Sam Alito shredded by analyst for 'placating man-baby' Trump in major Supreme Court case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito drew sharp criticism from legal analyst Elie Mystal on Tuesday after suggesting the Supreme Court should invalidate Mississippi's mail-in ballot counting law because "losing candidates…would not accept" election results where late-arriving ballots changed the outcome.

Mystal, writing for The Nation, wasn't having it.

"I take issue with Alito’s framing, because it’s very clear that only one 'losing candidate' was such a sore loser as to not accept the clear results of the election, and that loser was Trump. And the results Trump wouldn’t accept did not 'change' because of ballots received after Election Day. Again, ballots received after Election Day have not changed the outcome of any presidential election in any state; they have only changed the incorrect reporting of the results of the election done by people who started mouthing off on television before all the votes were counted. Alito should be concerned with the law and the Constitution, not with placating a man-baby and making CNN’s job easier," he wrote in the piece.

The case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, centers on a Mississippi law allowing mail-in ballots postmarked by Election Day to be counted if received within five days. Over 30 states have similar laws, but the Republican National Committee and the Trump administration seek to invalidate them.

Mystal noted the entire case exists because Trump lost in 2020 and spent six years refusing to accept it. Mail-in ballots, he noted, have never actually changed the outcome of a presidential election in any state; they've only corrected premature election night projections made before all votes were counted.

Mystal delivered a grim assessment of the court's math, as four justices already appeared sympathetic to the GOP's position, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett's votes still uncertain.

"My ears tell me this is a 5–4 loss for the Trump administration’s anti-democratic position, but my gut tells me it’s a 6–3 win for the hysterical man throwing a six-year temper tantrum," he warned. "Let’s hope John Roberts’s powers of rational thought triumph over his fear and cowardice."