[EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

Mon Oct 19 17:34:46 PDT 2020

No, and I find the comment offensive.

Prof. Mark S. Scarberry
Pepperdine University
Rick J. Caruso School of Law
________________________________
From: Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:26:22 PM
To: Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>; Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

Is this fan fiction?

From: Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> on behalf of Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
Date: Monday, October 19, 2020 at 5:26 PM
To: Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
Subject: Re: [EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

And then she cites Purcell to preserve the Court, limit damage to the country,and avoid setting a precedent.

Mark

Prof. Mark S. Scarberry

Pepperdine University

Rick J. Caruso School of Law

________________________________

From: Marty Lederman <Martin.Lederman at law.georgetown.edu>
Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 5:16:33 PM
To: Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>
Cc: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>; Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com>
Subject: Re: [EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

Once she gets there it won’t be about a stay: it’ll be about the merits, and thus, very possibly, whether (tens/hundreds of?) thousands of ballots should be thrown out.

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 8:13 PM Mark Scarberry <mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>> wrote:

Actually, I would bet a substantial sum that she would refuse to break the tie in favor of granting a stay. Institutional concerns would lead her that way, and the procedural posture permits a stay to be denied without setting any precedent. Even instrumentally, a vote against the grant of the stay would make it likely that the Democrats would not pack the Court, which would preserve a 6-3 majority on other matters.

Her ideal move would be to write the opinion denying the stay.

Mark

Error! Filename not specified.

Caruso School of Law

Mark S. Scarberry

Professor of Law
mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>

Personal: mark.scarberry at gmail.com<mailto:mark.scarberry at gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:57 PM Fredric Woocher <fwoocher at strumwooch.com<mailto:fwoocher at strumwooch.com>> wrote:

Seriously, Mark, you believe there is some doubt about how a Justice Barrett would rule on this case?

FDW

From: Law-election [mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu>]

On Behalf Of Mark Scarberry

Sent: Monday, October 19, 2020 4:49 PM

To: Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu<mailto:law-election at uci.edu>>

Subject: Re: [EL] U.S. Supreme Court denies a stay of Pa. Supreme Court's extension on vote by mail ballots

Thanks, Pam.

If/when Judge Barrett joins the Court, will this be revisited? Which way would she go? (That's a serious question; whatever her views on the merits, she would, I think, consider the institutional interests of the Court and the broader concerns

for the nation. A stay need not be granted even if there is a likelihood that the GOP ultimately would prevail. Among other matters, the public interest is a factor.) Or would she recuse herself? If she tips it 5-4 against the extension, and if Democrats take

power, court-packing almost certainly would result.

Mark

Error! Filename not specified.

Caruso School of Law

Mark S. Scarberry

Professor of Law

mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu<mailto:mark.scarberry at pepperdine.edu>

Personal:

mark.scarberry at gmail.com<mailto:mark.scarberry at gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 4:36 PM Pamela S Karlan <pkarlan at stanford.edu<mailto:pkarlan at stanford.edu>> wrote:

4-4.  No opinions.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101920zr1_ebfi.pdf

Pamela S. Karlan

Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law

Co-Director, Supreme Court Litigation Clinic

Stanford Law School

karlan at stanford.edu<mailto:karlan at stanford.edu>

650-725-4851

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

Disclaimer

The information contained in this communication from the sender is confidential. It is intended solely for use by the recipient and others authorized to receive it. If you are not the recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or taking action in relation of the contents of this information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful.

This email has been scanned for viruses and malware, and may have been automatically archived by Mimecast, a leader in email security and cyber resilience. Mimecast integrates email defenses with brand protection, security awareness training, web security, compliance and other essential capabilities. Mimecast helps protect large and small organizations from malicious activity, human error and technology failure; and to lead the movement toward building a more resilient world. To find out more, visit our website.

_______________________________________________

Law-election mailing list

Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu<mailto:Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu>

https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

--

Marty Lederman

Georgetown University Law Center

600 New Jersey Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20001

202-662-9937

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20201020/5faf4e03/attachment.html>