Three different columns on Trump’s fruitless court fights. (Links to full pieces embedded in the headlines.)

Texas’ challenge was unconservative and unconstitutional (Dec. 11): The Supreme Court told Texas to stay in its lane, and thus reconfirmed the rule of law…. The justices wrote that Texas lacked legal “standing” to file such a bill of complaint in the first place. The single substantive sentence of explanation was almost brutal in its directness: “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”…

Trump’s legal team cited losing opinion from Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Dec. 11):

When Rudy Giuliani’s team of Trump election lawyers cites the authority of a dissenting opinion from liberal icon Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, it clearly has abandoned all sense of constitutional conservatism. That’s what President Trump’s team did this week, specifically embracing Ginsburg’s losing argument in the 2000 election case of Bush v. Gore….

Even if there was fraud, Trump has no chance left to win (Dec. 15): For Trump now to win, he needs several things to happen.

First, he needs at least one member of each chamber of Congress to object to accepting the duly certified electors from, let’s say, all of the three closest states — Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin. In each instance, a majority of both chambers must vote to reject the certified electors from the states in question. This would be a neat trick, considering that Trump’s opponents, the Democrats, enjoy a majority in the House. All Republicans, plus at least six Democrats, would have to be willing to ignore the duly certified electoral slate three separate times (one for each state) during the counting.

Second, they would then have to convince House and Senate majorities to accept the alternate slates (in those three states) consisting of Trump supporters whom not a single relevant state official has certified in any way, shape, or form. They would need to do so even though no Trump legal team is arguing that it is provable that Trump actually won those states, but merely that too many anomalies occurred for a clear winner to be determined. In sum, all House Republicans and six House Democrats would need to be able to justify to their voters why they were approving a Trump win in those states when not even Trump can prove he won….


Tags: , , ,