So he says the election result will end up in the Supreme Court (which is why they're desperate to appoint RPG's replacement}
Surely, and I'd like to know this... even if his new judge and the ones he appointed are very conservative, they are also in some way, principled people.
Packing the SC like this surely wouldn't mean they would vote to keep him in against all they believe in re the rule of law.
Sometime in the last year or so, didn't a vote go against him when a couple of 'his' judges sided with the more liberal ones?
Or am I over symplifying matters. He can't just direct the judges how to vote can he?
www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-election/trump-hedges-on-transferring-power-says-election-will-end-up-at-supreme-court-idUSKCN26E3CA
I read somewhere also that Trump is urging members of the general public to become 'Election marshals' and to patrol the voting centres.
Here is interesting...
www.vox.com/21430806/ginsburg-2020-election-legitimacy-trump
The point of these comparisons, according to Hyde and others, is not that the United States is likely to experience a kind of new civil war (though it’s telling that she needed to raise that as a possibility). For a variety of reasons, including the professionalization of the military and the country’s long history of peaceful power transitions, that seems exceptionally unlikely.
Rather, the point is that American democracy is taking on features that are genuinely abnormal in wealthy, consolidated democracies — forms of polarization, social distrust, and politicization of ostensibly neutral government institutions like the Supreme Court that spell doom for public faith in electoral outcomes. When that faith is lost, political factions that have lost elections look to other forms of political activity for satisfaction.
Tom Pepinsky, a political scientist at Cornell, tells me that “we are in uncharted territory” — that no advanced democracy has ever had an election with this kind and degree of problems. The closest analogy he could think of, modern Thailand, was in no way reassuring: a political crisis surrounding the April 2006 election resulted in a military coup.
“There are lots and lots of differences” between the US and Thailand, Pepinsky notes. “But the important similarity is this idea that no side believes the election could be fairly held that they don’t win.”
There are a number of ways that 2020’s loser could challenge the election’s outcome. FiveThirtyEight’s Geoffrey Skelley sketches out one particularly troubling scenario, wherein Trump has a narrow lead in the decisive state of Pennsylvania on election night that ends up flipping after all the absentee ballots are counted. The state’s Democratic governor confirms a Biden victory and sends his electors to the Electoral College, while the state’s Republican-controlled legislature, following Trump rage-tweets, appoints a different slate.
According to Barton Gellman’s reporting in the Atlantic, the Trump campaign and its allies in Pennsylvania are actively considering this kind of push.
Direct appointment of electors “is one of the options. It is one of the available legal options set forth in the Constitution,” Lawrence Tabas, the Pennsylvania GOP’s chair, told Gellman.
The process of whose slate wins out in this kind of fight is, it turns out, shockingly indeterminate: This could easily end with Biden and Trump both claiming to be the real president on Inauguration Day. Massive protests would likely ensue; violence involving the police or armed militias, like the ones recently seen patrolling the streets of Kenosha, Wisconsin, are well in the realm of possibility in this or any other contested election scenario.