

[...]

The court’s punt comes as Trump makes a fresh push to pressure officials to cut ballot counting short by calling for definitive results on Nov. 3, despite months-long warnings from public officials that his demands just aren’t operable in critical swing states.

[...]

Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who joined the court on Tuesday, did not take part in the deliberations in this round of the litigation, which involves the proper role of state courts in changes to procedures in a federal election.

A statement from the court’s public information office Wednesday said Barrett did not participate “because of the need for a prompt resolution of it and because she has not had time to fully review the parties’ filings,” not because she formally recused herself.

[...]

During her confirmation hearings earlier this month, Democrats pressed Barrett to agree to recuse herself from any election litigation that would come before the court this year, but she demurred.

[...]

That means Barrett, who was nominated by President Donald Trump and confirmed earlier this week, could still rule in the Pennsylvania case and other election-related legal fights.

  Politico

I just wonder if Barrett is going to realize how unqualified she is when she starts hearing from Kagan and Sotomayor, or if she's another Trump-Kavanaugh-inflated ego with no self-awareness.

...but hey, do what you want...you will anyway.