SCOTUS and the election
-
C'mon, man.
C'mon!
From the RWEC:
I’ll never stop being amazed at how brazenly the president and his deputies are willing to insinuate that the judges he’s appointed are partisan hacks. It never gets quite as far as insisting that they’re expected to rule his way as a show of gratitude for their appointment — a quid pro quo, to borrow a term that was in the news much earlier this year — but that’s the implication. His transactional view of law and everything else is even trickling down to his deputies, as you’ll see at the end of the clip below. The irony is, to the extent that Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are capable of being swayed by political pressure, bringing this sort of pressure on them can only hurt Trump’s cause. No judge wants to affirm a politician’s suggestion that they’re in his pocket by ruling his way in a case with the highest stakes.
-
Are they really so stupid that they just come right out and say it?
Remind me again about who's trying to undermine the electoral process.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS and the election:
Are they really so stupid that they just come right out and say it?
That was my point.
"C'mon, man!"
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in SCOTUS and the election:
Remind me again about who's trying to undermine the electoral process.
Americans.
-
Edit: Never mind
-
Trump goes to Supreme Court to get ballots thrown out? Suppression of the vote.
Republican State Legislator goes to Supreme Court to disallow these votes? Perfectly legit.
As a matter of fact, he should be going to the PA Republican Legislature first...
-
To McCarthy’s point, we don’t even know how many ballots came in sans postmark. Probably very few.
As I mentioned before, the other part of Bush v Gore was a pretty strong precedent that will hurt Trump. A 7-2 decision on equal protection applying to voting. He just isn’t going to be able to disqualify a significant swathe of votes.