In the run-up to the presidential elections that took place at the beginning of November, US President Donald Trump celebrated the appointment of Conservative Judge Amy Connie Barrett to the Supreme Constitutional Court, after the death of liberal judge Ruth Ginsburg.
And many experts considered that Trump's success in appointing 3 of the 9 judges to the court is one of the most important things he did during his term.
The swift vote in the Senate to ratify Barrett’s appointment one week before the presidential election, heightened Democrats ’concerns about Trump’s goal of speeding up the appointment process.
Shortly after Ginsburg's death (she died on September 18), Trump said, "I think it is better to choose a judge before the election because I think that this election will be a scandal by the Democrats, it is a fraud, this scandal will be settled before the Supreme Court."
He added, "I think that the case of only 8 judges may allow a case of 4 judges to 4, and this is not a good situation for any decision to be issued."
And many Democratic senators, in their words before the vote to confirm Judge Barrett, considered that what Trump had done to speed up her nomination was nothing but political action to help him maintain his position in the White House.
Texas has no right to interfere
On Friday, the Supreme Court rejected the lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and won the support of 126 members of the Republican House of Representatives, and President Trump personally as a candidate in the contested elections, in order to nullify the election results in the states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Michigan.
The nine Supreme Court justices - including the three appointed by Trump - said that "Texas that voted for Trump has no right to interfere in elections in other states."
Historically, the Supreme Court does not favor interfering in elections, and the only exceptional event that it interfered with was the 2000 elections in which Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush (Bush Jr.) competed, and a dispute arose over the results of Florida, in which Bush advanced by a small margin. More than 537 votes, the dispute over the results ended in the corridors of the court that ruled in Bush's favor.
Had the final result been closer, or on one decisive state, as was the case in 2000 in Florida, the judiciary would have played a greater role.
Trump has expressed in recent weeks his hopes that the election dispute will reach the Supreme Court, as he imagined that conservative judges would stand on his side.
Trump praised the case brought by the state of Texas, describing it as "very strong", and Trump asked the Supreme Court, in his capacity as a candidate in the lawsuit, to allow him to join it, and a statement of his presidential campaign stated that "the unlawful violation of election laws in the states questioned the form Directly in the step of certifying election results in contested states in favor of Joe Biden. "
Trump tweeted two hours before the court’s ruling, asking her to show wisdom and courage at this historic moment, and said in his tweet, “If the Supreme Court shows great wisdom and courage, the American people will win perhaps the most important case in history, and our election process will be respected again!”
After the court’s decision to dismiss the Texas case and end Trump’s hopes, the US President tweeted at midnight last night Washington time saying, “The Supreme Court has really failed us ... They have no wisdom, no courage!”
The constitution grants the Supreme Court "original jurisdiction" over interstate cases.
The Texas lawsuit did not, in essence, represent any dispute with another state or states, but it was a protest against the procedures and manner of conducting elections in other, independent states far from it.
The Supreme Court found no significant interest in Texas in its lawsuit against other state elections.
This step means that there is no judicial path to make Trump president for a second term, as he imagines and always repeats in front of his supporters.
The rule of law and the separation of powers
The Supreme Court's decision reflected the degree of independence of judges and their lack of thinking or calculating the status or identity of the US president, even if he was the one who nominated some of them for this prestigious position.
The debate about the politicization of the US judiciary has increased in recent decades, but this argument can be understood in relation to social issues in which the beliefs of judges play a role, as is the case in cases of abortion or gay marriage, but the matter is completely different in the case of political cases, especially what Relates to elections.
The courts, especially the Supreme Court, try to distance themselves from election cases that they consider a purely political matter subject to the wishes of the voters.
Trump appointed the largest number of federal judges in modern history, and he also appointed 3 judges to the Supreme Court, yet the judiciary stands rejecting all his pressure and efforts to change the election results through the courts, and the failure became a huge headline of his attempts to obtain judicial rulings in his favor.