Meanwhile . . .
A CBC News report today painted part of a frightening scenario:
Donald Trump refuses to accept losing election results, saying the mail-in ballot process was flawed and corrupt. He contests the results, and it goes to the Supreme Court, where his conservative pick — Judge Amy Coney Barrett — to replace the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been installed on the bench just days before the election.
That’s the scenario, which the correspondent left right there.
Which led me to wonder: Would Barrett and the other top court justices rule strictly on points of law, or would the majority conservatives there feel beholden to Trump?
Would it be possible for them to hand the presidency to Donald Trump even if Joe Biden was the winner?
I can only imagine what might happen to the United States if such a scenario played out. Civil war comes to mind. The country seems perilously close to it now.
Even if the scenario doesn’t play out and Donald Trump graciously accepts defeat and moves out of the White House, he will be leaving the country in tatters — with a conservative top court that could overturn many of the gains made for women, LGBTQ people and more.
I wonder how my American readers feel about all of this.
Bad times are upon us. I’m not as pessimistic as the more extreme folks. Scary stuff gets attention so there’s a lot of scary stuff bandied about just to get attention. But there could be some badness up ahead.
I figure it is likely that Amy Coney Barrett will be seated on the court. I’ve been reading her scholarly works online and she seems a strong proponent of “originalism.” That is the theory that the constitution means today exactly what it meant when it was written. Amendments meant what they were intended at the time they were ratified. Since the founders didn’t even think about a right to reproductive freedom it is wrong-headed to expand the meaning to include that.
I disagree with that… somewhat. If the Constitution says you have freedom of the press, for example, there’s no way you can limit that to material printed on paper on a 1790 printing press. OTOH we have the 9th amendment which makes the recognition of new rights allowable. Clearly, the founders did NOT expect the Constitution to be so inflexible as to never allow for additional liberties without a full-blown amendment process.
“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
I have, however, read in her works strong respect for the doctrine of “stare decisis,” Latin for “let the decision stand.” She uses “reliance” theory, which means if an interpretation has been around long enough that people have become reliant on it, you have to let it stand even if you think the original case was wrongly decided. While I do not see her voting to expand Roe v Wade, for example, I also don’t see her voting to simply overturn it. At most, she would vote to chip away at it slowly. The battle for reproductive rights would then shift to state legislatures.
I don’t see any realistic way for Trump to contest the election unless it is very close. There are probably 6 states in play where all the attention will be focused. We need to get all those absentee ballots in as early as possible to avoid playing games with the post offices and getting the count done as quickly as possible. Delay plays into Trump’s hand.
This is very informative, Fred. I’m guessing Barrett’s “originalism” embraces the Catholic doctrine,too, because she is reportedly a devout Catholic. But there is some comfort in knowing she also embraces the “reliance” theory. I know a lot more about this after reading your comment tonight. Thanks!
In order to get to the Supreme court, the question of fraudelent mail-in ballots has to be heard first by the District Court.
In order for the District Court to hear the case, the District Court judges will ask for the evidence.
There is no evidence of mail-in voter fraud.
I think that Trump is really just trying to discourage people from voting by mail. Democrats are more likely to vote by mail, and Republicants are likely to vote in person.
That’s interesting, Steve. So, do you think the CBC reporter may have been stretching it a bit by implying Trump’s Supreme Court pick could have some say whether Trump becomes president or not?
EVERYTHING trump does is based on “how will this help me get re-elected (and stay out of jail)”?
Trump has never, not once, done anything to benefit anyone else, or especially the country. Only if it gains him some votes this November.
Nominating Genghis Barrett is only because it will deliver the religious righteous “christians” and maybe some Catholic votes. He could care less if it ends the Republican supremacy in the process. There will likely be at least three Republican Senators who will lose their bid for re-election this November if they vote to confirm Barrett. All it would take for the Democrats to take the Senate back is four seats. This nomination may be the “October surprise” that gives the election to the Democrats.
Not on topic, but…
Overturning Roe would not end abortion as the religious nut jobs seem to think. It would simply let the states decide what is legal. So, only poor women who can’t afford to travel to a state that permits abortion will be affected.
Overturning the ACA (Obamacare) will briefly be painful, but the remedy will be for the Democrat Congress to pass Medicare For All that Bernie Sanders has been campaigning on for years.
Republicans will rue the day that they hitched their wagon to the ass in the White House.
Still not on topic….
Since the Texas ACA case that will be heard by the Supreme Court in October was decided by the District Court to be unconstitutional because the individual mandate was reduced by the Republican Congress to zero dollars… What would happen if a Democrat Congress raised that individual mandate penalty back to its original miniscule amount? Would that make the case before the Supreme Court moot?
Of course, trump could win and we would be looking to move to Canada. I would like to retire on a lake or river where we could have a boat and private dock. Any tips?
EVERY president’s decision is based on how it will get him reelected!
“EVERY president’s decision is based on how it will get him reelected!”
Not true. Gerald Ford knew that pardoning Richard Nixon would guarantee him a one-term presidency.
My point is that trump has NEVER done anything for the country that didn’t benefit him first.
Well then, excuse me,….ALMOST “every president’s decision is based on how it will get him re-elected!”
Let me know when you are ready to move to the Great White North, Steve, and I’ll give you some tips. Ontario, Quebec and New Brunswick have lots of lakes. We also have lots of snow.