The Supreme Court's clear message to President Trump: Stop https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/11/politics/trump-turmoil-supreme-court/index.html During the past four years, President Donald Trump has challenged the integrity of the Supreme Court and tried to drag the justices into the legal muck with him. His arguments have pushed the boundaries of the law and his assertions have tested the impartiality of individual justices. But Trump's meritless attack on the November election and his loss to Joe Biden in a brazen lawsuit initiated by the Texas attorney general brought the court into a wholly new realm. The high court slapped down the case promoted by Trump on Friday, three days before the Electoral College will meet to cast votes for Biden as the winner of the November election, with no noted dissents. As such, the court's justices, six of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, three by Trump, have separated themselves from the pattern of hard-core partisans who were asking the court to use baseless claims of widespread voter fraud to disenfranchise millions of voters. Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and Trump had persuaded a group of 18 other Republican state attorneys general and 126 Republican members of Congress to sign on to arguments that would have reversed the will of voters in Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin. If the justices had not rejected the request from Texas and other Republican-led states, they would have defied their own precedent and compromised any notion of neutrality. For the Supreme Court itself, there has always been a question of how it emerges from Trump's legally fraught four years. Many of his policy initiatives -- and some of his personal financial dealings -- were subject to lawsuits. And the President routinely suggested that once a case reached the conservative-dominated bench, he would prevail. His Twitter posts and other rhetoric have constantly undermined the notion of neutral judges. He implied Democratic appointees would automatically rule against him and Republican appointees would side with him. On Friday afternoon, a few hours before the justices' order in Texas v. Pennsylvania, Trump tweeted, "If the Supreme Court shows Great Wisdom and Courage, the American People will win perhaps the most important case in history and our Electoral Process will be respected again!" He had pushed for swift Senate confirmation in October of his third appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, to succeed the late Ruth Bader Ginsburg, saying the court might end up deciding the election. (Barrett did not recuse herself from the Texas case.) Before Trump brought the country to this point on the election, his policy agenda had bitterly divided the nine justices, such as on the travel ban that affected majority-Muslim countries and his attempt to end the "Dreamers" program for young immigrants who came to the US without proper papers. (More at above url)
As soon as Trump is a civilian he will carry out a sedicious act just after, he can't help himself. That means a figurative wall for him though I give that a 10 percent chance.
Bill knew how to connect with the people, especially the young folks. He was smart, and knew how to finagle the youth vote. P.S. In the clip on the SCOTUS choice, he is talking about Mario Cuomo, NOT Andrew.