216
Supreme Court rules states can count late-arriving mailed ballots, rejecting Trump-led challenge.
(www.bostonglobe.com)
They will rig the tabulation servers
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2026
216 points (99.1% liked)
politics
30211 readers
2975 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
The bigger deal is the other ruling, allowing Trump to fire the heads of [formerly] independent Federal agencies and replace them with corrupt cronies and sycophants.
At this point we should just reinstate them in independent organizations they are specialized in what they were put for before until the country is back with the people again.
Also, the right needs a massive overhaul over decade/decades with their own candidates that won't throw them, and all of us under the bus. But that's asking way too much
Fortunately the non-Republican who replaces him in a couple years can reverse whatever Trump does.
Since i didn't see this here: it's a 5-4 decision, a full decision and not a stay of a lower ruling or anything temporary if i read the article right. I haven't been following this one as closely as I should, I've been busy. Weird since this one affects me more than a lot of the other decisions. Supreme court decision month starts a couple days early this year?
Anyways, does anyone have a link to the actual decision so i can read how well- or poorly- written it is? I do not remember the name of the case.
Thanks! Watson v. RNC, 2026 [i haven't formally cited a case in so long i forget the rest but it's something about the page in the annual decision journal it's going to be published in so we shouldn't have that for a few months]
They already could.
But I guess now they still can... until one judge changes their mind.
Yes hence the word "ruled"
I have no idea what point they were even trying to make except unfocused contrarianism.
Could be at the "If I help Trump now, I may be prosecuted later" phase. It becomes harder for Trump's bribes to work, and people are more likely to record evidence against him. Higher risk phase for the fascist regime.
Complicity will tend to correlate with the belief Trump can be successful in getting a third term. Believer will stand by him, doubters will refuse.
Gotta show that you're not afraid to turn against the regime from time to time to keep the asking price high.