[ad_1]
The president of the United States, Donald Trump, refused to promise on the 23rd that “we have to see what is happening (in the course of the elections)” and that if we lose the elections, we will make a ‘peaceful transfer of power’. At the same time, he repeatedly highlighted the “fraud” of voting by mail, which will increase proportionally in this election due to the outbreak of coronavirus. Trump also said, “Because the election results will be decided by the courts, it is important to have nine Supreme Court justices before the election (to fill the gap with the late Federal Justice Ruth Vader Ginsburg).”
◇ Trump aims to prepare for litigation by strengthening conservatism in court
Currently, in the United States, mailing of absentee ballots limited to 65 years or older (Texas), counting unpostmarked ballots by mail (Nevada), confiscation of voting rights of criminals who have not paid fines in its entirety (Florida). Election-related lawsuits are being filed in After the election, a lawsuit will likely take place online during the mail-in or on-site voting and vote counting process. Trump’s statements that day are that he will first observe the outcome of all this and that he must quickly appoint a successor to reinforce the conservative tendencies of the Supreme Court (currently 5 → 6) to make the final decision.
◇ Democratic Party, “After taking power, let’s increase the number of Supreme Court justices”
On the contrary, there is a growing voice within the Democratic Party that it should win both the presidential elections and the federal elections to the Senate and Senate, revise the law to increase the number of Supreme Court justices (court packing ) and ‘ride’ to Trump’s Supreme Court. Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer said in a recent conference call with Democrats: “I don’t rule out any option (for the formation of the Supreme Court).” Even during the Democratic presidential election, Senator Elizabeth Warren (Massachusetts) said, “This is not just about expanding, but about removing the political colors from the Supreme Court.” The justice of the United States Supreme Court is for life, making it difficult to replace him unless he resigns or impeachment.
◇ The court of the Supreme Court of the Federal Republic has changed like a rubber band (定員)
The number of justices on the United States Supreme Court, which started with the first six, reached 10 in 1863 when Abraham Lincoln was the 16th president, but after several years it dropped again to seven. Congress has reduced the number of seats to avoid the appointment of his successor, President Andrew Johnson, as Supreme Court. Today, nine people settled 150 years ago when President Ulysses S Grant (18th generation) in 1869.
Subsequently, President Franklin Roosevelt (FDR) issued a “ judicial reform bill, ” appointing an additional federal judge over the age of 70 when his New Deal policy bills were halted by the continued unconstitutional ruling of the Supreme Court. The ultimate goal was, of course, to have five or six more people on the United States Supreme Court as “democratic tendencies.” This situation was resolved in 1937 when the Supreme Court read by itself the “ change of the times ” and two judges changed their positions. Word spread, “a transformation that saved the independence of the 9 people and the Supreme Court.”
◇ Biden is an ‘institutionalist’ who values traditions and practices
Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden is basically opposed to increasing the number of justices. After serving in the federal parliament for more than 30 years, he is a typical ‘institutionalist’. He said: “The idea that we will increase the number of judges in power to properly reflect the votes we have won is what makes the courts partisan.” If you do, you will regret it in your life. ”Judge Ginsburg, who died on the 18th, also opposed the change in the number of seats.
But if Biden comes to power, the Republican Party continues to file unconstitutional lawsuits against his leftist politics, and eventually the ‘conservative’ Supreme Court ultimately thwarts history. Like the FDR, it may be tempted to expand the Supreme Court.
◇ The Supreme Court of the United States never rocks
However, it is unclear whether the current US Supreme Court, which has a strong conservative lean, continues to issue a unilateral ruling on issues that drastically confront electoral demands and political interests, which will ignite the current situation. Chief Justice John Roberts is a conservative, but he is someone who values the legitimacy and independence of the judiciary above all else. Stanford University law professor Nathaniel Fascilly told The New York Times on the 21st: “The Supreme Court Justice knows that the moment the Supreme Court ruling is deemed to follow the faction or exploits Ginsburg’s death, the authority of the Supreme Court is seriously threatened. ” He said. In fact, the United States Supreme Court issued different rulings, in some cases, including lawsuits related to the relaxation of conflicting rules by vote-by-mail between Republicans and Democrats.
The Financial Times (FT) also said on the 23rd: “I know better than anyone that if the justices of the United States Supreme Court themselves adhere to a position that is too different from public opinion or the trend of the time , the independence of the court itself is threatened. ” It is in this context that Supreme Court justices like Sandra Day O’Conner, Anthony Kennedy and David Suter, appointed by the Republican president in the past, ruled that they later disappointed the Republican government. Chief Justice Roberts, appointed by his son, President Bush, also helped save Obama Care, which expanded health insurance coverage for the poor in 2012. The general public of Americans has identified what they want gradual expansion rather than abolition of ObamaCare. FT diagnosed that “the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States know that the judgments can be different from the public opinion as long as they do not endanger the Supreme Court itself.”
