Now that Pennsylvania has certified its election results, we may never know whether Justice Barrett would have recused from the election litigation

Now, Circuit Justice Alito can deny the pending application from Pennsylvania without referring the case to the full Court

|

Today, the Pennsylvania Secretary of State certified the final count for the presidential election. At this point, the Supreme Court likely has no urgent need to decide any of the pending cases on its docket. I'm not quite sure that the cases are moot--it ain't over till January 20--but the likelihood of the Supreme Court intervening are slim to none.

In time, Circuit Justice Alito will likely deny or dismiss any pending cases on his own, without referring the cases to the full Court. As a result, there will be no opportunity for Justice Barrett to opine on these cases. Thus, we may never find out whether she would have recused on the various election cases. Just as well.

NEXT: UMD Public Policy School Mandating Ideological Statements on Syllabus, Requiring That Class "Materials" and "Discussions" "Respect All Forms of Diversity"

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. "Just as well."
    Agreed! Let's move on.

  2. Ginsberg would never have recused, and she was overtly prejudiced against the President....

  3. What possible reason would she need to recuse? Asking the question is to play the left's dangerous and divisive game.
    You should be ashamed.

    1. Oh, I don't know. The fact that Trump explicitly admitted that she was placed on the Court at the last minute and in contradiction to Republican pledges not to approve a nominee in the last year of a President's term to give him a favorable adjudication on the election seems like a pretty good reason to those of us who have a reasonable view of things.

      On a serious note, the Court's esteem in the public eye had declined substantially in the Trump years as Alito has joined Thomas as a partisan politican Justice and the GOP has stuck two men on the Court whose appointments are subject to questions, for different reasons and the elevation of ACB looks like it was done in violation of ethical behavior by the Senate. A Court system, indeed a Democracy exists only as long as the public has faith in that system, and for ACB to recuse in a case involving Trump would have helped the declining image of the Court.

      But in the end the nation is better off, as Mr. Blackman states, to not have had to gone through a Supreme Court determination of who won the election.

      1. What does what some Republican senators unilaterally said several Congresses ago have to do with Justice Barrett? A statement of ones reasons is hardly a “pledge.” Nor was there any reliance. This is like saying Kagan and Sottomeyor should have recused from gay marriage cases because Obama pledged to oppose gay marriage when he was running for office. It’s less than that. Campaign pledges ask people to do something (vote for them). They have mutuality. What did the Republican senators ask Democratic senators to do in exchange for not bringing the Garrett nomination to a vote? Nothing. No mutuality, no quid pro quo, no agreement, and hence no fraud. Democrats weren’t induced to do a thing. Unilateral statements are nonbinding puffery.

      2. Your view is not "the public's eye". Your attacks on the appointment of Trump judges is just as unwarranted as the other attacks on the President over the past 4 years. You are simply making excuses to justify court-packing, which would truly cast into doubt the integrity of the Court.

      3. "and in contradiction to Republican pledges not to approve a nominee in the last year of a President’s term"

        We're not sharing that particular hallucination, you do know that, right?

        1. Hey Brett. You've got a call from Lindsey Graham. Want to take it?

  4. But she'll still make all fertile women wear Handmaids outfits.

  5. Exactly what issue would there be for the supreme court to rule on?

    Except, I guess, that the petitioners were so roundly inept and incompetent that maybe their "client" should get a break.

    Look, I know there are a lot of people here bitterly disappointed by the results, but for all their efforts nobody could/would present evidence before a judge that fraud or mismanagement occurred. Biden won as fairly as is possible with the election system we have.

    So my only advice to those people is this: why don't you take the advice YOU would have given had the situation been reversed.

  6. I predict the TDS will outlive Trump.

    1. Because without the TDS, they might actually have to discuss something substantive. And then some little boy will say, "But the Emperor has no clothes on!"

    2. (Saw on Reddit)

      If Trump goes to jail, does the Secret Service still have to protect him?

  7. "Thus, we may never find out whether she would have recused on the various election cases."

    In other words, "We'll have to wait until another case to find out if she's the toady we're expecting or just another backstabber like Roberts and (sometimes) Gorsuch and Kavanaugh."

  8. It would be a shame if there isn't a ruling on the Pennsylvania matter, as it involves a recurring abuse of power by SCOPA. SCOPA has repeatedly changed laws related to Federal elections by citing the state constitution while ignoring the US Constitution, in a lame, but so far successful, attempt to evade review.
    Rather than simply dismiss the petition, SCOTUS should grant the petition and then dismiss the case as moot , thereby asserting that any case involving an election for Congress and/or Presidential Electors inherently involves a Federal Question and therefore is subject to SCOTUS review.

    1. The problem is that there aren't enough members of the Supreme court who aren't too glad to see the back side of Trump to ask any questions about how it happened.

      1. This is madness. Are the conservative justices all secret Democrats?

        Give the paranoia a rest, Brett.

        1. Again, Brett is of the opinion that the entire GOP is against Trump even though the entire GOP has rolled over and given Trump every single thing he has wanted for 4½ years now, with the tiny handful of Republicans who oppose him implicitly or explicitly leaving the party.

    2. It is possible but difficult to make a federal case out of the Pennsylvania situation. The Constitution clearly gives states the authority to conduct elections, and clearly the Pennsylvania courts as opposed to the federal courts are the ones to opine on Pennsylvania election law. To argue that SCOTUS should review state election codes absent a clear violation of the U. S. Constitution is about as anti-conservative a position as one can take.

      There are situations where the equal protection guarantee of the U. S. Constitution comes into play. However, that is just not the case in the Pennsylvania situation. Notice that two of the plaintiffs in the Middle District were voters whose mail in ballot was disqualified because of their own stupid mistakes, not because of anything the state of Pennsylvania did. (In fact, they sued counties other than the one in which they resided, how dumb is that?) They were in no way denied the right to cast their vote. The fact that some counties allowed voters to correct their mistakes was deemed a proper discretionary authority by the Pennsylvania court. And the Pennsylvania court, much to the delight of Republicans and Trump supporters had earlier ruled that the Secretary in Penn could not require counties to provide for corrections. What a bunch of sore winners.

      The lesson: if you want to contest something in court, try and have at least a barely plausible case. And don't use the courts for political point making, that is not their role.

Please to post comments