Supreme Court Rejecting Texas Case

In his post today about the Supreme Court’s decision to throw out the Texas lawsuit without so much as an explanation, Jeffrey Tulis wishes that the Supreme Court had written a more extensive statement explaining why they threw it out. Tulis cites a similar piece by Tom Goldstein making roughly the same argument. Both Tulis and Goldstein want the Court to have written a more extensive opinion which, to use Goldstein’s words, “decimates” the lawsuit. Although I agree that this lawsuit was not only ungrounded but dangerous, I would suggest that a more lengthy “decimation” would have been a serious mistake on the Court’s part. By simply rejecting the lawsuit and saying nothing about why, the Court preserves the authority it possesses through its objectivity. Insofar as many Trump supporters thought that a Court full of Trump appointees would simply do as he wanted, a confrontation with that simple objectivity is even more powerful than an extended opinion. An extended opinion looks political and the Trump people can label it as such. By throwing themselves into the political fray, the Court would be confirming all the allegations made against his appointees but just on the other side. The simple dismissal is more powerful because it affirms the rule of law over and against politics. At a certain point, the law isn’t political. And just because Trump had his appointees on the Court doesn’t mean they’ll throw an election in his favor; it doesn’t mean that they would make a mockery of the law for the sake of his victory. But it also doesn’t mean that they’ve become part of the other political team looking to attack him. A lengthier opinion might please those already lined up against Trump, but it would do nothing to, as Goldstein writes, “make the country listen.” It’s better that Trump and his supporters are confronted with the silence of the law’s command—a command that, like the mandate that he leave office at the end of his term if he is not reelected, is not at all political. The Supreme Court did more to restore the authority of the law by saying nothing at all.

11 thoughts on “Supreme Court Rejecting Texas Case

  1. On your site’s opening page, it states: “Our authors are open to a range of political perspectives.” The pieces that are on the site, both essays and posts, however, are very biased and are not open to a range of political perspectives.

    It is clear that if you support Trump and conservative principles, you should either be placated or ignored. At least this site has not gone so far as to say re-education camps like some of the very progressive politicians have.

    I was hoping for a site that really was balanced. I guess I will keep looking for one.

  2. The problem is Donald Trump. I would consider myself aggressively moderate in most things but constitutionally conservative. As the editor, I’ve been looking for someone who could make at least an interesting and compelling case for Trump. That’s hard to find, especially if you want it somehow to have reference to the Constitution. The very first Federalist paper is on how to control and prevent demagoguery. In other words, for the founders, that’s one of the crucial challenges for a democracy. The Constitution exists partially to prevent it. Trump is almost the definition of a demagogue. Again, it’s hard to be a site dedicated to constitutionalism and defend someone who seems either to want to destroy the Constitution itself or the norms around it. For instance, every President prior to Trump realized that it was better for the health of the regime that he concede to the winner. That norm is more important than any policy on which he might differ from the apparent winner. The unsettled state of the country right now is Trump’s responsibility by choosing not to concede. The key thing is that Trump doesn’t seem to recognize any good outside his own.

  3. Part of the problem is the bad faith that comes from “conservatives” wanting to defend Trump. Consider what you just said: progressive politicians want to send people to “re-education” camps? There’s plenty to disagree with on both the left and the right. There are real issues based on what politicians are actually doing. Yet you want to talk about “re-education” camps? What progressive politician has called for “re-education” camps? We’re supposed to get worked up over imaginary doings when, as I write, prominent Republican politicians are actively attempting to undermine a free and fair election? The Texas GOP is speaking about secession because the Constitution is being upheld? It’s hard to take those sort of comments seriously.

    1. Before you demonize my statements, maybe you should be more familiar with the rhetoric that the progressives are stating. Please refer to the following since you are unfamiliar.


      Rep. Cynthia Jones: (Full video removed from Facebook)

      I do not want to talk about “re-education camps.” I have never wanted to talk about such nonsense. There are progressive politicians who are doing such.

      Your postings and essays have not dealt with succession. Maybe you should actually post something to this site concerning this issue before making the statement and demonizing me for my stance. Post something about the GOP calling for succession and then we can have a dialogue, which on my part will be respectful, and hopefully so on yours.

  4. Your site should not simply be pro-Trump or anti-Trump. You are titled “The Constitutionalist” and as such should deal with the Constitution.

    The problem is not Trump. I know of many academics who do not like Trump as a person but support his policies. There are many of us out there, and I can provide you with sources, that is if you were truly interested in having a balanced argument.

    You and your contributors readily call Trump a demagogue, however, if this was true would he not be more popular with the populous? You readily demonize him as a demagogue, but you provide no evidence.

    Although you state that: “[E]very President prior to Trump realized that it was better for the health of the regime that he concede to the winner,” I do not know of an election involving a sitting president that was contested. I think that you forget about the 2000 election which went to the Supreme Court and was not decided until the first half of December, the same time period as this election.

    The Supreme Court should have heard this case, not simply based upon the constitutionality of the case, but also for the nation to receive a ruling on the election process itself. Most of Americans are not upset about the outcome of the election, but about the potential fraud in the election. As a voter in one of the contested states who followed the process to only have the rules change after I had already received my absentee ballot, I feel that my ballot was meaningless and discounted. One side of the state had different voting rules than the other side of the state and in my many decades of voting, I have never seen this occur.

    You say you want a site that is balanced, however, everything that has been posted is far from such. If you would like a balanced source, contact me and I will assist you.

  5. Thanks so much for giving everyone an extraordinarily marvellous opportunity to read in detail from this web site. It can be very pleasing plus full of a lot of fun for me personally and my office peers to visit the blog the equivalent of three times in a week to study the new tips you have. And lastly, I am also certainly contented with all the brilliant secrets served by you. Selected 4 areas in this article are unquestionably the best I’ve had.

Leave a Reply