Rudy Giuliani really didn’t want to win in court today because, well, loyalties can be bought and delivered:
Earlier on Tuesday in an appearance on the Fox Business Network, Giuliani seemed to suggest the outcome of the hearing before Brann, an Obama appointee, was unimportant. He said the Pennsylvania case was a “vehicle” to get the election before the Supreme Court and its 6-3 conservative majority, which Trump has long hinted should deliver the election to him.
“Frankly, this is a case that we would like to see get to the Supreme Court,” Giuliani said, suggesting the campaign might lose battles along the way due to Democratic-appointed judges. “We are prepared in some of these cases to lose and to appeal, and to get it to the Supreme Court.” [MSN]
Or can those loyalties be bought?
This is an echo of President Trump’s proclamations over the last few months, not to mention the spike of hypocrisy displayed by the Republican Senate in getting Barrett confirmed. My suspicion is that Trump, who continually gives off clues concerning his limitations, believes human behaviors are a constant.
They are not.
In Trump’s private sector world, loyalty is bought as a transaction: place someone in a place of power and prestige and they’re forever loyal. Or at least until they get stepped on by the guy who doesn’t follow the rules. Like, say, Trump.
And, it is true, some of this has leaked into the government sector, much to its detriment. But this leakage is not wholesale, and in SCOTUS it may be the least effective. Justice Gorsuch, IJ[1], has displayed a great deal of independence in his decisions, such as this potentially monumental Oklahoma decision, while Kavanaugh has also shown some independence; Barrett remains an unknown.
Keep in mind that SCOTUS is the crown jewel of the judiciary, and a Justice tarnishing that jewel through adhering to political party loyalty regardless of the weakness of the Trump case in front of them, risks tarnishing their name, their legacy, the names of their clerks, and everything about them. That will be out in public for one hundred years and more, embarrassing descendants and relatives.
It’s not much like the private sector. You have to scrabble to get publicity in the private sector. In the public sector, it can descend on you like a vulture.
It doesn’t hurt to remember that SCOTUS ruled 8-0 against Nixon when it came to whether or not he had to give up the White House tapes in his possession, despite three of the Justices being Nixon appointees (a fourth appointee, Rehnquist, equally honorably recused himself). It’s an implicit precedent and reminder that raw party loyalty should take a back seat at SCOTUS.
If Trump gets a case to SCOTUS and it’s as weak as the lower courts have suggested, I’d expect to see at least 5-4 against – and possibly 8-1, with either Alito or Thomas in dissent.
And it would pay Rudy dividends to remember that not everyone in the judiciary can be bought.
1 “Illegitimate Justice,” for newer readers. If I make a case for Gorsuch, then I cannot for Barrett. Neither’s dog sled trail getting into SCOTUS is admirable.
