I didn't listen to whatever this is, but I can give a quick summary. It wasn't a ruling on the merits saying Trump's executive order seeking to use the postal office for election fuckery is consititutional.

Posted on August 25, 2026 at 01:47:36 PM by WestSideBlue

It was merely saying that the initial district court injunctions were premature because the post office hasn't even implemented a rule enacting the Trump EO yet, so there isn't anything at this point for the S.Ct. to actually rule on. Once they *do* enact a proposed rule showing how they are going to implement the EO, then the parties can file their injunctions again and at that point the issue will be ripe for review by the courts.

Back to the board

Thread:

The Romano Report: SCROTUS “non-decision” on Fucko’s plan and executive order to interfere with mail-in voting explained: - By jhamm August 25, 2026 at 12:21:25 PM
- quick summary please thx. nm - By sim August 25, 2026 at 01:11:57 PM
  - I didn't listen to whatever this is, but I can give a quick summary. It wasn't a ruling on the merits saying Trump's executive order seeking to use the postal office for election fuckery is consititutional. - By WestSideBlue August 25, 2026 at 01:47:36 PM
    - Thanks. Said much better than my summary below. * - By jhamm August 25, 2026 at 01:53:07 PM
  - Ruling was just on injunction filed against Trump’s executive order. It said Trump can continue for now until a case is presented claiming parties or a party has been harmed this EO, - By jhamm August 25, 2026 at 01:45:29 PM

The Victors

I didn't listen to whatever this is, but I can give a quick summary. It wasn't a ruling on the merits saying Trump's executive order seeking to use the postal office for election fuckery is consititutional.