It is NOT the role of the court to jump into a passionate matter like Superman and render an emotional result. Courts are intended to be rational, well thought out matters that follow procedure and reflect on the arguments at hand. Not take a political side. Not kowtow to the emotional whims of the public.
If the court intervenes - they’re taking a political action and declaring their bias.
A Coalition of All Democratic Forces, Part III: What if Trump Wins?
Given these numbers, it’s tempting to not plan for a Trump presidency. Personally, I’d like nothing more than to sweep the possibility under the high-impact-but-low-probability event rug, right alongside all those asteroid impacts and worldwide pandemics I don’t spend much time preparing for.
Better yet, I would love to put it in the category of horror movie, the sort of zombie apocalypse I can enjoy imagining knowing that it is impossible.
But events with a seven percent chance of happening actually take place all the time, and events that have a 16 percent chance of happening take place more than twice as often as that.
This is why I keep life insurance, even though I have a much lower than seven percent chance of dying this year. And while I don’t think I have a 16 percent chance of major medical expenses either, I still maintain a health insurance policy, as do other healthy people who know what’s good for them. Responsible people plan for disasters of this likelihood; and while the Sunday shows yesterday were full of talk of whether the presidential race is over, a major party candidate for president always has a chance of prevailing.
Always.
So our democracy needs a health insurance policy.
Indeed, it’s not enough to imagine how the Coalition of All Democratic Forces, which I posited last Monday, might respond to a Clinton victory, a subject which I discussed discussed on Tuesday.
We need to imagine as well how such a coalition should respond to the unthinkable: What if Trump wins?
The point is that there is no reason at this stage to imagine that the legislature will be a viable venue for push-back, which is a shame considering the powerful set of tools at its disposal. The Coalition of All Democratic Forces should certainly see what kind of use it might make of the legislature, but realistically, we should probably expect that the coalition’s job in Congress will be to prevent Trump from passing anti-democratic legislation. That is, the task in Congress will be a negative one of denying Trump the use of the Article I powers, not the positive one of the coalition’s using them itself.
That leaves the tool that will certainly be available: the courts. The courts have a few obvious advantages, starting with hundreds of independent judges of both parties whom Trump cannot remove from office and who don’t have to face his supporters in forthcoming elections.
If Trump wins it, the Coalition of All Democratic Forces needs to be prepared to see him in court.
That’s not what the issue is. The issue has more to do with judicial activism and politics coming from the inferior courts despite SCOTUS ruling early on.
This closed door meeting is going to be more about reigning in these rogue judges than it will be about POTUS administration of the immigration system and the protection of our borders.
“If the court intervenes - they’re taking a political action and declaring their bias.”
On the other hand, they could be stopping political activist judges from doing something that is wrong and trying to fix it in a timely manner before damage is done.