So far two states, Maine and Colorado, have decided Comrade Donald Trump is ineligible to be on their state ballots. Colorado’s decision was judicial; it came from the state’s Supreme Court. Maine’s decision was administrative; it came from their Secretary of State. Two states, two different processes. In each state, the decision to remove Trump from the ballot was made by a body authorized to make those decisions.
Republicans, of course, are pissed off (SPOILER: Republicans are always pissed off.) And yet, these results are entirely consistent with the way Republicans WANT elections to operate.
Here’s a crazy thing: the US doesn’t have a unified federal election system. What we have instead is a patchwork of 50 different federal election systems. Voters in Alabama, for example, have a different set of laws and rules than voters in Utah, even though they’re voting in the very same election.
Does that make any sense at all? Nope. But that’s how the US Constitution set things up when it was written back in 1787. Of course, in 1787 there were only three states: Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Another eight states were added in 1788, and other states gradually dribbled in over the next hundred years or so. Instead of bodging together a single set of election laws to cover EVERY state, Congress just kept saying, “Welcome to the monkey house, you do what you think is right when it comes to electing folks.”
And hey, modern Republicans have loved that idea. It allowed them to control election results by deciding who can vote, where they can vote, and when they can vote. Which is a nice way of saying it allowed them to decide who they didn’t want to vote. (SPOILER: they don’t want Black folks to vote. Or Democrats.) Combine that with massive partisan gerrymandering, and you have a recipe for minority rule.
But now, that States Rights approach has kicked them in the balls. Republicans are relying on SCOTUS to save them—which is a fairly safe bet, considering that Trump appointed three of the Justices and a fourth is married to a woman directly involved in the insurrection.
Am I implying SCOTUS is corrupt? No, not the entire Court. I AM stating my opinion that there are a number of SCOTUS Justices who are openly corrupt and base many of their decisions on political ideology rather than the law. To me, the question isn’t whether or not they’re corrupt, but who they’re corrupt for.
Right now, there are a lot of big GOP donors who are, for a number of reasons (none of which involve ethics or morality), reluctant to donate to Trump. Trump is a problem for the GOP. He’s warped the Republican Party to the degree that somewhat less hateful politicians are afraid to acknowledge, for example, that the Civil War was about slavery. It’s possible—maybe not likely, but certainly within the realm of possibility—that the corrupt members of SCOTUS will take those GOP donors into consideration and will refuse to accept Trump’s appeal of the decisions in Maine and Colorado.
It seems unlikely, but refusing to accept Trump’s appeal would effectively remove Trump from contention and make way for a more ‘palatable’ hate-mongering Republican candidate. It would also allow SCOTUS to claim they’re NOT ruled by conservative partisan hacks. (SPOILER: they’d still be ruled by conservative partisan hacks.) Refusing to accept Trump’s appeal might, in fact, be the only way this SCOTUS can redeem a meager shred of dignity and integrity. In fact, it might act as a sort of historical counter-balance for overturning Roe.
Let’s face it, this SCOTUS is the most fucked up Court in modern history. Legal scholars and historians might say, “Yeah, they fucked up by overturning Roe, but at least they drove a stake of holly through Trump’s black heart.”
gregfallis.com 