The Culture War - Tim Pool - June 29, 2026


SCOTUS Rules AGAINST America, PROTECTS Voter Fraud

Hosted by
Tim Pool Phil Labonte Hannah Claire Brimelow
Mentioned
Amy Coney Barrett Donald Trump Alito George W. Bush Roberts Obama Gore Alexander Hamilton Thomas Alito Gorsuch Sam Harris Meet Maple Elon Musk Webster
DOUBLET Earthquake Caused By SOLAR STORM？？! The END Is Nigh SCOTUS Upholds Birthright Citizenship For Criminals & Illegal Aliens

Episode Stats


Length

41 minutes

Words per minute

164.43

Word count

6,811

Sentence count

503

Harmful content

Misogyny

4

sentences flagged

Toxicity

10

sentences flagged

Hate speech

2

sentences flagged


Summary

Summaries generated with gmurro/bart-large-finetuned-filtered-spotify-podcast-summ .

Today, the Supreme Court ruled that votes can be counted after Election Day, defying the Cambridge definition of the word "election" and flying in the face of the law set forth by Congress. This is a devastating defeat for the Republicans and, dare I say, for this country.

Transcript

Transcript generated with Whisper (turbo).
Misogyny classifications generated with MilaNLProc/bert-base-uncased-ear-misogyny .
Toxicity classifications generated with s-nlp/roberta_toxicity_classifier .
Hate speech classifications generated with facebook/roberta-hate-speech-dynabench-r4-target .
Hosts, guests, and mentioned names generated with spaCy (en_core_web_sm), reconciled against Wikidata.
00:00:00 This message comes from Viking, committed to exploring the world in comfort.
00:00:06 Journey through the heart of Europe on an elegant Viking longship
00:00:09 with thoughtful service, destination-focused dining,
00:00:13 and cultural enrichment on board and on shore.
00:00:17 And every Viking voyage is all-inclusive with no children and no casinos.
00:00:23 Discover more at Viking.com.
00:00:26 Everything is on demand these days.
00:00:28 Whether it's your favourite show or dinner, why should healthcare feel any different?
00:00:32 Meet Maple, Canada's leading on-demand healthcare platform.
00:00:36 Download the app, sign up, and connect with a Canadian-licensed doctor or nurse practitioner to text, call, or video chat in minutes.
00:00:43 For same-day care, a prescription renewal, or help managing an ongoing condition, Maple's network of providers are ready to help anytime.
00:00:49 Health, yeah. Maple. On-demand healthcare, when you demand it.
00:00:54 Today, the Supreme Court issued a devastating defeat for the Republicans and, dare I say, for this country by ruling that votes can be counted after Election Day, which defies the definition of day.
00:01:10 It actually defies the Cambridge definition of the word election, and it flies in the face of the law set forth by Congress, specifically because of issues that were affecting this country pre-Civil War, which some believe may actually have contributed to the Civil War.
00:01:27 That is, if we don't trust the elections that are happening in this country, why would we trust the government itself?
00:01:34 Barrett issued the majority opinion five to four.
00:01:39 And dare I say again, it's seemingly nonsensical.
00:01:43 She makes almost no argument whatsoever as to why an individual can cast a ballot and
00:01:49 expect it to be counted after the day of the election has ended.
00:01:55 Indeed, Alito wrote the dissent with great argument as to how this makes no sense at
00:02:02 all.
00:02:03 Now, this is devastating specifically because both Barrett and Alito make reference to fears
00:02:08 of voter fraud. Barrett's argument is, oh, well, I guess that's right. When ballots are being
00:02:16 counted after the election has concluded, this will create the perception of voter fraud. But
00:02:22 too bad for you, I suppose. They argue that because the congressional law on election day
00:02:29 doesn't actually define what a day is. You can cast your ballot before election day.
00:02:35 It can be counted after election day. And that's just up to how the state wants to do it.
00:02:41 Now, the reality is there is a law. It defines an election day. It defines the election as a
00:02:47 single day. What does this mean? My friends, if you go back to 2018 and look at the midterms,
00:02:53 It was actually a very, very close race. Many people believed, myself included, there would
00:02:59 not be what's called a blue wave. Democrats had been arguing that because of this opposition to
00:03:05 Trump, people were going to come out in droves and vote Democrat in the midterms, flipping the
00:03:11 House and taking that power from the Republican Party. Indeed, after Election Day, there was no
00:03:18 blue wave. Now, it's a toss up as to who would have won. I believe, in fact, Republicans may
00:03:23 have actually held the House in 2018, preventing the impeachment of Donald Trump. And a lot of the
00:03:29 fake cases that we saw, like the Russia collusion stuff, would have been over. To be fair, the
00:03:34 Republicans were in power and they allowed all that to happen. So who knows? If we had a ruling
00:03:40 that votes can only be counted on the day of an election, Republicans likely would have won,
00:03:46 or at least it would have been a very thin majority for Democrats, dramatically different
00:03:51 to what we saw. I believe right now we are looking at the the catalyst. Maybe not. Maybe
00:03:59 that's a bit strong, but we are looking at not just a grain of sand, but in this instance,
00:04:04 a boulder that pushes us down the path of civil war. The Supreme Court had an opportunity to
00:04:11 unite this country, very simply to unite the Democratic Party, stop the fighting amongst
00:04:17 themselves and actually create a definitive answer as to how voting is done in this country.
00:04:23 Now, Barrett herself says in the majority opinion, you know, if people think there's
00:04:29 fraud, well, too bad. Congress should change the law, I guess. Which really doesn't make sense
00:04:35 because the law already exists. Congress already acted, which is what Alito pointed out. I've got
00:04:42 a lot to break down, but I want to show you the Supreme Court ruling and explain what this means.
00:04:46 And I just want to say right off right from the get go, a country that allows ballots to be cast
00:04:53 after an election has already ended does not have elections. Elections are defined by Cambridge as
00:04:58 a time in which votes are cast to elect or appoint an individual for the purposes of
00:05:04 representation if there is no time frame. And further, Barrett argues certification of these
00:05:11 individuals may happen at the leisure of these states. This means that at any point and for any
00:05:16 reason, the Democratic states or even red states can just have an election. Indeed, they can. I
00:05:24 guess the only argument that Barrett makes is you can't. Well, no, actually, it doesn't make sense.
00:05:30 I think Barrett's argument is effectively you can pull and remove anybody from Congress or the
00:05:36 president or anywhere, any point, because there is no election at all. Suffice it to say, my friends,
00:05:42 Barrett and the majority argue there's actually no such thing as an election at all. The logic
00:05:47 behind these arguments ends with a single conclusion. We don't have to have elections at
00:05:52 all. We can have whenever we want. And the end result is quite simple. The right and the left
00:05:57 will be further torn apart. Hyperpolarization will get worse. And I think the reality here is
00:06:02 that Barrett being effectively the one to flip, because we knew Roberts would kind of go in this
00:06:07 direction. She is effectively saying, please don't hurt me. Burn the country down. Kill everyone if
00:06:15 you please just don't hurt me, which seems to be Barrett's through line, I suppose. Now, she's had 0.99
00:06:22 some very strong conservative rulings. But over the past year or so, a couple of years,
00:06:27 she's very much been deferential. And the Supreme Court has been pretty weird. Trump's got some
00:06:34 tremendous victories. Don't get me wrong. But it seems that there is no congruent ideology.
00:06:40 Let's read the news. Before we get started, my friends, head over to TimCast.com.
00:06:43 Click join now to stand with us. We have a community of around tens or tens of thousands
00:06:50 of individuals around. What does that even mean? We have tens of thousands of people
00:06:54 in the Discord talking every day, hosting their own shows, sharing their stories,
00:06:59 working on projects. If you're looking to be involved, this is the path forward.
00:07:04 Join us. Don't just sit idly by be the change you want to see, because the only way we change
00:07:10 these things is through community. You can argue that we got to change the law, but that doesn't
00:07:15 matter. It really does not, unfortunately. As we already have a law defining election day,
00:07:22 but the individual in, I should say, individuals in the Supreme Court don't care what the law is,
00:07:30 then bad people get to do bad things. Only when we apply that pressure and say,
00:07:35 this is how we will run the system, do things really change. So stand up, support the work
00:07:40 we do. Get involved. Join us at TimCast.com and be that change. Here's a story from the Supreme
00:07:48 Court. I'm sorry, from The Washington Post. Supreme Court rules mail-in ballots arriving
00:07:52 after Election Day can be counted. A decision against such ballots could have upended election
00:07:56 procedures in states across the country ahead of the midterm elections. The Supreme Court on Monday
00:08:01 appelled a Mississippi law that allows officials to tally mail-in ballots postmarked by Election
00:08:05 Day that arrive later. A decision that keeps voting procedures in place in several states
00:08:10 as the midterm elections loom.
00:08:13 It was an ideologically mixed five to four ruling.
00:08:15 Justices turned aside a challenge by Republicans and Libertarians
00:08:18 who argued federal law preempts a Mississippi statute
00:08:22 that allows the counting of such ballots that arrive up to five days after the polls close.
00:08:26 Well, let me show you first the definition of the word election according to Cambridge.
00:08:31 It defines it as a time when people vote in order to choose someone for a political or official job.
00:08:39 Indeed, the law, according to Cornell, states the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November in every even number year is established as the day for the election in each of the states and territories of the United States of representatives and delegates to the Congress commencing on the third day.
00:09:01 It says 3D day of January next thereafter.
00:09:05 Let me type a one there.
00:09:06 That is that is the day for the election.
00:09:10 That's it.
00:09:11 A day.
00:09:12 What does it mean to have a law that says there is a day for an election?
00:09:17 If ballots can be cast before that day, counted after that day, and the individuals duly elected
00:09:25 by their argument, can be certified and approven at any random moment with no definition.
00:09:33 Now, if you ask a regular person what an election is, I don't think they're going to tell you that
00:09:38 you'd be able to cast a vote and then some procedural mechanism, a bureaucrat, can say,
00:09:44 I'll let you know when the election's concluded because the elections do not conclude on this day.
00:09:51 So what does it even mean to have an election?
00:09:54 The most shockingly, shockingly insane and egregious thing I have ever seen.
00:10:01 Suffice it to say, my friends, I did not expect this.
00:10:05 I actually argued and believed at bare minimum the Supreme Court would rule.
00:10:11 You can have your mail-in votes.
00:10:12 You can have your absentee votes.
00:10:13 Just when the day is over, the election has concluded.
00:10:18 And indeed, they went the complete other direction.
00:10:21 that ballots can be received when the election is done. That's it. The election's over. Don't
00:10:27 worry. We'll still keep taking votes after the fact, which makes no sense. I'll give you some
00:10:33 of the writing. Now, what's shocking to me in this argument written by Amy Coney Barrett,
00:10:37 there's no actual argument. I'm sorry, but there's literally no actual argument.
00:10:44 Amy Coney Barrett incorrectly states Congress did not set a deadline for receipt,
00:10:49 but they did. It says the day for the election. I would put it like this. This is rules lawyering
00:10:58 to the most extreme degree. If you go to the founding fathers and say you think the election
00:11:04 day should happen at some point in November and then, you know, at the time, the founding of this
00:11:09 country, the actual swearing into the president would be in March, not in January. Do you believe
00:11:15 that everyone can cast their vote and then the states will just decide when when they can take
00:11:20 the votes randomly? They'd say, no, everybody comes out on a day. They own vote. Indeed. How
00:11:26 is it an election? It's I just I'm I got to say this. Barrett's argument is that there's just a
00:11:36 perpetual ever state. That is January 1st, cast your vote for the president four years from now.
00:11:42 doesn't matter. There is no there's no time frame. Despite the fact that the election day is set by
00:11:47 Congress, I can only say that Amy Coney Barrett intentionally wants to fan the flames of chaos
00:11:54 in this country, or she is scared that if she stops this, someone or some organization is going
00:12:00 to harm her. Because, again, I can understand the liberal justices making an argument that you can
00:12:06 cast your ballot four years in advance and it can be counted four years after the fact.
00:12:10 I'm not kidding when I say this. Amy Coney Barrett's argument is that you can cast your
00:12:17 ballot 20 years in advance and it can be counted 20 years later. Now, of course, functionally that
00:12:22 would make no sense, but that's literally what our argument is. Let me read a bit here from the
00:12:29 syllabus and they give you the findings. It says the federal election day statute set the day for
00:12:34 the election of the representative senators and the president on a Tuesday in November.
00:12:38 Mississippi permits certain residents, such as college students away from home and senior citizens, to vote in federal elections by absentee ballot.
00:12:45 Mississippi is one of roughly 30 states that count at least some absentee ballots mailed by Election Day but received afterward.
00:12:52 Absentee voters in Mississippi may dispatch their ballots by mail or common carrier, and all absentee ballots must be postmarked on or before that date of the election and received by the registrar no more than five business days after the election.
00:13:07 Now, this is pertaining to Mississippi.
00:13:10 And perhaps the real issue is that you will have to file a lawsuit in California where
00:13:14 this is not the rule.
00:13:15 In California, in fact, they don't need to be postmarked at all.
00:13:19 In fact, they can be hand dated.
00:13:22 And if they are received after Election Day, you require two independent election officials
00:13:27 to certify beyond a reasonable doubt that was the case.
00:13:31 Otherwise, that ballot shall count.
00:13:33 in 2024 the rnc the mississippi republican party and various individuals sued the mississippi
00:13:41 secretary of state first and several election officials contending that federal law prevents
00:13:45 mississippi from counting absentee ballots received after election day according to
00:13:50 plaintiffs the election day statutes use the word election to refer to two acts ballot casting and
00:13:55 ballot receipt so by setting the day for the election these statutes set the deadline for both
00:14:00 The Libertarian Party of Mississippi filed a similar suit. The district court consolidated the cases and then granted summary judgment to Mississippi. The Fifth Circuit Court reversed, holding that Mississippi statutes is preempted because the federal Election Day statutes require ballots to be received by Election Day held.
00:14:19 The federal Election Day statutes do not prevent Mississippi from counting absentee ballots postmarked by Election Day, but receive it to five days thereafter.
00:14:30 Nothing in the federal Election Day statutes requires ballots to be received by Election Day.
00:14:36 And that sentence says it all.
00:14:39 I have no idea how they could have issued such a psychotic ruling.
00:14:44 I'm going to say it again.
00:14:46 The argument put forth by the majority states that a ballot can be received 100 years later
00:14:52 and it can be deemed legitimate.
00:14:55 Now, of course, don't get me wrong.
00:14:57 They would also argue it's moot about received 100 years later.
00:15:01 They're all dead.
00:15:02 But they could literally then retroactively say we found a box of ballots from 30 years
00:15:07 ago.
00:15:08 It turns out George W. Bush never won.
00:15:12 But then what does that mean?
00:15:13 Oh, this could be very interesting.
00:15:14 If the argument is that ballots can be received at literally any point in time.
00:15:22 They could make the argument that George W. Bush was not the president and thus
00:15:26 sue to rescind his executive orders as illegitimate.
00:15:31 Certainly they'd have an argument, right?
00:15:33 Hey, we found a box of old Gore votes.
00:15:35 They were never counted. 0.97
00:15:37 Holy crap, he won Florida. 0.95
00:15:39 Looks like Gore was actually the real president. 0.90
00:15:41 Well, we can't make him the president, but we can challenge the legitimacy of anything George W. Bush did. 0.91
00:15:48 Now I know I'm being silly.
00:15:51 The point ultimately is this. 0.60
00:15:52 In the extreme end, you could argue that Trump lost 2024 right now.
00:16:00 Indeed, if ballots can be received literally at any point with no deadline,
00:16:05 what happens if Democrats come out right now and say,
00:16:07 We found 100,000 ballots in several states. Kamala Harris is the actual president.
00:16:14 Could she then sue and say these ballots are legitimate, were counted just a year and a half 1.00
00:16:19 late? Well, Congress said so. Don't get me wrong. It's not going to happen. The point that I'm
00:16:24 bringing up is that no one will believe ever again that any election is real because we expected our
00:16:30 elections to be a day in which you go out, you vote, you go home, your vote's counted. At the
00:16:35 the day, we all say who won. Indeed, that is how it's always been. Even when I was a kid,
00:16:40 even with Obama, even Obama round two, even Donald Trump in 2016. This all just fundamentally
00:16:47 changed with universal mail-in voting in 2020, which needs to be struck down. 0.99
00:16:54 So let's jump to where Amy Coney Barrett makes her psychotic arguments. Justice Barrett delivered 1.00
00:17:00 the opinion of the court. Three federal statutes at the day for the election. We understand this
00:17:05 point. She writes, the Constitution's election clause empowers state legislatures to prescribe
00:17:10 the times, place and manners of holding congressional elections. By default, however,
00:17:16 responsibility for the mechanics of congressional elections belongs to the state.
00:17:20 As Alexander Hamilton put it, the Constitution lodges power over congressional elections and
00:17:25 state legislatures primarily and in Congress ultimately. The constitution system for
00:17:31 presidential elections is similar. State legislatures may direct the manner of appointing
00:17:36 electors to vote for the president and vice president, but Congress may determine the time
00:17:41 of choosing the electors and the day of which they shall give their votes. Initially, Congress
00:17:49 allowed states significant leeway with respect to the timing of elections. States had a 34-day
00:17:54 window to appoint presidential electors and exercise total control over the timing of other
00:18:00 federal elections. They're going to mention many citations. Let me let me clarify this point right
00:18:05 here. That is, I believe December 14th is the day by which the presidential electors must cast their
00:18:12 votes. My argument on the timing of elections received as to who the electors will be, you
00:18:18 could argue that let's let's let's break down the nitty gritty of how the election process works.
00:18:22 When you vote for the president, you're voting for an elector who then goes to the Electoral
00:18:25 College and cast that vote.
00:18:26 I'm actually a big fan of the Electoral College.
00:18:28 Now, what happens if they say these votes that came in later change the legitimacy of
00:18:33 the argument?
00:18:33 It's not so much that I genuinely believe someone's going to flip the presidency from
00:18:37 Trump to Kamala now a year and a half later.
00:18:39 That's not how things work.
00:18:41 It's that they will use this to undermine the government.
00:18:45 They will use this to undermine confidence in our system, our economy, et cetera, and
00:18:50 argue that certain laws are unjust. Such is a catalyst for psychotic individuals to kill people. 0.75
00:18:58 What happens when they argue they found 100,000 ballots that weren't count and thus they should
00:19:02 be legal, according to Barrett's argument? And they say Trump must be stopped by any means
00:19:07 necessary because he is a false president. Now, certainly we've already been in that territory
00:19:11 because Democrats have largely argued Trump never won in the first place. Even today,
00:19:15 though it's not as mainstream as it was in 2016, there are Democrats on Reddit and prominent forums
00:19:20 arguing that Trump never actually won and he cheated. In fact, Ashley St. Clair, who mothered
00:19:26 a child with Elon Musk, argues that Elon explicitly told her he was using his secret weapon,
00:19:32 satellites, to somehow manipulate the election to make Trump win. And there are many people who
00:19:37 believe Trump is not the legitimate president. Moving on, she says allegations of fraud continue
00:19:44 to plague the election of representatives, which still took place on different days in different
00:19:48 states. Having one election day for the president and another for representatives was also burdensome
00:19:53 because citizens were forced to turn out to the polls on two different election days. Plus,
00:19:59 the results in states with early elections could influence voting in states that had lagged behind.
00:20:04 They go on to mention, she mentions, Congress. So in 1872, Congress intervened again,
00:20:10 mandating that the election of representatives to also take place on a single day,
00:20:14 the same Tuesday, specified in the presidential election day statute. Mind you, 1872 is the time
00:20:21 of Reconstruction, when the South was considered to be markedly weak and occupied by the North.
00:20:29 Their representatives were considered to be somewhat deferential to the North.
00:20:33 After the ratification of the 17th Amendment, Congress required senators to be elected on the
00:20:37 same day as representatives. Act of June 4th, 1914. Today, each of the three election day
00:20:43 statutes set the day for the election on a Tuesday in November. In her nation's early years, voters
00:20:49 had to cast their ballots in person in the district where they lived. She goes into mention many other
00:20:54 citations. The difficult thing in reading this stuff is that it's just littered with citation.
00:20:58 Public assembly was not just a matter of meritment. It also helped ensure that those,
00:21:03 only those qualified to vote did so. Then we get a big spattering of citation.
00:21:09 Ballots were cast in the company of neighbors and under the watchful eyes of community leaders.
00:21:14 Indeed, for instance, under the Pennsylvania Constitution, a voter had to vote in an
00:21:17 appropriate election district in order that his neighbors might be at hand to establish his right
00:21:22 to vote if it were challenged. Things started to change during the Civil War when some states
00:21:27 allowed soldiers to vote from afar by absentee ballot. Due dates for absentee ballots have
00:21:32 shifted over time. During the Civil War, states that allowed absentee voting imposed an election
00:21:37 day deadline for ballot receipt. We get it. Mississippi among them. In Mississippi, certain 0.95
00:21:43 residents like college students away from home and senior citizens may vote in federal elections by
00:21:47 absentee ballot. In 2024, the RNC, they sued. We get it. Moving forward. She goes on to mention
00:21:53 what the courts did. Now, mind you, I will stress so far, not a single argument has been made as to
00:21:59 why the law set forth that establishes a day for the entirety of the election does not actually
00:22:06 qualify. She, in fact, does not make an argument. She says, although the election day statutes refer
00:22:12 to a particular day for the election, plaintiffs do not contend that everything must occur on that
00:22:17 day. For instance, they do not object to early voting or dispute that officials may count votes
00:22:22 and certify a winner after election day. Indeed, Barrett doesn't actually have an argument as to
00:22:28 why that day is not a day. Just that plaintiffs did not argue that a day is a day. Just that this
00:22:37 narrow case, counting ballots after that day, should not count because the election happens
00:22:42 on that day. Finally, she says not about the Constitution. We do not consider the scope of
00:22:48 Congress as an authority. The federal election day statutes do not preempt Mississippi's law.
00:22:52 The defining element of an election, the term used in all three federal statutes,
00:22:56 has always been the electorate's choice of candidate and a related federal statute,
00:23:02 the Uniformed and Overseas Citizensy Absentee Voting Act. As we have said before,
00:23:06 the federal election day statutes simply regulate the time of the election.
00:23:10 OK, so what does that mean? What is the time of the election? You vile human being.
00:23:18 The statute governing presidential elections provides that presidential electors shall be
00:23:22 appointed in each state on election day in accordance with the laws of the state enacted
00:23:26 prior to election day. Interesting. They must be appointed on that day. Sounds like a member of
00:23:33 Congress. The electors for president must be appointed on that day unless there's electors
00:23:38 for a member of Congress. She adds election day is defined as the Tuesday next after the first
00:23:43 Monday in November and every fourth year succeeding every election of a president and vice president
00:23:47 held in each statute. The statute governing House elections establishes the day for the election.
00:23:52 of representatives as the same Tuesday in November and every even number year to USC 7.
00:23:59 I read that one to you, right? The calendar for Senate elections follows suit.
00:24:03 Senators are elected at the regular election. At which election? We get it. By setting the day for
00:24:09 the election, the statute set the day when the electorate must make its choice. It is a fundamental
00:24:13 canon of statutory construction that words generally should be interpreted as taking
00:24:18 their ordinary meaning at the time. Now, Alito argues against this. He says, if the election
00:24:24 were to have held place with but a single individual, it would be presumed that election
00:24:29 day is when that single individual makes known their intention and announces who they have
00:24:35 chosen. But because we are dealing with a large body of people, we expect this day to follow
00:24:42 similarly, that this is the day in which the people make their choice known and the people
00:24:46 announce who that person will be, not that we will wait weeks later to determine who is actually
00:24:56 going to be. We do it on a single day. For what argument? In fact, I will stress again, Amy Coney
00:25:03 Barrett actually does not make one. She says at all relevant times, the word election was understood
00:25:09 to mean the act of choosing a person to fill an office. Webster, an American dictionary of the
00:25:14 English language. She cites, well, I cited Cambridge. You see the point? She goes on to
00:25:21 say, we have likewise defined election as the expression of the electorate's choice.
00:25:26 Agreed. So the expression of the electorate's choice should be on that day. Okay, let's remove
00:25:32 the word election. Let's use the word election to what Amy Coney Barrett has argued, the expression
00:25:38 of the electorate's choice. Now let's read the law. The Tuesday next after the first Monday in
00:25:43 November and every even numbered year is established as the day in which we see the
00:25:48 expression of the electorate's choice in each of the states and territories of the United States.
00:25:52 Now, what would that mean? Specifically, it would mean we we would hear the pronouncement
00:25:58 here is who was chosen. On the Tuesday after the first Monday in November,
00:26:04 that means we must know definitively by election day who the choice is.
00:26:11 For what argument does she have?
00:26:14 The electorate's choice is made when voting is complete, not when ballots are received.
00:26:18 The most recent amendment to the presidential election day statute bears this out.
00:26:22 In 22, Congress asserted the phrase election day into that statute and marked that day a specific day in Tuesday.
00:26:28 It then created an exception.
00:26:30 When states modify the period of voting in response to certain force majeure events,
00:26:36 the term election day shall include the modified period of voting.
00:26:39 that Congress defined election day with reference to voting indicates that voting
00:26:43 is the act governed by the statute. You see, what she's done here is the inverse.
00:26:48 The states do not get to enact their will over the federal law. Congress has enacted a law,
00:26:57 election day, simply because the states have acted that there may be some exemption does
00:27:01 not give them the authority to enact such exemption, which is what the Supreme Court
00:27:05 is supposed to be ruling. Now, this is where it actually gets interesting. I want to find the
00:27:11 particular passage on fraud, where she basically says, who cares if there's fraud? Who cares if
00:27:16 this country burns to the ground? Yeah, why not? So I'll scroll down to the fraud portion of her
00:27:23 argument. And indeed, this is what Alito argues with the other conservatives, of course, agreeing,
00:27:30 saying that this is going to destroy this country. This is going to result in people
00:27:34 basically saying there is no there's no election. We don't know where the ballots come from. We
00:27:38 don't know who's voting when. We don't know that this is actually real. So let me jump. I'll just
00:27:45 I'll just jump to the the fraud portion. The first instance occurs on page three, where she says,
00:27:51 for example, they may have shared plaintiff's view that election day deadline avoids the
00:27:54 appearance of fraud. At bottom, their theory is that because of 19th century election day
00:27:59 statutes govern here, so do their voting practices. But I want to jump to the specific
00:28:03 fraud portion. I think, is this going on to mention the history? We're not interested in
00:28:11 history. Here we go. Plaintiffs also stress that Mississippi's law may give rise to the
00:28:17 appearance of fraud because election results may appear to flip after election day.
00:28:22 This is a significant concern. Then there's a plethora of citation. But even under plaintiff's
00:28:28 interpretation, last minute flips are possible because the Election Day statute set no deadline
00:28:32 for counting ballots or certifying Election Day results. Election fraud and its appearance are
00:28:37 serious issues like other such issues. However, they must be addressed to the democratic process.
00:28:43 The Election Day statutes are proof of concept. When voting on different days in different states
00:28:48 sparked allegations of fraud, Congress set a national uniform deadline for voting. You disgusting 0.99
00:28:54 evil woman. My God, I can't believe I'm reading this. Amy Coney Barrett is this. This is this 1.00
00:29:03 is insane. I just my mind is fried at the evil. Like, how dare you write this? How dare you write
00:29:12 this? There was a deadline for the election day because of fraud. And we're happy it'll happen
00:29:19 again. And we're not going to enforce nor issue a ruling that would ever stop it. Oh, my God.
00:29:25 I mean, when I when I read this, when it came out, my jaw was on the floor the whole time.
00:29:29 This is rough. This is absolutely rough. 1876, four years after this evil woman.
00:29:40 You know, I got to say this. She's the face of it. But don't get me wrong. The justices, 0.54
00:29:44 the liberal just in Roberts, they're all sitting there smugly spitting on this country with
00:29:49 smiles on their faces. We are in serious trouble. 1867, the presidency was determined by a committee,
00:29:57 not by vote, because multiple sets of selects of electors were sent. Thus, a negotiation was held
00:30:03 that ended Reconstruction. It is remarkable to me that she would dare write something so shocking.
00:30:12 Because of fraud, a deadline was set. Oh, but there's no actual deadline as to when they count the votes. Do you understand what she's saying? She's saying the perception of fraud due to a lack of a deadline nearly destroyed this country. Nearly destroyed this country. So we're going to make sure there isn't one.
00:30:43 That's just so insane.
00:30:47 Election fraud and disappearance are serious issues.
00:30:50 The election day statutes are proof of concept.
00:30:52 I mean, this is just absolutely insane.
00:30:55 I just, Congress set a nationally uniformed deadline for voting.
00:31:01 If varied deadlines for ballot received similarly call for a national solution,
00:31:05 the American people must choose it through their elected representatives.
00:31:09 We did.
00:31:10 It's here.
00:31:11 It's in the law.
00:31:12 that's it there is one last late breaking matter for the first time in their reply briefs before
00:31:20 the fifth circuit plaintiffs argue that mississippi's elections and violates the election
00:31:23 day statutes because the postal service and common carriers allow mail to be recalled
00:31:27 this is really fascinating this is really fascinating according to plaintiffs a voter
00:31:32 who regrets her choice after election day may nullify her vote by recalling her ballot
00:31:37 I like how she wrote her several times instead of there from the Postal Service or common carrier
00:31:44 before it is delivered to election officials and that plaintiffs insist means the electorate's
00:31:49 choice is not actually made as of election day. That's a fact. Plaintiffs have never independently
00:31:54 challenged this aspect of Mississippi law. Ballot recall was not the basis for this litigation.
00:31:59 It is nowhere mentioned in plaintiff's complaint. Even now, plaintiffs frame the possibility
00:32:04 of post-Election Day recall is simply one reason why counting ballots received after Election Day
00:32:08 violates the federal Election Day statutes. They're correct. For its part, Mississippi denies
00:32:13 their voters are allowed to recall their ballots. That is not correct. This is called USPS package
00:32:18 intercept. You verify that your shipment is eligible. If it is, you sign with your account,
00:32:25 use retail package intercept to request that USPS redirect the shipment back to the original
00:32:29 sender. Indeed, this is most notably used for domestic USPS mail services with USPS tracking
00:32:36 packages whose total length or girth is no longer than 130 inches. Quite literally on their website,
00:32:43 an individual can cast a mail-in vote. They can postmark it on the day of the election.
00:32:48 They can then wait to see what the results are, to see the reactions, and then issue a recall
00:32:56 on that ballot because they changed their mind after the day of the election. She says two
00:33:02 principles are important. First, post-election day receipt considered on its own part does not
00:33:06 conflict with the election day statutes. Remarkable. Second, state law is preempted
00:33:12 by the federal election day statutes. Okay. Okay. I'm at a loss for words. She actually wrote,
00:33:25 we faced a threat of civil war. Deadlines were put in place. We don't want them now.
00:33:34 I mean, not only were deadlines put in place after the civil war, they were further litigated upon
00:33:40 here. We now have a day for the election. To which she admits election means the expression
00:33:46 of the candidate's choice. There is a day for the expression of candidate's choice,
00:33:51 which he argues, no, but we can find out what the candidate's choice is well after that fact.
00:33:55 The expression of which occurs on this day, but the publishing of that expression is sometime else undetermined, quite literally arguing.
00:34:03 If you want a deadline, if you want a deadline for when we're supposed to know who the person is.
00:34:09 Well, the United States government, the Constitution, Congress has never implemented one.
00:34:18 What does that mean?
00:34:18 It means that there's the swearing in day, I guess, for a member of Congress, but it doesn't really matter because they can just do nothing and the person can be sworn in whenever.
00:34:32 We have recall elections. That means people are sworn in various times, right?
00:34:36 So this means that a state can purposefully withhold the results of a congressional election and wait and see what happens.
00:34:45 and then they can say, you know what we're going to do? The election was in November.
00:34:51 We're going to wait till June just to make sure we found every possible ballot. We'll let you know.
00:34:57 Now, how could that benefit them? Let's say that you have an election and it turns out that in a
00:35:05 blue dominant state, there are some swing districts that go Republican. The blue state itself can
00:35:12 determine it has not reached a conclusion on its own elections and is going to withhold the results
00:35:18 and not count, meaning Republicans get withheld from Congress, giving the Democrats a temporary
00:35:23 majority. In fact, the state could just bar Republicans from ever going by saying there
00:35:29 is no deadline by which we must complete this election. There is no deadline. I'm gonna say
00:35:34 it again. There's no deadline. Let me stress this point again. Republican state could choose to
00:35:43 withhold the ballot counting for Democrat districts and say, there's no deadline. We'll do it when we
00:35:49 feel like it. And what happens? No one is ever sent from a Democrat district to Congress.
00:35:57 Alito goes on to make tremendous arguments. Alito with Thomas Gorsuch and Kavanaugh dissenting
00:36:03 And Alito writes rather beautifully and articulately that there is a day and that day
00:36:09 means something. He goes on to mention the civil war and how this is going to rip our country
00:36:13 apart. He goes on to call it just I'm paraphrasing, but just nuts. OK, then there's one thing to be
00:36:23 done. First, Donald Trump, whether we pass the SAVE Act or not, Donald Trump should at the 11th
00:36:31 hour, I mean quite literally the week of the election, issue an executive order that the
00:36:38 United States Postal Service shall not deliver any mail-in ballots, period. Under the argument
00:36:44 that the federal government, the executive branch, that the executive branch does not have the
00:36:49 authority to interfere in elections, and thus, as there is no law requiring USPS to transport
00:36:56 mail-in votes, he is going to order them not to do it. There is no right granting them to do it,
00:37:03 right? Let me, let me, let me, let me, I'll, I'll, I'll, it's a little too specific. So I'm going to
00:37:09 double down and factors on this one. Is there a federal law allowing mail-in votes? Maybe there
00:37:18 is, but Trump can simply just say, you know what? I'm going to order the USPS not to do it.
00:37:23 And then you can sue me about it. So the key federal law is the Uniformed and Overseas Citizen
00:37:31 Absentee Voting Act, which is referenced by this is referenced by Amy Coney Barrett several times,
00:37:36 but it's very specific is for U.S. citizens overseas and uniformed military services,
00:37:41 military family members, uniformed service members and their families, merchant marines,
00:37:46 et cetera. Not for everybody. So Trump could say any ballot that is not underneath the OCAVA
00:37:56 is not protected and thus USPS shall not deliver them, period.
00:38:05 They will have to sue and they will not have enough time. And USPS, as they are under the
00:38:11 executive branch, simply will just not deliver these packages. They're told not to do it.
00:38:16 Now, what happens then? Emergency relief, emergency injunctions. Oh, boy. If Trump fires it off at the 11th hour. Yikes. My other recommendation would be for Republicans to play ball. So be it, Amy Coney Barrett and your ilk.
00:38:34 Republican states should withhold the ballots and not count them and say the Supreme Court has
00:38:42 determined there is no deadline by which we will read or count these votes. No deadline has ever
00:38:47 been imposed by federal law and thus we'll get to it when we get to it. And then what happens
00:38:54 in any red state with any amount of Democrat seats, not a single Democrat will be sent to
00:39:01 Congress. Is that what the founding fathers intended? Sure thing, Amy Coney Barrett.
00:39:07 This is crazy. It's crazy to me because the end result of this is just civil war.
00:39:13 Seriously. A blue state can say we're not going to count Republican ballots. A red state can say
00:39:19 we're not going to count Democrat ballots. It's just absolutely psychotic. There is no obligation 0.79
00:39:25 in the law to count ballots. Now, by all means, they can argue, no, just no deadline. Yep.
00:39:31 So they're going to say, you know, for that blue district in, you know, in our in our in our in our capital, we're setting the deadline for let's call it the September 2027.
00:39:46 Yeah, a year after the election.
00:39:48 Because there is no election deadline, there's no receipt deadline.
00:39:52 So they could say we are going to wait as long as it takes to make sure every ballots been collected.
00:39:57 And you know what they could do? Obviously, it's silly if they say we're not going to count ballots until September of next year.
00:40:02 What they could say is every time we find a mail in vote, we extend the deadline by one week to make sure there is a buffer for any other mail in votes.
00:40:12 The argument being, well, look, when a mail in vote comes in, it means we did not find all the votes, right?
00:40:20 So if a vote comes in, the possibility is it is a fact.
00:40:27 We did not find all the votes.
00:40:28 We're going to need a grace period about a week to make sure just to be nice.
00:40:33 And then what happens every week?
00:40:34 A new ballot comes in and they say, well, you know, we're still there's no deadline.
00:40:38 What's what's that?
00:40:39 Amy Coney Barrett, Congress should enact a deadline.
00:40:42 Good effing luck getting Congress to move the needle.
00:40:47 We needed the law to be interpreted by the Supreme Court so that the standard was set
00:40:52 and Congress would be forced to act.
00:40:54 The law already exists.
00:40:57 OK.
00:40:59 I say this unto all of you.
00:41:01 Good luck at what comes next.
00:41:04 Smash the like button, share the show, stick around because we're in for a bumpy ride.
00:41:08 I just imagine if the Supreme Court said we have an election day over the next couple
00:41:13 of years, you see the country heal.
00:41:15 You see the states start adhering to a law.
00:41:18 You see the will of the voters being enacted under a system they understand and know.
00:41:22 And Amy Coney Barrett set it all on fire.
00:41:24 Good luck.