Follow Us:

The final No

Texas had taken the plea that changes made by the four states in voting procedures to expand the scope of mail-in voting during the coronavirus epidemic were illegal. It had asked the court to stop the states from using the results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, which will formally pick – and announce – the winner this week.

Statesman News Service | New Delhi |

Only the monumental megalomania of Donald Trump can now come in the way of his accepting with grace the latest – and possibly most damaging – rejection of his claim that the US Presidential election was stolen from him. In an emphatic 6-3 ruling, the US Supreme Court ~ which coincidentally counts six conservatives among its nine judges, three of whom were appointed by Mr Trump ~ has thrown out an ingenious and seemingly bizarre challenge by the state of Texas to the electoral outcomes of four other states ~ Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin ~ which picked Mr Joe Biden as their choice for President.

Mr. Trump had impleaded himself as a plaintiff in the action brought by the Texas attorney- general, a steadfast ally of the President, and stated before the verdict that it was “perhaps the most important case in history.” The Supreme Court, which many had seen as the last hope for a Presidency that is now comatose, summarily rejected the plaint holding that “Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognisable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

Texas had taken the plea that changes made by the four states in voting procedures to expand the scope of mail-in voting during the coronavirus epidemic were illegal. It had asked the court to stop the states from using the results to appoint presidential electors to the Electoral College, which will formally pick – and announce – the winner this week.

The four states clearly saw Texas as an interloper with Pennsylvania going so far as to characterise the plaint as a “seditious abuse” of the electoral process. The majority view of the Supreme Court held that the motion needed to be denied “for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution.”

Even two of the three judges in minority agreed there was no case for grant of any relief, while holding the Court did not have discretion to deny filing of a complaint in a matter that came under its original jurisdiction. Two aspects of the ruling merit consideration.

First, Mr Trump has been told, clearly and emphatically, by the country’s highest court to cease the shenanigans that have seen the American electoral system reduced to a joke in the eyes of the world.

Whether Mr. Trump will now concede defeat remains to be seen, but nothing about the man should surprise us. And, second, notwithstanding the system of appointment of judges in America, which ought to be judicious but truly speaking is predicated on bias especially in the grip of a man like the President, there is a limit to the partisanship that the Court will indulge in. The ruling will go some way towards telling Americans who were beginning to lose faith in the system that the Court will adjudicate fairly, notwithstanding the predilec-