You do realize that soon there will be a 5-4 majority to suspend the November election right?

[NewsCenter28]

That's how high the stakes are regarding the Kennedy replacement confirmation. I believe Putin stacked the courts to allow his thwarting of Democracy to proceed as well back at the beginning of his tyranny in Russia. John Roberts has a way about words and I'm sure he'll be able to find some "legal" justification as to why the November election can't happen or why it must be invalidated if it does occur and sweeps in Democratic majorities.

No one will assume office now without Trump's 5 toadies on the Supreme Kangaroo Court approving them, as all elections can be contested in the courts.

I'm not trolling. I'm not being defeatist. I stand by this: Democrats find a way to block the Kennedy replacement nomination or else Democracy is DEAD.

Everyone thinks Roe V Wade is the thing most at risk. No, the stakes are far higher than that and our enemies, and Putin, are playing for keeps. Are we playing for keeps?

Edit: Not possible? The Supremes will never intervene in the Florida election 2000 case, they said. The Supremes just ended the Florida reocunt, they later said!

[Cary]

1. Doubtful

[NewsCenter28]

2. Florida 2000 says hi

What if the house margin is so close that recounts decide who has the majority?

[Tiggeroshii]

30. Deciding if a recount happens or continues is far different than whether an entire election takes

Altogether

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

10. Not as farfetched as you might think... Nazi tRump has to know

impeachment in 2019 will be the 1st agenda item if the next Democratic-majority Congress is seated, which it will be... that is, if at least HONEST AND FAIR elections are allowed to proceed.

[Tatiana]

40. Throw that doubtful out the window. We thought it was doubtful a clown would get the Presidency.

Yet, here we are.

Anything goes. There is no bottom, no floor with this cabal.

We need to assume the worse and fight like it will happen.

[pangaia]

3. Of all the things I have imagined can happen, this surely was Not one of them.

Until now.

[Igel]

20. I choose a Wiki attack.

"Revert."

Look for judicial authority to do this. Good luck.

Even the 2000 USSC decision was based in weirdness that could have been avoided.

[bearsfootball516]

4. I guarantee you there will be elections in November.

[pangaia]

7. First, how can you guarantee that?

An second, what kind of elections will they actually be?


Honest questions.....

[bearsfootball516]

22. Ha. You're right, I can't guarantee it.

But the question itself is so absurd that it doesn't warrant validation.

[pangaia]

42. You know, i understand what you say about so absurd...

But, a lot of happenings in the last 2 years have been absurd, and they keep getting more and more absurd...

I no longer say about anything. " WHY,? or "it can't get any worse," or "how could that(this) happen.?"


Anyway, I hope you are right.

[Hekate]

5. No, actually, the Supreme Court is not empowered to do that.

[Blue_true]

13. Damned facts. They trip up people all the time. Your thought was my very first thought. nt

[guillaumeb]

16. But if they were,

and they did, we could have a Red Dawn scenario right out of right wing nightmares.

[Igel]

21. And if zombies existed,

and they attacked in November, we'd have a zombie apocalypse of nightmarish proportions.

When you rely on two highly improbable contingencies, the apodosis really isn't even a slim dunk, much less a slam dunk.

Yes.

I went there.

I used the word "apodosis."

[guillaumeb]

24. Well said.

There is speculation based on a reasonable assumption, and there is sheer fantasy. With 35% of the voters supportive of Trump, there is little need for cancelling elections. All that is needed is a typical low turnout.

[H2O Man]

36. Okay, but

what if we go outside on election day to vote, and it's raining television sets? And what if they are all on Fox News? Surely, you cannot deny that the Supreme Court could do that, right?

[VMA131Marine]

6. Trump doesn't need SCOTUS:

he needs to manufacture a national emergency so that he can use his power as Commander-in-Chief to suspend the elections until the crisis is averted (of course, it never will end). He's looking for his Reichstag fire!

[pangaia]

44. I was hoping you wouldn;t bring that up.

[Flaleftist]

8. There will still be elections.

The validity of the elections may be questionable and that is where the pro-Trump Supreme Court comes into play.

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. :eyeroll:

[malaise]

11. You are and I'm not biting

Resist!

[H2O Man]

38. Okay, but what if

the Supreme Court declares itself the winners of the World Series? If they do, the Yankees are fucked!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What will we do? What can we do? And what if Justice Kennedy gets Pete Rose's place in the Hall of Famous? This is very terrible to think about -- unless one is smoking good stuff. Even then .......

[jberryhill]

61. But what about this decision?

https://politics.theonion.com/supreme-court-rules-supreme-court-rules-1819564161

Supreme Court Rules Supreme Court Rules!

[H2O Man]

65. It clearly means

that the sky is falling. Even with Justice Souter's decent dissent descending down the steep cliff, I fear they will declare themselves the champions of the World Series, the NBA finals, and the Super Bowl.

[Hoyt]

12. Jeeeez. GOPers said Obama would do the same.

[Blue_true]

15. President Obama respected the Constitution, Trump does not.

But if Trump tries to suspend the election and republicans in Congress don't immediately handcuff him, republicans will suffer a bloodbath, the Surburban moms that are voting republican will be lost to republicans because reality will finally hit those women in the face.

[Hoyt]

25. He's not going to delay election and we look as foolish as GOPers suggesting

he will.

[Blue_true]

27. I agree. nt

[nuxvomica]

14. If they were smart, they would wait till after the election

That raises the stakes among their base driving high turnout. So McConnell has the choice of ensuring another GOP puppet on the court and probably losing the election, or probably winning the election and getting his court pick anyway but putting that prize at risk.

[Blue_true]

19. You make a good point. That is why we must turn out in numbers.

Face it, the pro Trump vote maximized in November 8, 2016 and they barely won. If we get 5% more turnout from our side, we flip lots of seats.

[CanonRay]

17. I got ridiculed when I raised

this possibility 6 months ago. Doesn't seem so far fetched now, does it.

[GulfCoast66]

35. Yeah, it does.

[onenote]

43. +1

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. Unlikely, but not out of the question either.

[CanonRay]

54. Underestimate Trump at your peril.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

55. Oh yeah, riiight... that's EXACTLY what I'm doing!!!

Thanks for the good laugh!!!

[Meadowoak]

18. Maybe Putin will have the other 7 justices offed, so we will have a supreme Court of

T
Rump.

[elehhhhna]

23. 5 old coots can't stop the public reaction to that. Simmer down.

[NewsCenter28]

26. Ask yourself this: Have you ever seen, in your life?

A line that the GOP said it could just not cross. Have they ever said "we respect democracy too much to do this" about anything? Ever? The answer is clearly no.

[jberryhill]

28. Lol

For the umpteenth time - the federal government doesn't even run our elections.

[tritsofme]

29. Silly conspiracy theory,why would Kennedy refuse to "suspend" the election himself if he's complicit

in the plot to “retire” and set off this chain of events that so clearly in your head leads to...suspended elections?

lol, talk about silly-season...take a deep breath.

[Takket]

31. i'm not aware of any empowerment SCOTUS has to cancel elections

[WillowTree]

32. Bizarre suggestion. Really.

[KelleyKramer]

33. Good Lawrd

Did ya start yer Friday drinkin a lil too early?

[H2O Man]

34. Please stop.

[njhoneybadger]

37. Really.........Really?

[Kaleva]

39. This woud be a better fit in the Creative Specualtion group

[onenote]

41. I thought another post I read was the dumbest thing I read here in a while

I was wrong. This is.

[D_Master81]

46. john roberts voted to uphold the ACA

i cant see him then voting to suspend an election. c'mon

[njhoneybadger]

47. Nice way to spell recount

[struggle4progress]

48. "And what if we are invaded by shape-shifting body-snatching space-alien lizard-people? What then?"

[Tarc]

49. let's not be all melodramatic over things with no actual possibility or precedent

These sorts of posts are entirely unwelcome here.

[Nictuku]

50. The Supreme Court is out of Session until Next year

[PoliticAverse]

64. Actually the next term begins "the first Monday in October" - October 1, 2018. n/t

[obnoxiousdrunk]

51. Oh lawd !

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

52. And just how, exactly, would that happen? There would have to be a case before the court,

and that case would have to make its way through the lower federal court system, and then the supreme court would have to grant a writ of certiorari (that is, agree to hear it). This usually takes months or even years. Right now there do not seem to be any federal cases involving suspending elections, and it's doubtful that there could be - because a party would have to have standing - that is, a present, quantifiable injury and not just an interest, as well as be able to present a judiciable controversy (meaning one that a court could resolve). Who would have standing to cancel elections? Nobody, that's who. And where's the judiciable controversy? And, by the way, and maybe most importantly, the Constitution delegates federal elections to the management of the individual states. So I have no idea how the court could shut down 50 different elections by adjudicating - what?

A Trump court could do a lot of damage, no doubt, but there's no way in hell it either can or would suspend elections.

[Awsi Dooger]

53. So I guess they can't really steal elections

If they are going to cancel them.

Whatever fits. Adjusters always rationalize something.

[Jim Lane]

56. Yes, Trump will name Susan Sarandon to the Court, and she'll vote for this.

I mean, as long as we're considering all the possibilities, we might as well incorporate the view that Sarandon is the single most powerful opinion-maker in the country.

The only loose end is that we don't yet know how the chemtrails figure in this.

[NewsCenter28]

58. Look I'm not insane...I know this isn't the most probable scenario

But I do firmly believe 100% in my heart, soul, body, and mind, that if 45 decided to suspend the November elections for some reason and took it to a court with his Kennedy appointment seated on it, that they would unquestionably obey and rule 5-4 that the elections cannot be held.

All I'm saying is whatever Trump asks this new court of his to do, they will do, Roberts included. Surely, none disagree there?

I'm starting to believe also that Robert's ACA 2012 decision was not the magnanimous act of nonpartisanship that it was presumed to be at the time. I think he thought saving the ACA would ensure that an enraged electorate would storm the gates and elect Romney to throw out the ACA, or at the very least thought there was no need to kill it himself since the GOP would eventually find a way to kill it without him. What better way to pretend to be nonpartisan?


I have ZERO faith in, resepct for, or trust of Kavanagh, Alito, Roberts, Thomas or Gorusch. NONE.

[Jim Lane]

59. My answer to your question about "none disagree" is: No, I disagree.

You write:

All I'm saying is whatever Trump asks this new court of his to do, they will do, Roberts included. Surely, none disagree there?

That's the point where I disagree. I think there are lines that even the right-wingers on the Court wouldn't cross.

During Watergate, a key question was whether Nixon could be compelled to deliver tape recordings that had been subpoenaed by the Special Counsel. The issue went to the Supreme Court. Word was that Nixon expected to lose, but also expected that the decision would have some "air" in it -- meaning that, of his four appointees sitting on the Court, at least one would dissent. Then he would say that, with the Court divided on the constitutional question, it was up to him to conduct the office of the President according to his own understanding of the Constitution.

What actually happened was that Justice Rehnquist, having served in the Nixon administration, recused himself, but the rest of the Court was unanimous. The decision was delivered by Chief Justice Burger, a Nixon appointee.

I remember reading that Nixon's aides were shocked. No one wanted to be the one to tell him. One joked about making a little "8-0" sign for Nixon's Irish Setter, King Timahoe, and sending the dog into the Oval Office.

Nixon turned over the tapes. They showed conclusively his criminal conduct. Sixteen days after the Court's decision, Nixon resigned.

In our current situation, as in 1974, there is no question of replacing the President with a Democrat. I believe that the Court would not go along with canceling the elections or anything remotely so outlandish. If there's a confrontation between Mueller and Trump, the worst that could happen to the GOP would be that Pence would take over. I don't think that the Justices, even the Trump appointees, would be so ardently pro-Trump that they'd approve something clearly illegal just to keep him in office.

What we can expect, instead, is more of what we've already gotten: court decisions that stack the deck by approving various forms of voter suppression. Outright suspension of the elections, this year or in 2020? No.

[mythology]

57. Literally none of this is true

This doesn't even rise to the level of conspiracy theory. It's just nonsensical fear mongering.

[Devil Child]

60. Tinfoil hat nonsense

Besides, if they did this country would immediately enter a civil war.

[brooklynite]

62. Trashing: lazy conspiracy theory and "the sky is falling" rant

[Liberal In Texas]

63. No, not going to happen.

They have other means to rig elections. They don't need to suspend them.

[Raine]

66. Nope nt