The decision of the United States Supreme Court in Republican National Committee versus Democratic National Committee, of April 6, 2020, is a great example of how sometimes something that can look terrible, ends up being excellent, at least in one respect:
What do I mean? Well, now that Banana has showed his hand, and in desperation is suggesting that the date of the presidential election be changed (this cannot be done because the date of the presidential election is set by Congress and has already been set and there’s no chance that the Democratic house would go along with the change of date regardless of what the Republican Senate did), THE REASONING IN THE WISCONSIN CASE DOOMS TRUMP.
While it is true that the court repeatedly emphasized that the decision was made on the narrow grounds regarding absentee ballot deadlines, it also pointed out the following:
”This Court has repeatedly emphasized that lower federal courts should ordinarily not alter the election rules on the eve of an election. See Purcell v. Gon- zalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006) (per curiam); Frank v. Walker, 574 U. S. 929 (2014); Veasey v. Perry, 574 U. S. __ (2014).”
The court was entirely unmoved by the following concerns of the liberal dissenters’ about the safety of the election due to coronavirus:
“The question here is whether tens of thousands of Wisconsin citizens can vote safely in the middle of a pandemic…Either they will have to brave the polls, endangering their own and others’ safety. Or they will lose their right to vote, through no fault of their own. That is a matter of utmost importance—to the constitutional rights of Wisconsin’s citizens, the integrity of the State’s election process, and in this most extraordinary time, the health of the Nation”
THE CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY, after blithely dismissing the liberal dissenters’ concerns on various procedural grounds – as though the country were not in a stay at home posture due to a then still-new pandemic emergency, would have to struggle now to say that after dismissing such arguments just MONTHS before, they would abruptly turn tail and endorse the radical step of changing the date of a presidential election. Roberts, who treasures the legal doctrine of stare decisis (Latin for, roughly: ‘let the decision stand’, which says that the court should not willy-nilly overturn decisions – particularly recent ones), would likely be loathe to change the date of a presidential election, particularly when there would also be radical separation of powers issues.
This could be true despite the court’s warning that the Wisconsin decision was narrow, because Roberts knows that the niceties of legal procedure would not shield the court with such passions present in the body politic this year.
Irony – and karma – live after all.