OPINION: This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
When Republicans chanted “lock her up,” referencing former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the party never had any intention of doing anything to make that a reality.
But the same cannot be said for many Democrats who want to see former President Donald Trump in prison and it does not appear that the Supreme Court is going to stop them as it handed him two defeats on Monday, The New York Times reported.
The Supreme Court on Monday rejected a last-ditch attempt by former President Donald J. Trump to shield his financial records, issuing a brief, unsigned order requiring Mr. Trump’s accountants to turn over his tax and other records to prosecutors in New York.
The court’s order was a decisive defeat for Mr. Trump, who had gone to extraordinary lengths to keep his tax returns and related documents secret. There were no dissents noted.
The case concerned a subpoena to Mr. Trump’s accountants, Mazars USA, by the office of the Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus R. Vance Jr., a Democrat. The firm has said it will comply with the final ruling of the courts, meaning that the grand jury should receive the documents in short order.
Mr. Vance issued a three-word statement in response to the court’s order: “The work continues.”
Make no mistake, The work” Vance is referring to likely includes his advancement in the Democrat Party by “getting” Trump any way he can.
But that was not all that was on the docket for the court on Monday. It also decided that it would not hear two election related cases.
The Court announced that it would refuse to hear Republican Party of Pennsylvania v. Degraffenreid and Corman v. Pennsylvania Democratic Party which were consolidated.
The cases asked whether some of Pennsylvania’s absentee ballots that came in after election day should be counted. Many believe that because the number of ballots would not change the result of any of the elections the case became moot.
But that is not what conservative Justice Clarence Thomas thought as he scorched the court’s decision to not hear the election cases.
“One wonders what this Court waits for,” the Justice said in his dissent. “We failed to settle this dispute before the election, and thus provide clear rules. Now we again fail to provide clear rules for future elections.
“The decision to leave election law hidden beneath a shroud of doubt is baffling.”
“By doing nothing, we invite further confusion and erosion of voter confidence,” Justice Thomas’ dissent concluded. “Our fellow citizens deserve better and expect more from us.
Three of the court’s conservative Justices, namely Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch wanted to hear the cases. It was no surprise that perennial disappointment and Chief Justice John Roberts took the side of the liberal justices in not wanting to hear the cases. And Justice Amy Coney Barrett did not take opine on the case as it was one that was brought before she was sworn in as a justice.
“The provisions of the federal Constitution conferring on state legislatures, not state courts, the authority to make rules governing federal elections would be meaningless if a state court could override the rules adopted by the legislature simply by claiming that a state constitutional provision gave the courts the authority to make whatever rules it thought appropriate for the conduct of a fair election,” Justice Alito said in his dissent.