U. S. Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, Justice Barrett discussed on Townhall Review

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Welcome back to the town. All review with you, Hewitt the allegations of irregularities surrounding the election of the numerous We'll have to wait and see what happens with these allegations worked their way through the courts. But prior to the election complaint was filed with the U. S. Supreme Court concerning Pennsylvania in a 44 split. The court declined to hear this complaint, only to have it re filed following the election. Andrew McCarthy, a former assistant, U S attorney for the Southern District of New York was recently a guest of my colleague Sebastian. Gorka. Could you walk us through just the last two weeks and what the Dickens is going on in the Supreme Court? It really is divvying, but We have this case in Pennsylvania, where the issue was whether it's a very straight issue of constitutional law compared to some of the other election issues that we have to deal with. And that is does a state court Have the authority to Change the laws that the state Legislature the next in order to conduct elections on the circumstances where the Constitution expressly gives that power. The state legislature, and what's at issue is whether these Votes that were tabulated or included in the three days after election Day through Friday of last week, can count or not in Pennsylvania. So the Supreme Court should obviously have taken this case a couple of weeks ago because the time to straighten out what the rules of an election should be before the election happens, But they have bent over backwards not to take it. It's really to my mindset, not explicable. By anything other than Politics because Chief Justice Roberts voted with the three liberal justices in order to avoid taking the case, which forced a 44 tie. Which meant the court couldn't act on that stuff there for second s, so they kind of played a bit of sleight of hand. That they just said We're just not going to look at it, right. We're just gonna not not not entertain this application. Exactly right. And then when the same issue came up in Wisconsin, except it was a federal judge, rather than a state judge. At that point, it was obvious that Justice Barrett was going to get on the court. She hadn't got on it yet. And We're at a point where Roberts was not going to be able to the practical matter to do that kind of sleight of hand it it seemed to get out of ruling on these cases, so at that point, he said. Judge doesn't have the authority to change. The state law as long as it's a federal judge, But he would, he said that you know it's a very different thing when it's a federal judge, rather than a state court, and of course, what the Constitution says, and Robert was a brilliant lawyer. He knows this. What the Constitution says is. It's the state Legislature that has the power to do this. It doesn't distinguish between you know federal state in terms of who doesn't have the palate into it, But I think what Roberts is doing is clearly maneuvering. So finally said left week right before the election, the Republican Party of Pennsylvania went back to the court again to ask them to hear the case on an expedited basis, not for an injunction but to go to the merits of the case. Name would not hear it on an expedited basis before the election, but they haven't decided whether they'll take it, let alone rule on it after the election. Is clearly three judges justices who want to take the case. So Thomas and Gorsuch Right? And we don't know where justice Bharat is, I think Justice Kevin off, who knows better was kind of recruited by Roberts to vote with the left left to make a 53. Ruling, but they wouldn't take it on an expedited basis before the election to give some cover to Justice Bharat because they're clearly worried that the the demagoguery against Barrett During her confirmation was that Trump was putting her on the court to steal the election for him. You used the word maneuverings and I'm gonna be in politick. I'm just going to say it as I see it. This isn't maneuverer and or juris prudence. This is politics, isn't it? Yeah, I think it absolutely is politics. What's happening here is really to my mind a version or in adoration of what happened in 1937. You know, we all on the right. We like to remember that as The most powerful president of the 20th century at a time when he had the commanding heights of power in Washington was unable to pack the court. But what people forget about that little story is Court packing worked in the sense that it put pressure on the court and the court changed. It's jurisprudence. So what's happening now? At the same time, all this election stuff has come up on. Barrett had her confirmation hearing right before the election. Democrats are talking about attacking the court. We're talking about rotating Supreme Court justices to the circuits rather than having them sit on the Supreme Court. We can't think this court doesn't hear that. Don't want to overstate it. You know, because I think this case is a one off. It doesn't mean that every single case is political. There's two Betty that actually are tinged by politics, but I think here's what Roberts is hoping you want to ride this out. Said. Hoping that those votes won't make any difference to the outcome of the election. And therefore maybe the court in completely duck this issue so that it doesn't want the court, But he doesn't want Oh, push people he doesn't want a Bush v. Gore situation where it looks like the Supreme Court is checking the president, so the matter the matters of principle must be avoided. This one. This is not a problem if it's the U. S Constitution, the highest court in the land I think it's a problem. You know, Justice. Roberts, who operates a rarified air that I don't visit, thinks it's less of a problem than taking the case would be and.

Coming up next