A) not what the law requires (Trump’s demand, I mean)Remove this Twitter. He’s talking about invalidating 30 million votes. https://t.co/M5tPnUZ97v
— Robert J. DeNault (@robertjdenault) October 26, 2020
B) nothing he can do about it anyway. Giving his whining credence is giving him power he doesn’t have.
C) nor is Twitter out of line here.
The democrats need to win by a lot or trump is going to Bush v gore this thing. https://t.co/TcKMOqvpcs
— Molly Jong-Fast🏡 (@MollyJongFast) October 27, 2020
Nah. Gonna. Happen. Besides, Trump's campaign is broke. Who's gonna pay the lawyers to go from trial to the Supremes? (Bush v. Gore went through the Florida courts to the Florida Supreme Court before the Supremes got hold of it. They can't reach down and snatch it out of the local Secretary of State's office where the ballots are being counted. And Trump can't get there without a case and lawyers to file it. And Bush v. Gore wasn't about a close race, it was about a recount running up against a federal deadline. Well, that and how Florida handled the recount. Change the facts, change the outcome. Trump can't Bush v. Gore the race without recreating the circumstances of 2000. And no matter how much he tweets, he can't do that.)
Double-irony: my reading of Bush v. Gore says Trump can't stop the vote count at the point where he likes it. That would be the polar opposite of the result in Bush v. Gore. He's in a box of his own making, and he's not gonna fight his way out of it before January 20, 2021.
I both agree with you but also recognize that the supreme court is more amenable to this argument than I am comfortable with at this point.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2020/10/justice-bart-okavanaugh-counting-votes-is-theft
It's worth reading the actual opinions but this summary is good enough for discussion. Five members (soon six) are fine with putting their finger on the scales to help the Republicans. Even in her testimony Barrett distinguished between voting, what she called a civil right and bearing arms, a personal right. I don't fully understand her distinction but the take away is that personal rights are stronger than civil rights and so it's okey-dokey to disenfranchise lots of people. This will all get worse before it gets better.
No, I don't think the court will stop counting at midnight. I do think they will rule to happily toss absentee ballots on the flimsiest of excuses.
Tossing absentee ballots would mean going against a state legislature, the very argument Kavanaugh makes for limiting the authority of courts (or the Supreme Court). Many states provide for receiving and counting ballots long after Election Day.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the election would have to come down to one state. The Court is not going to toss the entire outcome, and Trump can’t bring that kind of challenge. There are rules here, even if it doesn’t seem like it.