Sorry, Chicken Little, But The Sky Is Not Falling

The problem is both are true. It would deprive 50% of the country of their preferred candidate & their reaction would be seismic & probably violent, and this is probably what is Constitutionally correct. Is there a snowball's chance in hell of SCOTUS doing it? Of course not. https://t.co/KCLc9uNkqz

— Brian Rosenwald (@brianros1) December 30, 2023

50% of Americans?

I mean, I agree with the second half, but you're wrong about the less than 15%. It's at least half of Republicans.

— Brian Rosenwald (@brianros1) December 31, 2023

Okay, to begin with, 50% of Americans didn’t support Brown v Board. And there was violence attendant upon implementing it. But it was still the right thing to do, and the Republic survived and improved.

The Constitutional republic established by the Constitution does not give ultimate authority to 50% +1, or to the angry and violent mob. And how is this angry mob going to manifest itself? I remember people during Covid (yes, I’m that old) threatening violence against public health orders and gathering to implement it. Turned out there weren’t that many people who were as angry as they were. Every attempt at some kind of organized public violence over Covid fizzled. Every. One.

But we were assured, time and again, that violence was incipient and would soon explode.

And 50% of Americans are Republicans? You’re thinking of independents, who by the latest numbers are how 49% of Americans identity. The number who identify as Democrats or Republicans is the same: 25% apiece.

Which makes “50% of Republicans” 12.5% of Americans. And 50% of them are not prone to violence, nor likely to be driven to it just because of a court ruling. They may be pissed they can’t vote for Trump, but are they going to attack polling places? Or burn their mail-in ballots? “Be there! Will be wild!” Be where? And when?

Please stop crying “WOLF!” when there is no wolf. 

Trump on his best day managed to rally about 3000 people to a specific time and place for a specific purpose. How does that come around again? The Republic did not even tremble, bad as that day was. Trump’s ability to repeat it will be nil, especially over something as abstract as a court ruling. A ruling that will likely leave the states the authority they already have: to determine who qualifies for their ballot. Hint: it ain’t whoever says they are running for President. Ask Ross Perot, who never qualified for all 50 ballots (RFK, Jr isn’t likely to, either).Somehow that particular situation has never called the American Experiment into question before.*

It’s not going to now, either.

Beyond parody, @DougJBalloon. pic.twitter.com/eQC5wJjfTc

— A.J. Bauer (@ajbauer) December 30, 2023

These are the real questions we have to answer!

*I laugh at people who say the Supremes must set a uniform standard for ballot access. The only possible standard is due process of law. Perot had full opportunity to get on all 50 ballots. He just couldn’t get organized enough to meet the requirements of every state. Every potential third-party candidate faces the same problem, because the two major parties have the laws written to their favor. (That’s also why Trump will never make a third-party run.)

Every state, for that matter, has its own deadlines for qualifying for their ballot. Does the Supreme Court need to make that uniform, too?

If some states hold that Trump is disqualified under the 14th amendment, and some don’t, I don’t see a problem with that, either. Judge Gorsuch found that Colorado could bar a candidate from the Presidential ballot in Colorado because of the “natural born citizen” requirement. Gorsuch didn’t see the need to stretch that ruling to all 50 states, or reject the argument because it couldn’t be applied to the other 49.

Honestly, this practicing Constitutional law without a clue has got to stop!🛑