Read on Twitter
This is simply not true. What they ruled was that a fed'l judge cannot just unilaterally rewrite the state's election laws by fiat to allow voters to cast ballots AFTER the election ends, and also to censor news reports abt the election results. https://twitter.com/Leahgreenb/status/1247517553628450816
Many states have laws in place governing how elections are to be handled in emergencies. Wisconsin didn't. So it must follow its existing laws. Democracy is ensured by regular, legal elections, as opposed to rule by decree or arbitrary, sudden rule changes & censorship.
If you think it's wrong that WI voters must cast ballots in person, the blame rests squarely w the WI legisl'r for failing to make preparations. Blaming the Supreme Ct for preserving the Const'n agst last-minute rule-by-decree stopgaps is absurd.
Characterizing the Supreme Court's decision as "deciding voter safety doesn't matter" or whatever is EVERY BIT as demagogic as any misrepresentation Donald Trump has ever engaged in. You do your own cause disservice by lying.
There is a reason the Court issues written decisions. It's so that you, citizens, can read them. Here it is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19a1016_o759.pdf It's 4 pgs long. You can read it & not rely on the spin doctors' & liars' mischaracterizations of it.
"The Ct’s decision on the narrow Q before the
Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the
broader Q of whether to hold the election, or whether
other reforms or modifications in election procedures in
light of COVID–19 are appropriate.
Court should not be viewed as expressing an opinion on the
broader Q of whether to hold the election, or whether
other reforms or modifications in election procedures in
light of COVID–19 are appropriate.
That point cannot be stressed enough." Yep. Because it's being ignored by partisans misrepresenting what the Court said.
