Notes on Trump 58 – SCOTUS goes slow

I added this comment to Notes 57:

SCOTUS has just dismissed Texas for lack of standing to dispute elections in other States.

That was the weakest point. Texas claimed it had an interest because of dilution of Texas votes in Senate where Vice President chosen unlawfully has casting vote.

I thought SCOTUS would take the case because otherwise they are stuck with multiple separate cases wading their way through the lower State and Federal courts.

But combined with dismissal of [emergency injunction in] Kelly v Pennsylvania this does indicate any eventual judgments will be well after Biden takes office, contrary to my expectation.

Unusually, it seems the “experts” were right. Not unusually, I was wrong.

Click to access 121120zr_p860.pdf

No idea what happens next, as I wasn’t expecting this.

Thinking about it, my assumptions now are as follows.

Certainly nothing dramatic happens before December 14 so Biden and Harris become President and Vice President elect.

I just read the Texas reply filings and it seems they were serious about wanting the State Legislatures to be able to appoint replacement electors and actually have Trump declared winner on December.

That was never going to happen and I took it as purely an ambit claim with the intention of throwing it to the House instead by just restraining the votes so that total required would remain 270 and Biden/Harris would have less than that. But perhaps State Legislatures really was the plan, which was doomed.

They also seriously tried to defend a statistical analysis rather mildly described as “nonsense” by defendants.

It was actually “completely idiotic” rather than merely “nonsense”, as clearly explained here:

More on Statistical Stupidity at SCOTUS

I also now think it is also highly unlikely that anything much will happen by January 6 or by inauguration day on January 20.

Another factor is that there were still only 126 (of 196) Republican Representatives signed on as friends of the court in a second attempt a day after the first 100. That suggests a serious likelihood that throwing it to the House would still result in Biden winning in the House (with Vice President Pence winning in the Senate). Representatives in “purple” swing States are often “moderates” to avoid alienating other voters. There could easily be enough Republicans in enough State delegations who could either vote against Trump or simply abstain so that their State delegation votes for the candidate that had the larger popular vote. Only 1 or 2 State delegations would need to swing or abstain.

The issues will end up going to trial at some point but it seems unlikely that SCOTUS intends to expedite anything at all. One case that blocked Federal trials on the substance for Pennsylvania was already listed has a response due December 28 to proceed normally:

Any eventual declarations that the elections were conducted unlawfully in enough States could still result in removal of Biden and Harris from office. Equally it could just not.

It isn’t over but I was expecting lots of drama this week and I am not expecting that now.

How things develop with lots of people believing the election was rigged and a woeful Biden Presidency remains to be seen.

I still expect a mass based right wing party led by Trump with both a parliamentary and extra parliamentary wing.

Even if a majority of GOP representatives reject Trump, most won’t be likely to survive the primaries in 2 years.

One thought on “Notes on Trump 58 – SCOTUS goes slow

  1. [replacing wrong tweet link at end of earlier version]

    I mentioned in Notes 56 that if SCOTUS did throw the election to the House voting by States:

    “Lots of interesting things could then happen in early January since the House of Representatives majority has powers over the credentials of its own members and could prevent any President or Vice-President being elected before the current term expires on January 20.”

    The only evidence I knew of then that they might be discussing use of the power over credentials was a report that an Iowa Democrat who lost by only 6 votes intended to bypass disputing the count through the courts and instead appeal to the House (ie the Democratic caucus to reject his opponent’s credentials). That tactic could turn a Republican majority of State delegations into a minority at the first session, before any vote for President could be held after a deadlocked count on January 6.

    Here’s evidence that discussion of such tactics was considered widely enough to reach the nuttier fascist fringes of the Democrat caucus who can’t resist the temptation to bring up the idea in retaliation for having gone to Court even though it wasn’t needed to defeat any success at doing so:

    “Democratic congressman calls on Republicans who supported Texas lawsuit to be barred from sitting in Congress

    Bill Pascrell Jr, a Democratic representative for New Jersey, has called on House leader Nancy Pelosi to sanction Republican members who supported Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn Joe Biden’s emphatic election win by refusing to let them sit in Congress.

    Mr Pascrell claims the 126 Republican representatives who supported the Texas lawsuit seeking to reject the election results in four states won by Mr Biden fell foul of the 14th amendment, which bars anyone who has “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” against the US from sitting in Congress.”



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s