2020.12.12 12:44
I would like to share the news you already heard through the night but more in detail, someone sent it to me as below.
During the past four years, President Donald Trump has challenged the integrity of the Supreme Court and tried to drag the justices into the legal muck with him.
His arguments have pushed the boundaries of the law and his assertions have tested the impartiality of individual justices. But Trump's meritless attack on the November election and his loss to Joe Biden in a brazen lawsuit initiated by the Texas attorney general brought the court into a wholly new realm.
The high court slapped down the case promoted by Trump on Friday, three days before the Electoral College will meet to cast votes for Biden as the winner of the November election, with no noted dissents.
As such, the court's justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, three by Trump, have separated themselves from the pattern of hard-core partisans who were asking the court to use baseless claims of widespread voter fraud to disenfranchise millions of voters.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Trump had persuaded a group of 18 other Republican state attorneys general and 126 Republican members of Congress to sign on to arguments that would have reversed the will of voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
If the justices had not rejected the request from Texas and other Republican-led states, they would have defied their own precedent and compromised any notion of neutrality.
For the Supreme Court itself, there has always been a question of how it emerges from Trump's legally fraught four years. Many of his policy initiatives -- and some of his personal financial dealings -- were subject to lawsuits.
And the President routinely suggested that once a case reached the conservative-dominated bench, he would prevail. His Twitter posts and other rhetoric have constantly undermined the notion of neutral judges. He implied Democratic appointees would automatically rule against him and Republican appointees would side with him.
On Friday afternoon, a few hours before the justices' order in Texas v. Pennsylvania, Trump tweeted, "If the Supreme Court shows Great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history and our Electoral Process will be respected again!"
He had pushed for swift Senate confirmation in October of his third appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying the court might end up deciding the election. (Barrett did not recuse herself from the Texas case.)
Before Trump brought the country to this point on the election, his policy agenda had bitterly divided the nine justices, such as on the travel ban that affected majority-Muslim countries and his attempt to end the "Dreamers" program for young immigrants who came to the US without proper papers.
Trump prevailed on the first, in 2018, and lost on the second, just this year. The administration generally did better in the early years, as the court majority soon grew frustrated with the Trump team's failure to comply with procedural norms.
In opinions written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court found that the administration contrived a rationale for a proposed citizenship question on the 2020 census and, separately, failed to justify its rollback of protections for "Dreamers" in the Obama-sponsored Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, program.
But Trump could usually count on two or more justices on the right-wing to endorse his positions.
In the election case, not a single justice expressed any openness to the Texas and Trump assertions of election irregularities. Friday night's order was unsigned.
The only other comment in the court's action may be mainly of interest to the legal community, rather than relevant to the election results. In asking the justices to exercise its "original jurisdiction, Paxton tried to vault over lower courts and brush aside rulings against the President and his allies. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas wrote a separate statement saying they would have given Texas permission to file the case. But they also said they would not have granted any claims.
The substance of the case aside, the sloppiness of some of the filings might have generated additional frustrations for the justices. The apparent haste in which many were put together reinforced the overall weakness of the arguments. A brief from GOP states that included Louisiana spelled it "Lousiana." The filing from GOP lawmakers placed Republican Rep. Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey from South Carolina instead. Advocates for the "New California" and "New Nevada" states, siding with Texas, repeatedly misspelled the name of current California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
Trump vs. The Roberts Court
Over his tenure, Trump has split the high court and put Roberts on the defensive.
After Trump derided a judge who ruled against him in November 2018 as an "Obama judge," Roberts issued a statement: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."
The Roberts Court majority has sided with the President's positions more often than not, particularly on pro-corporate, anti-immigrant, and conservative religious liberty claims. But there have been recent high-profile losses, including the DACA case this year, that have drawn Trump's wrath on Twitter.
The administration may be headed for another. Based on the justices' comments during arguments over the Affordable Care Act in November, Trump may soon lose his attempt to kill Obamacare. During arguments, Roberts expressed frustration that opponents of the law that has brought health insurance coverage to 20 million more Americans had failed to end it legislatively and were asking the judicial branch to do it for them.
Irrespective of whether the justices ruled for the administration or its challengers, Roberts took pains to signal the justices' independence.
"We should celebrate our strong and independent judiciary, a key source of national unity and stability," Roberts wrote in his 2019 year-end message. "But we should also remember that justice is not inevitable."
Texas and its supporters had invoked the 2000 Bush v. Gore case, in which the Supreme Court cut off Florida recounts and effectively declared then-Gov. George Bush the winner of Florida's decisive electors over then-Vice President Al Gore.
That dispute, arising from a truly tight race and a state-certified 537-vote margin for Bush, worked its way through lower courts and offered grounds that differed dramatically from the Texas effort. Still, Texas warned that the 2020 "electoral irregularities exceed the hanging-chad saga of the 2000 election" and "preclude knowing who legitimately won the 2020 election."
For the Supreme Court of 2000, Bush v. Gore came down to a difficult 5-4 vote, coincidentally issued 20 years ago on Saturday. Justices on both sides later expressed regret that they were dragged into it.
For the current Supreme Court, considering whether to join the Trump turmoil, it wasn't close.
All the best,
BB Lee
2020.12.12 18:11
2020.12.12 20:27
Indeed, I was really surprised by the fact that there are so many idiots in this country to vote for this guy and saddened it is the reality we can't deny!
What about the fact that 70% of Whites voted this bastard, as Rachel points out?
What about over 200 million dollars this SOB collected almost instantly within a few weeks?
So feel like we are stuck with this monster who will fight to the last as his niece kept saying!
BB Lee
2020.12.13 08:24
The historic release of the vaccine against COVID19, and the historic outright rejection
by the Supreme Court of Donald Trump's suit, both almost at the same time heralds
the beginning of the, prayerfully fast, downfall of the virus, and Trump.
It is clear that Trump is the virus, and the American judicial branch is the vaccine
protecting American Democracy.
2020.12.13 09:52
I have never expected Republicans are such stupid morons in its majority.
Not worthy to argue to waste my time but wish to condemn them on one word,
"Death to all the Republicans" whether they endorsed Trump openly or not.
They all are bad guys, deserved to go to hell, forever!
BB Lee
No. | Subject | Date | Author | Last Update | Views |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Notice | How to write your comments onto a webpage [2] | 2016.07.06 | 운영자 | 2016.11.20 | 18193 |
Notice | How to Upload Pictures in webpages | 2016.07.06 | 운영자 | 2018.10.19 | 32347 |
Notice | How to use Rich Text Editor [3] | 2016.06.28 | 운영자 | 2018.10.19 | 5924 |
Notice | How to Write a Webpage | 2016.06.28 | 운영자 | 2020.12.23 | 43840 |
253 | The first Democratic Debate [4] | 2019.06.27 | 온기철*71 | 2019.06.28 | 115 |
252 | The Day Democracy Died [3] | 2020.07.21 | 이병붕*63 | 2021.11.01 | 115 |
251 | 똑개비 뉴스 [1] | 2020.11.10 | 운영자 | 2020.11.10 | 115 |
250 | 북미 하노이 회담 결렬 [9] | 2019.02.28 | 온기철*71 | 2019.03.01 | 116 |
249 | 윗물이 맑아야 아랫물이 맑다. [7] | 2019.08.08 | 온기철*71 | 2019.08.10 | 116 |
» | The Supreme Court's clear message to President Trump: Stop [4] | 2020.12.12 | 이병붕*63 | 2020.12.13 | 117 |
247 | 중국과 한반도 [3] | 2020.01.09 | 온기철*71 | 2020.01.10 | 118 |
246 | Trunp의 Tax Return 1985-1994의 내용 [3] | 2020.05.11 | 운영자 | 2020.05.13 | 119 |
245 | 트럼프 지지자 백만 행진 [2] | 2020.11.12 | 온기철*71 | 2020.11.13 | 119 |
244 | 조국찬가, 태극기 데모 [1] | 2017.02.12 | 운영자 | 2017.02.12 | 120 |
243 | Oak Ridge Tennessee; Home for NK nuclear weapon? [1] | 2018.05.29 | 온기철*71 | 2018.05.29 | 120 |
242 | The Grand Show on Earth; 북한 핵에 대한 엉뚱 한 생각 [6] | 2018.08.31 | 온기철*71 | 2018.10.10 | 120 |
241 | Las Vegas' odds in favor of Biden [1] | 2020.10.01 | 운영자 | 2020.10.01 | 122 |
240 | 설민석 - 통일이 되면 나에게 무엇이 좋은가? [7] | 2019.12.19 | 운영자 | 2019.12.23 | 122 |
239 | 자유조선; 에드리언 홍 [6] | 2019.04.06 | 온기철*71 | 2019.04.08 | 123 |
238 | Where are we standing on gun control? Trump & NRA | 2020.03.28 | 온기철*71 | 2020.03.28 | 123 |
237 | 정겨운 영옥, 은주, 순자 씨 [1] | 2020.11.17 | 온기철*71 | 2020.11.17 | 123 |
236 | 한국해양영토 확장을 위한 독도와 울릉도 사이 인공섬 설치? [1] | 2021.04.05 | 운영자 | 2021.04.05 | 123 |
235 | 주한 미군 [8] | 2018.05.01 | 온기철*71 | 2018.05.01 | 125 |
234 | 한국논설 Video에 보낸 본인의 Comment [6] | 2020.11.14 | 운영자 | 2020.11.14 | 128 |
The idiot might have thought that his appointees in the Supreme Court would agree with him.
I think it is the last straw that broke Trump's back. The Republican state attorney generals
and Representatives went along with the Texas attorney general not because they thought it
had any chance to succeed but because they were trying to please Trump supporters. I am
not sure that Trump supporters would stay with Trump or some of them would leave him
after the ruling. I feel sad that the U.S. will be the country that
30 to 40% of citizens will not think that Joe Biden is not President who is legally elected
even though the election is over and it was clearly fair.