Raging Trump wants the Supreme Court to save him. Here's why it probably won't.

[brooklynite]

Washington Post

President Trump is now raging at the media for the sin of covering the pandemic and urging people to change their votes to him, demonstrating fury over an unalterable reality: This election is all about his catastrophic botching of a public health crisis that is rampaging furiously at the very moment when people are already voting in record numbers.

But, now that the Senate has confirmed Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court — and now that the court just issued a controversial ruling in Wisconsin that could help Trump — is it possible the court might save Trump if he’s on track to lose, as he has openly declared he wants?

It’s unlikely. A lot of things would have to line up perfectly for that to happen.

.

[murielm99]

1. This does not help those of us

who cannot read the entire article. I am not going to pay for a subscription.

[brooklynite]

3. That is your choice.

[brooklynite]

4. That is your choice.

[fleur-de-lisa]

7. Exactly. Why even post this if you don't address the statement made in the OP title.

[The Magistrate]

2. I Agree It Likely Will Not, Sir

But I have shot a lot of dice in my time, and people do crap out with boxcars on occasion --- the possibility cannot be ignored.

[PatSeg]

8. The justices aren't beholden to Trump

He has no power over them. I would say that with the possible exception of Clarence Thomas, they can't stand him and will be happy to see him gone. They don't want their legacy to include saving Trump's presidency.

[The Magistrate]

9. Regarding The Three The Cheap Thug Put On The Court, Ma'am, i Disagree

They are noxious ideologues who know their dreams of rolling back Federal jurisprudence to the views prevailing during the Harding and Hoover administrations would slip from their grasp if Mr. Biden takes the White House.

[PatSeg]

12. I don't know

I'm not so sure they are as ideological as they are egoistical and ambitious. They may be, but it seems it is their positions on the Supreme Court that is most important to them.

As far as their conservative ideology, Trump represents nothing that they believe in. He was just a means to an end and he is so erratic, there's no guarantee that he will help to further their agenda. Like so many, they used him when they needed him, but their current positions are more important than his political fortunes.

We'll see. The past few years have been full of surprises.

[lagomorph777]

5. "A lot of things."

No clue in the quote as to which things...

[exboyfil]

6. They are interpreting looking it up as a desire to do it

When most are just curious if you can actually do it.

[edhopper]

10. "Probably"?

That they will try to subvert Democracy and have any chance to do so is enough to to be worried and angered about.

Article behind a paywall.

[GreenEyedLefty]

11. Summarizing the article (because I have a subscription)

Basically, after the Wisconsin decision, which hinged on an election being "imminent," the Supreme Court would have a harder time ruling on Pennsylvania without contradicting itself, again, on an "imminent" election. From the article:

This might suggest the court will also overturn the Pennsylvania decision. In that case, the state supreme court also overrode the GOP state legislature, which opposed the extension. And when the eight-justice high court previously heard this case, it deadlocked 4-4, with all the conservatives being willing to restore the state legislature’s will.

With Barrett now on the court, there might be five conservative justices now prepared to do this.

But here’s the rub: To do so, they’d have to contradict a principle that Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh articulated in his Wisconsin opinion. He argued that Wisconsin couldn’t extend the period for accepting ballots because this constituted “changing state election rules too close to an election.” Kavanaugh described this as an affront to the democratic process, because it constituted a change when “an election is imminent.”

[Fiendish Thingy]

13. SCOTUS has no jurisdiction over the initial vote tallying. Nt