Top court spurns partisanship in denying Trump polls case

Bloomberg

In rejecting President Donald Trump’s call to overturn the US election outcome, the Supreme Court sent a message about its role in the American system of government: We do law here, not partisan politics.
With a brief, the court effectively killed any chance that Trump and his allies would succeed in using baseless claims of widespread fraud to reverse Joe Biden’s victory. The order, which rejected Texas’s attempt to nullify the results in four other states, followed a similarly abrupt rebuff Tuesday of a challenge to Biden’s win in Pennsylvania.
For a conservative court that’s been in the political crosshairs lately, the cases were a chance to bolster its credibility and distance itself from
the Republican Party agenda. Trump had predicted for months that the court — and the three members he appointed — would back him in any election dispute.
“The court’s order was unequivocal and puts to rest, in the minds of anyone sane, that the election was not ‘stolen’ and that Joe Biden is our next president,” said Neal Katyal, who served as President Barack Obama’s top Supreme Court lawyer. “There has been a lot of partisan sniping about the court, and a decision like this reminds folks that the court sits to resolve issues of law, not politics.”
The Texas order rejected calls by Trump, 18 GOP-controlled states, and 126 House Republican lawmakers. The decision predictably drew the wrath of the president, who vowed in a series of tweets to continue his fight. “The Supreme Court really let us down. No Wisdom, No Courage!” Trump tweeted.
The court’s action clears the way for the Electoral College to meet in 50 states and the District of Columbia on Monday, leaving no further path for Trump to challenge the election outcome.
Only a few months ago, as the Senate rushed to confirm Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacancy created when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died, many Democrats were clamoring to
add additional Supreme Court seats. Those calls may still pick up steam down the road. But for now, the court may have given itself at least a bit of cover from the nation’s partisan wars.
The order didn’t go as far as some has hoped. Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues passed on the opportunity to issue what might have been
a historic opinion about US democracy and the rule of law.
“The justices were decisive in completely rejecting Texas’s right to bring this case in one sentence,” Scotusblog founder and Supreme Court lawyer
Tom Goldstein said. “But a
more complete ruling that reaffirmed the election’s validity would have been much better for the country.”
Why that didn’t happen may not be known for years. The court includes stalwart conservatives, among them Justice Clarence Thomas, whose wife is an outspoken Trump supporter. It’s possible anything more than the briefest of orders would have fractured the court’s largely united front.
Thomas and Justice Samuel Alito issued a statement that somewhat muddled the court’s message. Pointing to their longstanding position that states should have an unfettered right to sue one another directly at the Supreme Court they said they would have at least let Texas file its suit.
“It’s very, very unfortunate that two justices didn’t find it within them to speak with a single voice on this very, very obviously flawed lawsuit,” said Kimberly Wehle, a University of Baltimore law professor whose focuses include the constitutional separation of powers.