The possible nightmare scenarios in the 2020 elections

Republicans approve replacement of judge before 3:27 elections

(CNN) -

Republicans have shown this week that they don't give a damn about hypocrisy when a Supreme Court justice is at stake.

What they said in 2016 means nothing today now that they can elect a new conservative justice to the Supreme Court.

So what will they do when an entire presidential election is at stake?

They will do what they can do.

Just as you should look at the What's Possible letter to conclude that they will have a new Supreme Court Justice on the stand before or shortly after Election Day, you should also look at the What's Possible letter when it comes to of the presidential elections.

• Mitt Romney's endorsement of the vote for a new Supreme Court justice paves the way for confirmation in an election year

Power struggle in the US for the relief of Judge Ginsburg 3:23

The election of a new Supreme Court judge

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said a new judge should be installed in the Superma Court specifically because elections are looming.

Presumably you want the insurance of an additional conservator on the court.

Later that day, he refused to commit to a peaceful post-election transition of power, a cornerstone of American democracy.

What is possible under the law in a closed election is extremely ambiguous, which is enough to take anyone through any number of maddening mazes.

And with Trump in charge and predisposed to reject election results, you have to score each one, as journalist Barton Gellman does in a truly terrifying article in The Atlantic about how Trump's allies could logically sidestep the results if he could contest them in states. specific.

How long does it take to confirm a magistrate in the Supreme Court?

2:33

These are the scariest nightmare scenarios

At a time when Trump is willing to call out the National Guard to American cities, they are worth considering.

The most obvious thing to remember, as American history students, some readers, and everyone who voted for Hillary Clinton know, is that the Electoral College elects the president.

And the law is also that, according to the Supreme Court in Bush v.

Gore, states have the power to withdraw electoral votes from voters if there is a question about the outcome, as they essentially did in Florida in 2000 when they prohibited the state from conducting a recount so that it could meet the deadline.

For example, the Constitution says that a new president must take the oath of office on January 20.

LOOK: They boo Trump as he pays tribute to Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the Supreme Court

To make that happen, a separate US law - the Electoral Counting Act - establishes a calendar for the Electoral College vote count.

That is the timetable cited by the Court in Bush v.

Gore, and suggests that disputes over the results should be resolved 35 days after Election Day.

(

)

These are the key dates this year, according to Biskupic:

- December 8

: when states must determine their election results

: when state voters meet in states to cast their votes for president and vice president

Keyword: "safe harbor"

Here comes Biskupic again: That first deadline, six days before the Electoral College meeting, is known as a "safe harbor" date, when all legal challenges must be resolved.

If the states certify their results by then, their validity must be accepted by Congress.

Counting votes in elections amid pandemics, with a flood of mail-in ballots, is supposed to take much longer than usual.

Trump has already said, repeatedly, that, in his opinion, only what is known on election night matters.

This is not true, of course, but it will keep saying it.

Disputes over state results

In a year in which the president has already repeatedly denounced fraud, although without any proof, the delays could be exploited.

Gellman points out that in 2000, the court, while supposed to be limited to that single instance, essentially deferred to the state on voters to certify Florida voters.

"The state, of course, after granting the right to vote in the special context of Article II, can regain the power to appoint electors," wrote the late Justice Antonin Scalia in Bush v.

Gore.

And Gellman officially speaks to Republican officials in the swing state of Pennsylvania, who say they have at least somehow considered how the state legislature might appoint voters in the absence of a clear victory on Election Night.

Political scientists have played with this and there are a number of possible scenarios, none of which are satisfactory.

The Electoral Counting Law, written after the 1876 presidential elections, when there were multiple states with disputed polling station results, is full of loopholes and ambiguity.

In that case, Congress finally agreed to hand over the White House to the person who ran neither the Electoral College nor the popular vote, which in America today would be a horrible end result.

Latino Vote