In a blog “members only” section of Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall makes an observation that seems right to me. In his opinion, a majority of the Court *would* have been up for intervention/interference if the election had been much closer. By this I mean that they very likely wouldn’t have played it straight, not just that the actual margin made their cheating less likely and that it’s hard to speculate. Although the first of those is certainly true, informed speculation seems easy to me. Even if this is just a “duh” observation – I think it is important to note it and not take any risk of valorizing the Court, just for doing its job minimally and protecting its reputation. I realize that you are just laughing at his justices’s powerlessness to help him and at how it gets warped by his base – still, I think a warning sticker advisable. Those justices are not cuddly.
In short, I think it is only the threadbare -actually threadless* – nature of the claims of fraud, or even of significant malfunction, that has kept the Court out.
*To characteristically digress – the last time I heard “threadless” in my head, I was reading Emily Dickinson’s poem 761 – “From blank to blank .. .” Now that packs a lot into almost no words – free will or not, the two ultra-black infinities on either side of one’s life (like off stage left and right out of the spotlight), a little reminder of Ariadne. One of my very favorites.
Yep. You are absolutely right. One bullet dodged is just that. I do think it unlikely, though of course not impossible, that the Court will intervene for DT, e.g. the Texas suit. But there are also dangers other than court rulings. So – while I do think it likely that a Democrat will have possession of the newly-disinfected Oval Office in mid-January – it would stress me out to have to guess just how short of 100% probability that is. (I’m still not sleeping all that well these days.) And – given what has been exposed, over the last four years, as to the degree of confusion, ignorance, bigotry, craveness, sadism and greed* of a significant part of the electorate and Republican “leadership” – we’ve got a decades long struggle, without guarantee of winning for a while, whatever that might look like. Almost not to mention climate change, against which the problems of bad political regimes are blips in what might be the lifespan of homo sapiens if all works out as best it might.
*I like to imagine a pie chart for each DT supporter showing their personal mix of these attributes. Simple
Simon’s horror bakery.
December 10th, 2020 at 10:33AM
In a blog “members only” section of Talking Points Memo, Josh Marshall makes an observation that seems right to me. In his opinion, a majority of the Court *would* have been up for intervention/interference if the election had been much closer. By this I mean that they very likely wouldn’t have played it straight, not just that the actual margin made their cheating less likely and that it’s hard to speculate. Although the first of those is certainly true, informed speculation seems easy to me. Even if this is just a “duh” observation – I think it is important to note it and not take any risk of valorizing the Court, just for doing its job minimally and protecting its reputation. I realize that you are just laughing at his justices’s powerlessness to help him and at how it gets warped by his base – still, I think a warning sticker advisable. Those justices are not cuddly.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/you-were-right-to-worry-scotus-would-steal-it-for-trump
In short, I think it is only the threadbare -actually threadless* – nature of the claims of fraud, or even of significant malfunction, that has kept the Court out.
*To characteristically digress – the last time I heard “threadless” in my head, I was reading Emily Dickinson’s poem 761 – “From blank to blank .. .” Now that packs a lot into almost no words – free will or not, the two ultra-black infinities on either side of one’s life (like off stage left and right out of the spotlight), a little reminder of Ariadne. One of my very favorites.
December 10th, 2020 at 3:23PM
Greg: Well, I was laughing. But despite your assurance that the Court will stay out, I find this latest episode scary.
December 11th, 2020 at 10:34AM
Yep. You are absolutely right. One bullet dodged is just that. I do think it unlikely, though of course not impossible, that the Court will intervene for DT, e.g. the Texas suit. But there are also dangers other than court rulings. So – while I do think it likely that a Democrat will have possession of the newly-disinfected Oval Office in mid-January – it would stress me out to have to guess just how short of 100% probability that is. (I’m still not sleeping all that well these days.) And – given what has been exposed, over the last four years, as to the degree of confusion, ignorance, bigotry, craveness, sadism and greed* of a significant part of the electorate and Republican “leadership” – we’ve got a decades long struggle, without guarantee of winning for a while, whatever that might look like. Almost not to mention climate change, against which the problems of bad political regimes are blips in what might be the lifespan of homo sapiens if all works out as best it might.
*I like to imagine a pie chart for each DT supporter showing their personal mix of these attributes. Simple
Simon’s horror bakery.