What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

Of course the weird thing about the vaccine is that Trump supports people getting it and is desperate to (sort of legitimately) take credit for it - arguably the only real achievement of his presidency - and his fans won't let him because they hate it

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd assume some sort of coup action would be litigated, eventually ending up in front of the supreme court. Note, I'm not saying that the perpetrators of a coup would necessarily obey the court if it ruled against them.

The Court only gets involved if someone brings a claim and litigates it up the system.  Even then claims of political significance can result in abstention due to the presence of a political question.
And if you are willing to perpetuate a coup you aren't going to worry about the legal niceties of that procedure in any event.  Either ignore the Court, replace/purge it, or shut it down.

[Jacob]

The Court only gets involved if someone brings a claim and litigates it up the system.  Even then claims of political significance can result in abstention due to the presence of a political question.
And if you are willing to perpetuate a coup you aren't going to worry about the legal niceties of that procedure in any event.  Either ignore the Court, replace/purge it, or shut it down.

I'd expect someone to bring a claim and litigate it up the system during a Trumpist coup.

Furthermore, I'd expect the Supreme Court would have an opportunity to come down strongly one way or the other, or to vacilate.

And I believe the Supreme Court's action (or inaction) could very well provide direction for a number of people in law-enforcement and the military.

To clarify, I think a Trumpist coup would not be a full on military one with tanks rolling in the streets and Democrats arrested en masse, but a combination of force, chaos, and legal flim-flam putting Trumpist cronies on places where they could direct the mechanisms of state to solidify their grip on power.

[The Minsky Moment]

Its pretty easy to ignore 9 old farts in robes once you've ignored 90 million voting citizens.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think the Supreme Court would matter at all to law enforcement - I think the military are institutionalist, buy law enforcement just seem Trumpist.

[Barrister]

The problem with all the "coup" talk is that in 2024 Trump won't be President, and won't have control over the military.  He's then kind of left with machinations involving state houses / maybe GOP control over congress or the senate.

[Jacob]

Its pretty easy to ignore 9 old farts in robes once you've ignored 90 million voting citizens.

Yeah, for sure, but as I said above (edited in while you reply), I think inaction or Trumpist action from the supreme court is a possible vector for convincing Trump sympathizers in the military and federal agencies that they can throw their lot in with him and his.

Say, f. ex., there are allegations of fraud across the board. Some actual Trumpist fraud, mixed with manufactured allegations of Democrat fraud to deligitimize the election. There's a stepped up version of Republican state level folks pushing the "the fradulent election show my state going Dem, but we are certifying that our electors went to the Republican candidate." The Republican incumbent claims they won, and refuses to relinquish power. Sort of a replay of 2020, but stepped up a few more notches.

I'd expect there to be a whole lot of litigation across the board, and I'd expect it to get to the Supreme Court fairly quickly (if they were inclined to be involved). I mean, the Supreme Court was involved in the Florida recounts in 2000, weren't they?

The Republican incumbent (Trump, Trump Jr, whoever else) refusing to relinquish power wouldn't mean much if the apparatus of state (especially the military and law enforcement, but the entire Federal Bureaucracy) act as if he's lost. It'll just be an old man whining. But if they follow his instructions, then the coup will have been successful.

I'd expect clear statements from the Supreme Court on the legal issues of the day to be pretty persuasive for a whole lot of people in Federal Bureucracy.

I don't think any potential Trumpist coup is going to be successful because a bunch of 3%er and anti-vax yahoos storm a capitol. It'll be successful if law-enforcement and military folks are persuaded that they should follow the instructions of those enacting the coup.

And I think the 9 old farts in robes (or at least five of them) can potentially put their thumbs on the scale pretty decisively in a number of potential scenarios.

[Jacob]

The problem with all the "coup" talk is that in 2024 Trump won't be President, and won't have control over the military.  He's then kind of left with machinations involving state houses / maybe GOP control over congress or the senate.

Yeah, that's a good point.

This is obviously speculation, but the scenario I'd worry about is a fraudulent Trump win due to state/ house/ senate shenanigans, endorsed by the Supreme Court in the inevitable litigation that'd follow; and then a real coup or a transition to Russia style one-party-state-"democracy" in 2028.

[Sheilbh]

The problem with all the "coup" talk is that in 2024 Trump won't be President, and won't have control over the military.  He's then kind of left with machinations involving state houses / maybe GOP control over congress or the senate.

Yes - although if the machinations involving state houses and a GOP congress (both of which seem plausible enough after 20222) work then you're asking the military to stop a 'validly' elected President from the opposition party. Basically a sort of fake version of what Trump dreamed of last time - and I think that institutionalist bent cuts both ways.

And I think Trump's approach as far as there is one will be to sow as much chaos and allegations to semi-plausibly claim victory and then rely on his shamelessness v other peoples'/institutions' likelihood to try and step away from civil conflict/their weakness (basically his approach in business). The issue with 2020 was there just wasn't enough for the semi-plausible bit (though it's still believed by a big chunk of the GOP). With enough state/congressional support it's a lot easier to get to semi-plausible.

[The Larch]

Some people seem to be gifted with the ability to get four hours of sleep per night without suffering any effects of sleep deprivation.

I think it's a common-ish trait amongst many overeachieving people. I know a couple of guys who are like that, who can get by only sleeping like 4 hours per night, and both are two of the most overachieving people I know. Lots of important historical figures were like that apparently.

[The Minsky Moment]

The Supreme Court "works" only because the political actors that have resources and power at their disposal agree to abide by its rulings, even when they don't like those rulings.  They do so because of some combination of their own respect for the rule of the law and because of fear of popular backlash.  But coup plotters, regardless of exactly how they operate, lack respect for the rule of law and the point of a coup is to remove oneself from popular control.

The Supreme Court has a functional "checking" role in the US system but it is a slow and deliberate one and one that works indirectly and thus of all US institutions it is one of least efficacious in countering a coup.  In practice, a coup objector could not proceed by filing a lawsuit challenging the coup.  The most likely challenge would be habeas corpus, but the coup leaders could suspend that without even abandoning the Constitution.  That leaves a challenge to enforcement of some civil enactment, which would take some time to move through the system by which time the coup leaders would have entrenched their authority. And the Court could easily decide to do nothing - for example, if coup leaders subverted the Electoral College by forcing through and then recognizing bogus slates, then the Court might well decide that was a political outcome it can't adjudicate.  And even if the "best" outcome occurs, and the Court takes on the controversy and rules the enactment illegitimate, so what? The coup regime could still enforce its writ by coercion.  Only popular resistance could provide an effective check and the only role of the Court would be to provide a rhetorical advantage in the form of the ability to invoke legal legitimacy as a basis for resistance.

[The Minsky Moment]

The problem with all the "coup" talk is that in 2024 Trump won't be President, and won't have control over the military.  He's then kind of left with machinations involving state houses / maybe GOP control over congress or the senate.

But that is exactly the form such a coup could take; 2020 was a poorly choreographed dress rehersal that failed because key GOP election officials wouldn't help stage it.  Now many of those people are gone and replaced by cultists. If legislators and activists connive to force through a bogus electoral slate to override the real one, and it one or both sides has no interest in compromise, than the institutions of state are up for grabs.

[grumbler]

But that is exactly the form such a coup could take; 2020 was a poorly choreographed dress rehersal that failed because key GOP election officials wouldn't help stage it.  Now many of those people are gone and replaced by cultists. If legislators and activists connive to force through a bogus electoral slate to override the real one, and it one or both sides has no interest in compromise, than the institutions of state are up for grabs.

Yep.  The coup comes when Republican governors or legislatures refuse to accept the actual results of the election, declare the election in their state fraudulent, and appoint their onw republican electors in violation of the prohibition on changing the method of selecting electors after the election.  An immediate appeal to the USSC, as in 2000, would result in the USSC ruling, 5-4, that there was indeed fraud and the governors/legislators were had the power in such an emergency to override the prohibition on changing methods after the election, and that the Republican candidate won the EC vote.

It would be 100% bullshit and 100% effective.  The bent USSC can trivially kill US democracy, and the majority has the desire to do so.

[Jacob]

Yeah, that's one of the scenarios that I think has a real chance of coming to pass.

[The Minsky Moment]

But that is exactly the form such a coup could take; 2020 was a poorly choreographed dress rehersal that failed because key GOP election officials wouldn't help stage it.  Now many of those people are gone and replaced by cultists. If legislators and activists connive to force through a bogus electoral slate to override the real one, and it one or both sides has no interest in compromise, than the institutions of state are up for grabs.

Yep.  The coup comes when Republican governors or legislatures refuse to accept the actual results of the election, declare the election in their state fraudulent, and appoint their onw republican electors in violation of the prohibition on changing the method of selecting electors after the election.  An immediate appeal to the USSC, as in 2000, would result in the USSC ruling, 5-4, that there was indeed fraud and the governors/legislators were had the power in such an emergency to override the prohibition on changing methods after the election, and that the Republican candidate won the EC vote.

I think it is more insidious than that.  In contrast to 2000, when the Court waded into a process operating in accordance with state laws and procedures, here there would be 5 votes for abstaining altogether, declaring the controversy to be a political question, and washing the Court's hands of consequences.

That abstention would allow the GOP to take advantage of an asymmetry in mendacity - while close wins for the GOP candidate would stay that way as local Democrats respected the results, close (and even not so close) Democrat wins would be plunged into witless disputes.