قالب وردپرس درنا توس
Home / US / The Supreme Court will likely not determine the election results for Trump: NPR

The Supreme Court will likely not determine the election results for Trump: NPR



The 2000 presidential election ended at the Supreme Court. Experts say that is unlikely to happen this time.

Robert F. Bukaty / AP


hide captions

convert annotations

Robert F. Bukaty / AP

The 2000 presidential election ended at the Supreme Court. Experts say that is unlikely to happen this time.

Robert F. Bukaty / AP

With President Trump rambling on “cheating” and pointing to the Supreme Court – with his three appointees – as final arbitrator, the question many are asking is: do the high court really get involved? In short, 2020 will be a reappearance of the Bush v. Up?

Election experts of all political persuasion say it very unlikely. The best bet the president could have was in Pennsylvania, where the Twice Republicans had previously asked judges to intervene, both times with no success. On the first attempt, the GOP objected to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision. State court, which explains the state constitution, extended the absentee ballot acceptance period by three days, as long as the ballots were postmarked by Election Day or not clearly postmarked.

The US Supreme Court got a 4 to 4 standstill when it first presented the matter in late October. That means the state court’s decision remains the same. In the second try, the vote was 8-0 after Pennsylvania officials agreed to separate the votes received after Election Day.

Trump’s campaign is still trying to get the Supreme Court to intervene, asking the Court to hear the arguments in the case. But experts say that while that could happen, it’s unlikely, for the simple reason that the number of votes received after Election Day is a small enough number that even now, with leaves votes are still counted in Pennsylvania, Joe Biden’s lead outnumbered the number of votes received after Election Day.

Election law expert Richard Hasen, University of California, Irvine, said: “Unless something new happens, I don’t see a viable path for Trump to sue out of the Electoral College’s losses.

Florida State University law professor Michael Morley agrees, noting that Biden still has some way to go.

If Biden carries Pennsylvania, where his lead is growing significantly, he doesn’t need to carry any other states to win.

And if he doesn’t bring Pennsylvania, he has other paths to victory. Assuming the AP predicts that the Biden victory in Arizona is kept, the former vice president just needs Nevada or Georgia to win, and as of now, he is leading in both.

“The easy thing” [for the justices] “Why bother,” said professor Derek Muller, from the University of Iowa Law. Muller noted that some conservative Supreme Court justices have expressed an interest in “reconsidering” the question of whether a majority of the state legislature Party’s view of the law replaces the interpretation of state supreme court. However, he added that it is “unlikely” that judges would want to send themselves into political fights when so far, no evidence of major fraud or misconduct would make a difference. special results for the election.

Professor Edward Foley, director of the election law program at Ohio State University, said right now, like it or not, Trump seems to be “on the sidelines of the lawsuit.” That’s what happened to Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004, Foley explained. Kerry was interested and willing to present legal challenges in Ohio, but “the number of votes was not there” was large enough to justify the litigation.

However, the margins of lawsuits do not seem to be what President Trump is thinking about right now. Appearing at the microphone Thursday night, he said, “We think there will be a lot of lawsuits because we have too much evidence, too much evidence. And it will be over, probably in the high court. Most of the … We can’t let an election be stolen like this. “

But at the same time Trump has called for a cessation of vote counting in states where his leadership has disappeared, he wants the tally to continue where Biden’s leadership is being eroded.

Trump’s campaign legal advisor Harmeet Dhillon told Fox Business that the campaign hopes new Supreme Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett will help Trump win the presidency if a case goes to court. Supreme.

“We are waiting for the US Supreme Court – where the president has nominated three justices – to step in and do something,” Dhillon said. “And hopefully Amy Coney Barrett will get through.”

However, election experts, both conservative and liberal, say that so far they have not seen evidence of fraud. Rather, as Professor Muller said, the accusations are “confusing”, just as observers want to be, and are ultimately allowed to get closer to the polling station. Indeed, in an era where actual TV cameras are in polling centers recording what’s going on, it’s even more difficult to “stink”.

In fact, even in Georgia, where Biden’s win rate is currently very thin, a recount is expected, and where all officials across the state are Republicans, Those who supervised the counting of the votes said that there was no evidence of fraud.

There are a number of theoretical moves that the Trump campaign could take – such as some Republican-controlled state legislatures trying to replace delegates of the GOP Electoral College for delegates of Democrats in states where Biden has won more votes. But that would require extraordinary Republican maneuvers in the US Senate – something unheard of since the 1876 post-civil war elections that caused unusually divided and problematic divisions.

Sen. Lindsey Graham, RS.C., said on Thursday that “everything should be on the table.” But Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell declined to say anything other than that all votes should be counted.


Source link