Supreme Court just upheld a state supreme court ruling that flatly violated that state's law. What does that mean?

If you're like most Americans you believe a) the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution; b) the nine folks who are in that office for life are fair and unbiased; and c) that the court will ensure that the Democrats don't get away with any fraud in the upcoming election.

Of course all three of those beliefs are totally wrong, as we'll see.

The court just issued a ruling on a case brought by Republican officials in Pennsylvania, in which the GOP had asked the state court to rule that mailed-in ballots would only be counted if they were postmarked by midnight on election day.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania ruled that it was perfectly fine for mail-in ballots to be counted for up to three days after election day, even if those ballots didn't have a postmark.

Even liberals should be able to understand that letting un-postmarked ballots be counted up to three days after election day invites vote fraud, cuz in the event of a close vote, the losing party would have all the time needed to fabricate the votes needed to overcome the loss.

The corrupt chief "justice" John Roberts joined the three liberals to reverse the ruling by Pennsylvania's Supreme Court. 

In other words, Roberts and the three other liberals on the Court agreed that mail-in ballots must be counted even if received three days after election day--and even if the envelope has no postmark. 

"Vote fraud?  Nah, ain't no such thing.  Nevah happen, citizen.  Don' ya worry 'bout dat, see?"

Pennsylvania's Supreme Court ruling admitted that the state's law stated that in order to be counted, all mail-in ballots had to be received in the office of the county board of elections no later than eight p.m. on election day.  But by a 4-3 vote (Democrats have a majority on the state's Supreme Court) the state court ordered “a three-day extension” of that deadline for the general election.

In other words, the state's Supreme Court contradicted clear, unambiguous state law.  And the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld that illegal outrage.

The majority-Democrat state supreme court even invited more fraud by ruling that election officials must count a ballot even if it lacked an "intelligible postmark" showing it was mailed by election day. 

The Dem-majority-ordered 3-day extension, and the order to count non-postmarked ballots are preempted by a trio of federal statutes that set a uniform nationwide federal standard.  But with Roberts voting with the 3 always-liberal Democrats on the U.S. Supreme Court, the 4-4 tie let the state supreme court decision stand.  

If you're not fluent in the law you don't understand the significance of what I just described to you, so here it is:  With a few glaring exceptions--all disastrous--until now it was a well-accepted principle that legislators wrote laws, and if those laws were ambiguous, the courts interpreted the intent of the lawmakers as best they could.  Judges couldn't WRITE laws, but could only interpret laws written by legislatures.  

In ordering a 3-day extension, the Pennsylvania supreme court violated this clear, long-standing principle.  And with John Roberts' siding with the Democrats on the U.S. Supreme Court, that court has now officially agreed that it's okay for unelected, unaccountable judges to write laws that contradict laws passed by elected representatives.

This ruling represents a huge and terrible change in American legal tradition--one that should result in the impeachment of every Democrat on the court--and John Roberts.  The ruling also clears the way for wholesale election fraud in every state, since Dem-ruled election boards can now unilaterally declare that they'll count ballots without postmarks, up to several days after the election, citing the Supreme Court ruling as justification.

The U.S. has been ruled like a banana republic since Obozo unilaterally ordered U.S. officials to ignore valid immigration law and let a million illegals stay in the U.S. indefinitely.  Now with the Supreme Court ruling we've officially become a banana republic, where unelected judges can change any law with impunity.

Source. 

Read all the comments at the above link.  All are well-grounded in the law.  You'll see what a huge divide this decision represents.