The Supreme Court hands two final defeats to Trump

[DonViejo]

Trump’s effort to overturn the 2020 election is dead, but a terrible legal argument seeking to upend American democracy is still alive.

By Ian Millhiser Feb 22, 2021, 11:44am EST

Former President Donald Trump has been a private citizen for a little more than a month, but the Supreme Court just officially denied his final effort to overturn the 2020 election — although it did so over the protests of three justices.

Additionally, the Court announced that it will not prevent Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. from obtaining Trump’s tax records, as part of a longstanding criminal investigation into Trump’s businesses.

The Court’s decision not to intervene in this case about Trump’s financial records, Trump v. Vance, is not surprising. In that case, Trump’s lawyers argued that the former president was entitled to absolutely sweeping immunity from criminal investigation while in office — at one point claiming that a sitting president cannot be the subject of a criminal probe if he shoots someone on a public street. But the Supreme Court already rejected this sweeping immunity argument once, in a decision handed down last July. And Trump is no longer the sitting president, so his already weak arguments are now even weaker.

The Court also announced that it will not hear two consolidated election cases on Monday, and its decision not to hear Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party is also not surprising. The cases ask whether a small number of Pennsylvania absentee ballots that arrived after election day should be counted. But, because these ballots will not change the result of any federal election even if they are tossed out, the two Pennsylvania cases are moot.

more
https://www.vox.com/2021/2/22/22295164/supreme-court-trump-two-loses-vance-pennsylvania-amy-coney-barrett-clarence-thomas-samuel-alito

[Bucky]

1. Probably not "final"

He may play better among the conservatives, but the man is a walking Keynesian jobs program for shitty lawyers.

[Blue Owl]

2. Suck it Donny you fat piece of shit

[dutch777]

3. Well said!

[bluestarone]

4. BIGGEST GREAT NEWS of the day!!! BUT

Sad to see the SC politicized these decisions! THIS should have been settled LONG AGO, along with, is the president above the law! It's easy for the court to rule AFTER QRUMP is out of office! SAD day in America.

[Me.]

5. THis Is Worrying

"What is surprising is that three justices — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch — all voted to hear these two Pennsylvania cases"

[jcgoldie]

7. Not surprising at all in regards to Thomas and Alito

Sad to see Gorsuch throwing truth to the wind.

[Me.]

8. Gorsuch Is The Sticking Point

[msfiddlestix]

6. So while we celebrate, we have to gear up significantly for another issue brought up in this article

The other issue which is being reported on now is how a number of states are attempting to create a "independent" state legislator that would be empowered to choose the election of the President.

Excerpts from the same article in original post:

The “independent state legislature” doctrine, briefly explained
The Pennsylvania cases both involve something known as the “independent state legislature” doctrine, a doctrine that the Supreme Court has repeatedly rejected at multiple points throughout its history, but that is now embraced by at least four members of the Court’s Republican majority.

The Constitution provides that “the Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof.” A separate constitutional provision provides that “each State shall appoint” members of the Electoral College “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.”

Proponents of the independent state legislature doctrine claim that the word “legislature,” when used in this context, must refer to the legislative branch of government within a state — and thus the state’s judiciary and the state’s executive branch are both forbidden to shape the rules governing federal elections within a state. As Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in an opinion last fall, “the Constitution provides that state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”

There are many problems with this interpretation of the Constitution, however. One of them is that the Court has repeatedly rejected the independent state legislature doctrine. For more than a century, the Supreme Court understood the word “legislature,” as it is used in the relevant constitutional provisions, to refer to whatever the valid lawmaking process is within that state. As the Court held most recently in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (2015), the word “legislature” should be read “in accordance with the State’s prescriptions for lawmaking, which may include the referendum and the Governor’s veto.”

There's much more at this link, very worth the time to read through. I know we need a larger majority in the Senate, but we must begin the process of writing an amendment to the Constitution to do away with the Electoral College, Presidential Elections must be won by majority of the Popular Vote. Period.