Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onenote

(46,139 posts)
15. I understand the sentiment, but there is no basis for the SCOTUS to intervene
Wed Jan 11, 2017, 09:47 AM
Jan 2017

First, by its own terms, Bush v. Gore is not precedent for anything. The decision says so on its face.

Second, although I, along with millions, think the court should never have taken the case under the political question doctrine and, in any event, misinterpreted the Constitutional provisions at issue), in that case there was an actual legal theory, based on actual Constitutional provisions (the Equal Protection Clause and Article II, clause 1, Section 2 of the Constitution , on which the parties made their case. The Supreme Court isn't a free agent that gets to intervene in cases where there is no Constitutional basis.

Third, there are issues of standing -- who has standing to bring the suit? We know from the birther suits that not just anyone can challenge whether someone should be president.

Finally, one can't sue for speculative harm. Reports that Trump may do this or may do that starting January 20 aren't going to provide any basis for taking any form of judicial action against him. While not extending either the NNSA administrator or the Principal Deputy would be foolish, it's not illegal and, until January 20 we can't know whether or not they actually won't be extended or whether, if they're not, an acting head hasn't been named from within the agency to replace them. (The NNSA has gone without a confirmed Administrator in the past, with an acting administrator assuming the role during the interim).

I'm in no way defending anything Trump and his band of evil have done or may do. I'm just pointing out that dreaming of a Supreme Court intervention is just that -- dreaming. Contrary to your statement, short of Trump himself deciding not to take the oath of office, there actually is not time -- or the means -- to stop him from doing so otherwise.

Finally, even if Trump was indicted between now and the 20th, which seems highly improbable, it wouldn't prevent him from taking the oath of office. And even if Trump doesn't take the oath of office, Pence still could and presumably would, and would be the president per the Constitution.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

It would take people with courage madaboutharry Jan 2017 #1
I have been feeling like we are walking off a cliff and just haven't gone splat yet Hekate Jan 2017 #2
What About Us Voters - The American People?.... global1 Jan 2017 #3
I told my husband yesterday that the nation to sue the bastard, take him to court, to stop this KewlKat Jan 2017 #5
I for one... KGBot001 Jan 2017 #4
Welcome to DU! Take it from a longtime protestor: wear sturdy shoes, bring a towel and FailureToCommunicate Jan 2017 #6
...and a smart phone Fritz Walter Jan 2017 #13
Based on the accusations in the report released yesterday, we need to protect out nation. KewlKat Jan 2017 #7
More likely in a scenerio like this with Trump, and Pence never sworn in, HockeyMom Jan 2017 #18
I think the best bet BainsBane Jan 2017 #8
Thank you for your thought provoking OP, Hekate.. Cha Jan 2017 #9
The 4-4 SCOTUS? n2doc Jan 2017 #10
Obama jaxind Jan 2017 #11
The R's could invoke the 25th Amendment seconds after he's sworn in. Girard442 Jan 2017 #12
There isn't any Constitutional issue. NYC Liberal Jan 2017 #14
THANK YOU! WillowTree Jan 2017 #23
Yup, that is the sad truth of the matter Amishman Jan 2017 #27
Exactly. Some folks need to brush up on the Constituiton. n/t FSogol Jan 2017 #28
I understand the sentiment, but there is no basis for the SCOTUS to intervene onenote Jan 2017 #15
I'd think any US Citizen who voted would "have standing". Hugin Jan 2017 #16
No US Citizen voted for the President of the United States dumbcat Jan 2017 #17
I doubt even electors would have standing. onenote Jan 2017 #22
The only real legal basis would be that he's Constitutionally unqualified, NYC Liberal Jan 2017 #26
Even then, the courts might decide such a claim not to be "justiciable" onenote Jan 2017 #30
Right. And a candidate who is ineligible to be president NYC Liberal Jan 2017 #32
No. That was settled in the birther cases. Individual voters don't have standing onenote Jan 2017 #21
I'm afraid that the only chance we had at keeping this traitor out of office was Ligyron Jan 2017 #19
At the very least, we can call key key GOP Senators' offices. citizen blues Jan 2017 #20
That's exactly what I've been thinking...phone #'s for McCain, Graham and Collins in message RedEarth Jan 2017 #24
Call your senator lou ky dem Jan 2017 #25
His tax returns will not tell us if he has ties to Russia csziggy Jan 2017 #29
And Trump says, "go pound sand!" EL34x4 Jan 2017 #39
Somehow this is what needs to happen. libtodeath Jan 2017 #31
The four liberal leaning justices have too much respect for the constitution to do any such thing onenote Jan 2017 #33
Then welcome to the end of the country and likely the civilized world libtodeath Jan 2017 #34
Y'know, I thought it was the end of the world when Nixon was elected. And Reagan. onenote Jan 2017 #36
Were either of them open to blackmail from the kremlin with the nuke button as a counter? libtodeath Jan 2017 #37
Could be. McCarthy said there were 200 commies in the State Dept. onenote Jan 2017 #38
Maybe President Obama could block the White House front door with his outstretched arms EL34x4 Jan 2017 #40
* Hekate Jan 2017 #35
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»This is now a full blown ...»Reply #15