On the night of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell “quickly reached President Trump on the phone and made his plan clear,” Frontline reports.
According to former McConnell chief of staff Josh Holmes: “McConnell told Trump two things. McConnell said, first, I’m going to put out a statement that says we’re going to fill the vacancy. Second, he said, you’ve gotta nominate Amy Coney Barrett.”
Rudy Giuliani represented the Trump campaign before U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann in Williamsport, Pennsylvania:
GIULIANI: I’m not sure what “opacity” means. It probably means you can see.
BRANN: It means you can’t.
Politico: “Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito delivered an unusually inflammatory public speech Thursday night, starkly warning about the threats he contends religious believers face from advocates for gay and abortion rights, as well as public officials responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Speaking to a virtual conference of conservative lawyers, the George W. Bush appointee made no direct comment on the recent election, the political crisis relating to President Donald Trump’s refusal to acknowledge his defeat or litigation on the issue pending at the Supreme Court.”
“However, Alito didn’t hold back on other controversial subjects, even suggesting that the pressure Christians face surrounding their religious beliefs is akin to the strictures the U.S. placed on Germany and Japan after World War II.”
“The court will hear a lawsuit Tuesday that likely represents Republicans’ last chance to knock out a health care law they’ve opposed for over a decade, and that President-elect Joe Biden is vowing to expand. One of the most-watched participants at the oral arguments will be Trump’s latest appointee to the high court, Amy Coney Barrett,” Politico reports.
“The case takes up whether Congress, by eliminating the penalty for not having health insurance, made all of Obamacare unconstitutional. It marks the third major challenge to the health care law heard by the Supreme Court and is regarded in legal circles as perhaps the weakest among those. Few in the $3.6 trillion health care industry believe even the court’s fortified 6-3 conservative majority would overturn the law… But the law’s survival depends on support from at least two conservative justices – likely including at least one of Trump’s picks.”
The Supreme Court issued an order in the Pennsylvania case, but it’s not what the Trump campaign wanted, NBC News reports.
Justice Samuel Alito repeated the guidance from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State that post-Tuesday mail ballots must be segregated, but did not direct them to stop counting.
“President Trump said he will go to the U.S. Supreme Court because he wants ‘all voting to stop,’ as he tries to hold on to early leads in key battleground states,” Bloomberg reports.
“He won’t be able to go there immediately and it’s not clear he has a legal argument that could affect the outcome of the election.”
“Cases typically work their way to the nation’s highest court after a ruling by a local judge and then other appeals courts. In 2000, it took more than a month before the Supreme Court issued the landmark Bush v. Gore ruling that ultimately decided that year’s election.”
President Trump made a revealing plea at 3 a.m. ET to the Supreme Court’s justices:
“If Sleepy Joe Biden is actually elected President, the 4 Justices (plus1) that helped make such a ridiculous win possible would be relegated to sitting on not only a heavily PACKED COURT, but probably a REVOLVING COURT as well. At least the many new Justices will be Radical Left!”
Jonathan Chait: “This is a classic Trump appeal, formulated in terms of self-interest, which is the only form of motivation he believes humans are capable of acting upon. Trump is arguing that the Court should rule in his favor, because if Joe Biden wins, he will dilute the power of its incumbent members — either by packing the courts, or by implementing a reform that would rotate federal judges through the Supreme Court.”
Vermont’s secretary of state formally asked Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh to correct an opinion he wrote Monday that mistakenly said Vermont had made no changes to its election rules due to the coronavirus pandemic, CNN reports.
The wife of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is using her Facebook page to amplify unsubstantiated claims of corruption by Joe Biden, the AP reports.
This piece is only available to Political Wire members.
Your support makes this site possible. Join today for the complete Political Wire experience and get exclusive analysis, new features and no advertising.
Sign in to your account or join today!
If you’re already signed in and still seeing this message, your subscription has expired. To renew your membership, navigate to your account, adjust your credit card information and click Renew Now.
Join for just $6 a month or $60 a year.
Rick Hasen: “Should we panic about Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s concurring opinion in the Wisconsin voting case that the Supreme Court decided Monday night? Does it mean that the Supreme Court is going to do something crazy that will hand the election to President Trump even if Joe Biden is ahead in the count?”
“The short answer is that an intervention by the Supreme Court to decide the presidential election is still extremely unlikely — but if the extremely unlikely happens, there’s great reason to be worried about the court’s protection of voting rights and the integrity of the vote.”
Daily Beast: “On Monday, the Supreme Court upheld an appeals court decision that blocked extending Wisconsin’s deadline for absentee ballots by six days. In his notes explaining his decision, Justice Brett Kavanaugh delivered a very Trumpian warning that any votes that came in after Election Day could be viewed as illegitimate.”
Wrote Kavanaugh: “States want to avoid the chaos and suspicions of impropriety that can ensue if thousands of absentee ballots flow in after Election Day and potentially flip the results of an election.”
Justice Elena Kagan dissented while rebuking the Trump appointee: “There are no results to ‘flip’ until all valid votes are counted. And nothing could be more ‘suspicious’ or ‘improper’ than refusing to tally votes once the clock strikes 12 on Election Night.”
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) on Twitter last night after Amy Coney Barrett was sworn-in to the Supreme Court:
“Expand the court… Republicans do this because they don’t believe Dems have the stones to play hardball like they do. And for a long time they’ve been correct. But do not let them bully the public into thinking their bulldozing is normal but a response isn’t. There is a legal process for expansion.”
Playbook: “This kind of rift should not be overlooked, because it will come to dominate governance should Washington turn all blue. AOC is seen as one of Schumer top potential primary challengers. The simplicity and bare-knuckled nature of her message could resonate among a Democratic base that’s looking for knife fights, not senatorial process arguments. While Schumer and Joe Biden say changing the size of the court is on the table, the left is screaming that it should play by the same rules as the GOP — which is to say Democrats should not worry about tradition and instead blow up what they consider the quaint processes that govern official Washington.”
The U.S. Senate confirmed Judge Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, 52 to 48.
President Trump and Senate Republicans have succeeded in securing a 6-3 conservative majority on the high court, just eight days out from Election Day.
Barrett is expected to be sworn in within hours.
“A lot of what we’ve done over the last four years will be undone, sooner or later, by the next election,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Sunday after the 51-48 procedural vote against Democratic objections. “But they won’t be able to do much about this for a long time to come.”
— Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), quoted by NBC News, on the coming vote to confirm Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court.
“The White House plans to host a swearing-in ceremony for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett on Monday night following her expected confirmation, despite concerns that a gathering for her nomination in September was a super-spreader event for the coronavirus,” The Hill reports.
“Amy Coney Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court broke through one more hurdle ahead of her all-but-assured confirmation to replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as Democratic senators ramped up their criticism of the conservative judge,” the Washington Post reports.
“The vote to end a filibuster on her nomination, which occurred about 1:30 p.m. Sunday, was 51 to 48. Two GOP senators — Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska — voted with Democrats to oppose Barrett’s nomination from advancing, although Murkowski plans to support the federal appeals court judge on the confirmation vote on Barrett’s merits.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), who opposed confirming a new Supreme Court justice before the election, will nonetheless vote to approve Amy Coney Barrett on Monday, The Hill reports.
Said Murkowski: “I believe that the only way to put us back on the path of appropriate consideration of judicial nominees is to evaluate Judge Barrett as we would want to be judged, on the merits of her qualifications. And so when we do that, when that final question comes before us … I will be a yes.”
She added: “While I oppose the process that has led us to this point, I do not hold it against her as an individual who has navigated the gauntlet with grace, skill and humility. I will vote no on the procedural votes ahead of us, but yes to confirm Judge Barrett when the question before us is her qualification to be an associate justice.”
Taegan Goddard is the founder of Political Wire, one of the earliest and most influential political web sites. He also runs Political Job Hunt, Electoral Vote Map and the Political Dictionary.
Goddard spent more than a decade as managing director and chief operating officer of a prominent investment firm in New York City. Previously, he was a policy adviser to a U.S. Senator and Governor.
Goddard is also co-author of You Won - Now What? (Scribner, 1998), a political management book hailed by prominent journalists and politicians from both parties. In addition, Goddard's essays on politics and public policy have appeared in dozens of newspapers across the country.
Goddard earned degrees from Vassar College and Harvard University. He lives in New York with his wife and three sons.
“There are a lot of blogs and news sites claiming to understand politics, but only a few actually do. Political Wire is one of them.”
— Chuck Todd, host of “Meet the Press”
“Concise. Relevant. To the point. Political Wire is the first site I check when I’m looking for the latest political nugget. That pretty much says it all.”
— Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Rothenberg Political Report
“Political Wire is one of only four or five sites that I check every day and sometimes several times a day, for the latest political news and developments.”
— Charlie Cook, editor of the Cook Political Report
“The big news, delicious tidbits, pearls of wisdom — nicely packaged, constantly updated… What political junkie could ask for more?”
— Larry Sabato, Center for Politics, University of Virginia
“Political Wire is a great, great site.”
— Joe Scarborough, host of MSNBC’s “Morning Joe”
“Taegan Goddard has a knack for digging out political gems that too often get passed over by the mainstream press, and for delivering the latest electoral developments in a sharp, no frills style that makes his Political Wire an addictive blog habit you don’t want to kick.”
— Arianna Huffington, founder of The Huffington Post
“Political Wire is one of the absolute must-read sites in the blogosphere.”
— Glenn Reynolds, founder of Instapundit
“I rely on Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire for straight, fair political news, he gets right to the point. It’s an eagerly anticipated part of my news reading.”
— Craig Newmark, founder of Craigslist.