The President of the United States suffered a decisive setback on Friday, December 11. Seized by the Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton, who wanted to annul the votes of voters in four states won on November 3 by Democrat Joe Biden – Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin -, the Supreme Court curtly judged that his State had not “Demonstrated a recognizable interest from a legal point of view in the way in which another state organizes its elections”. The only nuance, the two most conservative judges, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, felt that the Supreme Court would have been entitled to take up the complaint, without ruling on the merits, however.
Donald Trump had assured him before the poll: he was convinced that the presidential election would be arbitrated by the Supreme Court. During the weeks leading up to November 3, he had repeatedly stated his reasoning. Assuring that the postal votes which the Democrats intended massively to use would be tainted with fraud, the outgoing president hoped that the highest legal body would rule in his favor.
This conviction had justified the expeditious procedure, unprecedented in the history of the institution, by which the conservative judge Amy Coney Barrett was appointed, then confirmed by the Senate. His arrival had brought the majority of them appointed by Republican presidents to six judges, including three by Donald Trump.
Tuesday, he appealed to “Courage to do what everyone in this country knows is right”. “If the Supreme Court shows great wisdom and courage, perhaps the American people will win the most important case in history, and our electoral process will be respected again.”, had assured the president on his account Twitter, Friday morning, in a last attempt at pressure.
“The most absurd remedy”
Its purely transactional reading of powers shattered against the law. The complaint of the Attorney General of Texas, himself struggling with justice and who has every reason to hope for a presidential pardon, had been judged severely by a majority of jurists. “We have a new suitor for the most absurd appeal concerning the elections”, was ironic the professor at the University of Texas Steve Vladeck, on his Twitter account. As of Tuesday, the Court had already dismissed in a concise sentence a Republican complaint limited to Pennsylvania.
You have 54.85% of this article to read. The rest is for subscribers only.
