There has been a tremendous amount of hand-wringing over Trump’s S.C. nominees, and how if the election ends up before the court, it is “bound” to decide in his favor.
But - why would they? I assume that most of the justices are honorable, or at least they think they are, regardless of their political leanings. They are also not beholden to the President at all. Why would they decide in Trump’s favor (assuming that the case doesn’t clearly fall in his favor on established case law)? They have their reputations to think of, and I would assume that is important to them.
I know very little about Barrett, but she is supposed to be an “Originalist.” Why would she rule against what the Constitution says?
They wouldn’t necessarily at all, as you say. I fully expect Roberts to side with the three liberal justices if the election outcome comes down to SCOTUS. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Gorsuch jump over as well; he’s been known to stick to his interpretation of originalism or the Constitution even if it goes against conservatism (i.e., his recent opinion on the LGBT matter.)
So Biden could very well prevail in SCOTUS by a 5-4 vote.
If a justice has some secrets, that might give them a reason to keep Trump in office. I believe I’ve heard rumor that Kavanaugh had some large debt paid off right before his confirmation.
After the piss poor behavior of Roberts at the impeachment trial of Trump, I have no confidence in his desire to do the right thing. And Amy has done a total flip flop about having a justice chosen at a time like this now that she’s the one getting the job.
My worst fear in all this is that Trump and his legal team have already cooked up some underhanded strategy for remaining in power that they haven’t told anybody about. Maybe some pundit somewhere has already correctly speculated what Trump and his team might do, but there’s no confirmation. Yet. They’re saving it for a surprise at the right time. I think he might have chosen his latest nominee and possibly earlier justices based on how his legal team thinks his nominee(s) might rule on this as-yet unannounced strategy.
Have you seen the news clip where she lays out her arguments over why Obama shouldn’t be allowed to pick a Justice in an election year? Hilarious!
Scalia and Thomas, both “originalists”, whatever that means, were in the majority in Bush v Gore, which stopped counting in Florida and essentially handed the presidency to Bush. Do you think Kavanaugh is more honorable than them? Barrett is more honorable than Kennedy?
If some key Republican-governed state is slow-walking ballot counting because Trump won on election night but may lose due to mail-ins, do you think this current Court would hesitate in stopping the count?
What if Barrett did a Jeff Sessions and recuses herself from the decision. It would actually be the right thing to do and would let her off the hook of appearing to support the President that appointed her. Then she wouldn’t have to put up with four more years of people calling her Trumps puppet every time a controversial decision came up.
Yes, but we should explore all scenarios no matter if they seem unlikely. It’s like the right thing to do would be for Trump to release his taxes, could happen but who knows?
I figure it will be over on - or close to - election night. Either Biden will win so big that Trump (with an assist from the Supremes) will not be able to steal it, or it will be close enough that the Supremes will keep trump in with some “for the good of the country” BS.
Just amazing that our elections would make us the laughing stock of any banana republic…
I honestly have no idea whether the Court would use this standard or simply make up a new one. But one thing has been clear since 2000: the Supreme Court has no problem thrusting itself into an election controversy and using its judicial power to interfere with what really is the domain of the States. In that case, they claimed that the State violated the “equal protection” clause because different counties had different methods of counting votes. But by that same logic, having federal elections for the president essentially does that, as each state has its own methodology of voting eligibility and so forth. Civil rights don’t end at state lines.
If it really is a blow out, particularly one that costs the Republicans control of the Senate, I think Republicans will probably quietly start an anti-Trump resistance movement. But that’s a big if, and right now, while Biden is clearly winning the polls, there’s nothing indicating a blow out per se.
I generally agree with the OP. I believe they will judge any case based on its merits, and not be concerned with who appointed them. I also believe that if some justices vote in some hypothetical case for Trump, that some will interpret their actions based solely on who appointed them.
Sure we expect “more/different” from judges - and often we get it. But judges are people. To a large extent, they have limited interest in questioning the legitimacy of how they were selected.
I applied for my current position 3 times before being selected. The first 2 times, I was declared not even minimally qualified! Believe me, I had plenty to say about how fucked up the process was, obviously not aimed at selecting the most qualified people… Of course, when my application sailed through the 3d time around, I had to admit that the system was just as fucked up when it selected ME!
Add in, that most (not ALL - especially some of the most recent appointments) appellate judges and Supremes are really pretty damned smart and hard-working people to have gotten where they are. You don’t get in a position like that w/o developing SOME sense of ego as to your qualities and qualifications.
Just saying, don’t be waiting for any justice to say, “Oh yeah, I don’t deserve the position, and I was nominated by a clown and affirmed through an illegitimate process.” Not saying NO ONE would EVER act that way, but I’d be VERY comfortable betting the other way - and giving generous odds.
