Three out of nine

Disquieting.

President Donald Trump this week said he wants to immediately fill the new Supreme Court vacancy because he expects the panel to decide the 2020 presidential election. 

Which is bizarre all by itself because normally the election does that. But wait, there’s more.

On Friday, multiple news outlets reported that Trump intends to nominate Amy Coney Barrett, who would be the third justice on the court to have worked for Republicans directly on the Bush v. Gore case that handed the 2000 election to the GOP. She would be the second installed on the court by Trump.

And working “for Republicans directly on the Bush v. Gore case that handed the 2000 election to the GOP” means working for Republicans who stole the 2000 election.

Earlier this week, Trump refused to say that he would peacefully transfer power if he loses the election in November. He further suggested the Supreme Court will likely decide the election, underscoring the need to fill the seat left open by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

He says that as part of his frenzied efforts to undermine the election, which he expects to lose.

If Coney is confirmed, she will join two other lawyers from the Republican team that worked on the case that handed the GOP the presidency in 2000. 

Chief Justice John Roberts counseled then-Florida Gov. Jeb Bush during that election, according to emails. The Los Angeles Times reported that Roberts “traveled to Tallahassee, the state capital, to dispense legal advice” and “operated in the shadows at least some of those 37 days” that decided the election. Roberts has a long record of working to limit voting rights. 

It is a similar story for Justice Brett Kavanaugh. The Miami Herald reported that during the Florida standoff, “Kavanaugh joined Bush’s legal team, which was trying to stop the ballot recount in the state.” Kavanaugh appeared on national television to push for the ruling that halted the statewide recount and handed Bush the presidency. 

What a sour joke this country is.

One Response to “Three out of nine”