I don’t recall the exact words but a report I read early this morning quoted Rudi as saying that the dismissals are what he wants because his goal is to appeal the cases all the way to SCOTUS. He thinks that the 6-3 majority will make things go Trump’s way. But then again, he thinks applying hair dye just prior to going before a load of hot lights is a good idea, so maybe his thought processes ain’t what they used to be.
Which is funny, because a video clip circulating on Twitter today is of a guy rescuing his King Charles spaniel from the jaws of an alligator by prying the gator’s jaws open with his hands. The pup had a belly puncture but will be fine, the man’s hands got chewed up but he’s ok, the gator lost that meal but suffered no other retribution.
6-3 would go Trump’s way if we had another Florida or if the naked PA ballots were the only thing that mattered… But that’s not the case. How stupid is he?
But this is how to score an own-goal. Yes, the SC is stacked with Republicans/social conservatives. However almost all of them are originalists. So they intend to always narrowly interpret the Constitution, and the Constitution says quite clearly that states have jurisdiction over running elections.
They stacked the Court with the wrong kind of conservatives.
Yeah, I think there’s several problems with Rudy’s “SCOTUS will save us!” theory.
1. The conservative justices are hacks, but they’re not complete and utter hacks. Well, mostly. (Looking at you, Alito!) They can be shamed. They want the respect of the legal academy and history, so they’re reluctant to sign off on the kind of way-out-there bullshit that the Super Elite Strike Force is putting out there. Consider Roberts’ recent comment during the hearing on the Obamacare case, where he noted that the (GOP) Congress that reduced the penalty on the individual mandate could have repealed the entire ACA if that was truly their intention — instead, it appeared that they were hoping the Court would do it for them, and “that’s not our job.” If SCOTUS didn’t want to “take the hit” for repealing Obamacare, why would they want to take the hit for overturning an entire election?
2. They actually care about some legal principles on which Trump is losing — things like states’ rights, and standing, and judicial restraint. We can argue some other day whether they care about these things out of pure intellectual commitment, or because they tend to promote conservative results, but they do care.
3. The justices tend to play a long game. They have lifetime tenure, and with the exception of Thomas, the conservative justices are probably all expecting to spend another couple of decades on the Court. The question of who is president for the next four years is of minimal interest to them, especially now that they’ve already got a solid 6-3 majority. Even the justices appointed by Trump probably don’t really feel like they owe him anything personally — it’s not like Trump plucked them out of obscurity, they were all off the Federalist Society list that any other Republican president would have chosen from.
That said, I don’t entirely trust them to do the right thing: as I said, Alito really is an utter hack, Kavanaugh is so pissed off at the Democrats that who knows what he’ll do in a political case, and Thomas is getting old and may not care about setting the world on fire on his way out. And the one type of case I worry most about is the scenario where GOP state legislatures go rogue and appoint their own electors, and suddenly it’s Biden who has to sue to get relief — then there’s a real danger that five or more justices say “hey, Constitution says state legislatures get to say how Electors are chosen, we can’t interfere!” (Which is legally dubious, but it’s the kind of legally dubious stuff that I think is well within their willingness to support.)
I don’t recall the exact words but a report I read early this morning quoted Rudi as saying that the dismissals are what he wants because his goal is to appeal the cases all the way to SCOTUS. He thinks that the 6-3 majority will make things go Trump’s way. But then again, he thinks applying hair dye just prior to going before a load of hot lights is a good idea, so maybe his thought processes ain’t what they used to be.
I can’t find a reference for this, but I think it was Mark Twain who wrote of a man fighting a dog by boldly thrusting his hand into the dog’s jaws.
Which is funny, because a video clip circulating on Twitter today is of a guy rescuing his King Charles spaniel from the jaws of an alligator by prying the gator’s jaws open with his hands. The pup had a belly puncture but will be fine, the man’s hands got chewed up but he’s ok, the gator lost that meal but suffered no other retribution.
6-3 would go Trump’s way if we had another Florida or if the naked PA ballots were the only thing that mattered… But that’s not the case. How stupid is he?
But this is how to score an own-goal. Yes, the SC is stacked with Republicans/social conservatives. However almost all of them are originalists. So they intend to always narrowly interpret the Constitution, and the Constitution says quite clearly that states have jurisdiction over running elections.
They stacked the Court with the wrong kind of conservatives.
Yeah, I think there’s several problems with Rudy’s “SCOTUS will save us!” theory.
1. The conservative justices are hacks, but they’re not complete and utter hacks. Well, mostly. (Looking at you, Alito!) They can be shamed. They want the respect of the legal academy and history, so they’re reluctant to sign off on the kind of way-out-there bullshit that the Super Elite Strike Force is putting out there. Consider Roberts’ recent comment during the hearing on the Obamacare case, where he noted that the (GOP) Congress that reduced the penalty on the individual mandate could have repealed the entire ACA if that was truly their intention — instead, it appeared that they were hoping the Court would do it for them, and “that’s not our job.” If SCOTUS didn’t want to “take the hit” for repealing Obamacare, why would they want to take the hit for overturning an entire election?
2. They actually care about some legal principles on which Trump is losing — things like states’ rights, and standing, and judicial restraint. We can argue some other day whether they care about these things out of pure intellectual commitment, or because they tend to promote conservative results, but they do care.
3. The justices tend to play a long game. They have lifetime tenure, and with the exception of Thomas, the conservative justices are probably all expecting to spend another couple of decades on the Court. The question of who is president for the next four years is of minimal interest to them, especially now that they’ve already got a solid 6-3 majority. Even the justices appointed by Trump probably don’t really feel like they owe him anything personally — it’s not like Trump plucked them out of obscurity, they were all off the Federalist Society list that any other Republican president would have chosen from.
That said, I don’t entirely trust them to do the right thing: as I said, Alito really is an utter hack, Kavanaugh is so pissed off at the Democrats that who knows what he’ll do in a political case, and Thomas is getting old and may not care about setting the world on fire on his way out. And the one type of case I worry most about is the scenario where GOP state legislatures go rogue and appoint their own electors, and suddenly it’s Biden who has to sue to get relief — then there’s a real danger that five or more justices say “hey, Constitution says state legislatures get to say how Electors are chosen, we can’t interfere!” (Which is legally dubious, but it’s the kind of legally dubious stuff that I think is well within their willingness to support.)
Urgh. That’s unsettling.