Two thoughts stetson:
1. If there are only a few days before inauguration is doesn't leave time for Senate approvals of appointees (forget the proper term)
2. I'd like to see complaints of voting irregularities registered within days of the election to be accepted, dealt with not by partisan-appointed State officials so no-one can string things out for weeks with an ongoing list of feeble complaints
Two thoughts stetson:
1. If there are only a few days before inauguration is doesn't leave time for Senate approvals of appointees (forget the proper term)
I think "confirmation" is the word?
If so, point taken, I guess with the separation-of-powers, the senate does need time to hold hearings etc.
Under Westminster, of course, the most important cabinet-appointees are drawn from the elected MPs. Not exactly sure how they get baptized into their cabinet jobs, though I don't believe it involves parliamentary approval.
A law clerk is not a judge, as anyone who has worked as a law clerk can tell you.
It should be noted that Supreme Court clerks often write the initial drafts of Supreme Court opinions and dissents. In that sense being a clerk to a Supreme Court Justice is kind of like an "apprenticeship" in the trade of judging.
Yes, law clerks often do write first drafts of opinions and dissents. With the caveat that each justice or judge will have his or her own way of doing things, when law clerks write drafts they do so according to instructions, including the result they are to reach, that the judge or justice for whom they work has given them.
Again, I'm not saying that it isn't valuable and relevant experience. I'm simply saying that no one I know who has served as a law clerk on any court, including SCOTUS, would call their clerkship "judicial experience." I served as a law clerk (not SCOTUS), and while I think it was an enormously valuable experience that did give me insight into how judges consider issues, I would never tell anyone that I have judicial experience. That's all I've been saying.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Oh it’s out in the open now, Croesos. A blatant attempt to steal an election.
Oh, and I think someone somewhere was asking how to avoid this type of thing in the future? My two cents...
1. Keep the Electoral College. Abolition would make abolitionist politicians really unpopular in sparsely populated states and regions.
BUT...
2. Completely federalize the voting process. IOW people will still be voting for Electors to represent their individual state, but all 51 elections will be conducted under the auspices of one federal agency. This will radically simplify the process of investigating allegations of fraud.
Federalizing elections requires the same Constitutional amendment process as simply abolishing the electoral college, so from a procedural standpoint there's nothing to to be gained. From a practical point of view the problem is that the electoral college as it currently exists "bundles" the votes of everyone in a state into a single, winner-take-all bunch, so it's possible to reverse the outcome of an election by tossing out a small number of votes in a few closely contested states. Indeed, that's the GOP's whole strategy for 2020.
For example, Joe Biden received over 5.9 million more votes for president than Donald Trump did in 2020, but if you manage to throw out ~35,000 Biden ballots in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin (that's 35,000 total ballots, not 35,000 in each state) then the election would go to Donald Trump*. Changing who administers the election isn't going to change that, and I'm not sure Mike Pompeo (state-level Secretaries of State usually handle election administration) counts as a reliable arbiter of the vote.
Two thoughts stetson:
1. If there are only a few days before inauguration is doesn't leave time for Senate approvals of appointees (forget the proper term)
I think "confirmation" is the word?
"Confirmation" is the most common vernacular term used for the process. In Constitutional parlance it's "Advice and Consent" (Art. II, § 2, cl. 2).
*Technically the electoral college would be tied throwing the matter to the House of Representatives. Since the House would vote by state caucuses and the Republicans control more state caucuses that's the same as a Trump victory.
Changing who administers the election isn't going to change that, and I'm not sure Mike Pompeo (state-level Secretaries of State usually handle election administration) counts as a reliable arbiter of the vote.
It does appear that one merit of the present arrangement is that the people administering the election are not appointees of the incumbent. (I am not saying that the merit couldn't be replicated by systems with other additional merits.)
The top two leaders in the Republican-controlled Michigan Legislature are expected to visit the White House Friday, according to a source with knowledge of the plans.
The visits by Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, and House Speaker Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, will come as a legal fight plays out in the battleground state with President Donald Trump attempting to challenge the results of the Nov. 3 election.
Democrat Joe Biden won Michigan 51%-48% or by 154,000 votes, according to the current unofficial results. All 83 counties have approved their tallies, according to the Department of State. And the Board of State Canvassers is scheduled to meet Monday to consider statewide certification.
But Trump's campaign suggested in a Thursday statement the Wayne County Board of Canvassers didn't certify the results in Michigan's largest county. Two Republican members of the Wayne County canvassers agreed to certify the results on Tuesday night but have since signed affidavits saying they regretted their votes and would like to rescind them.
I'm still convinced this particular election was not close enough for these kind of tactics to work. What's more worrisome is that the Republican Anti-democratic party is perfectly fine with this and has abandoned any former commitment to representative democracy. Future presidential elections are going to be fraught.
I would hope that the the two canvassers lack of objection to certifying Livonia, despite a higher level of discrepancy there, would mean that any legal case based on their position would automatically fail.
IAMNAL and 2020, so...
Changing who administers the election isn't going to change that, and I'm not sure Mike Pompeo (state-level Secretaries of State usually handle election administration) counts as a reliable arbiter of the vote.
It does appear that one merit of the present arrangement is that the people administering the election are not appointees of the incumbent. (I am not saying that the merit couldn't be replicated by systems with other additional merits.)
Don't be so sure about that. Eleven states just had gubernatorial elections and seven had elections for secretary of state.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
edited November 2020
It’s 16 electoral votes. If the worst came to the worst, Biden has 290. But it would still be a precedent.
And worse, Biden’s vote majority in Michigan is dependent on votes in counties with a predominantly Black vote. I cannot think of anything more incendiary to do.
Changing who administers the election isn't going to change that, and I'm not sure Mike Pompeo (state-level Secretaries of State usually handle election administration) counts as a reliable arbiter of the vote.
It does appear that one merit of the present arrangement is that the people administering the election are not appointees of the incumbent. (I am not saying that the merit couldn't be replicated by systems with other additional merits.)
Don't be so sure about that. Eleven states just had gubernatorial elections and seven had elections for secretary of state.
Not appointees of the incumbent president, I took Davyd to mean.
It does appear that one merit of the present arrangement is that the people administering the election are not appointees of the incumbent. (I am not saying that the merit couldn't be replicated by systems with other additional merits.)
Don't be so sure about that. Eleven states just had gubernatorial elections and seven had elections for secretary of state.
Not appointees of the incumbent president, I took Davyd to mean.
I got that. I just think concentrating solely on the presidency is a mistake. There are other elections going on at the same time, and while the presidency is arguably more important than any of these, it's not more important than all of them put together.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Georgia will be the next target. From what has come out from the audited recount, the quality control over the uploading of summary data left something to be desired. Trump will exploit that to the full. It’s a a series of human failures but that’s not the way it will be spun.
Georgia will be the next target. From what has come out from the audited recount, the quality control over the uploading of summary data left something to be desired. Trump will exploit that to the full. It’s a a series of human failures but that’s not the way it will be spun.
It will fit his narrative, His suporters narrative and the Republican narrative. What it will not fit is democracy or anything do do with the benefit of the American people.
It does appear that one merit of the present arrangement is that the people administering the election are not appointees of the incumbent. (I am not saying that the merit couldn't be replicated by systems with other additional merits.)
Don't be so sure about that. Eleven states just had gubernatorial elections and seven had elections for secretary of state.
Not appointees of the incumbent president, I took Davyd to mean.
I got that. I just think concentrating solely on the presidency is a mistake. There are other elections going on at the same time, and while the presidency is arguably more important than any of these, it's not more important than all of them put together.
ANd those other elections are directly affected by how the voters feel about the president and how the president feels about the officials.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
The audit/recount in Georgia has confirmed Biden as the winner. Now watch out for the demand for a second recount plus more political hardball.
Federalizing elections requires the same Constitutional amendment process as simply abolishing the electoral college, so from a procedural standpoint there's nothing to to be gained. From a practical point of view the problem is that the electoral college as it currently exists "bundles" the votes of everyone in a state into a single, winner-take-all bunch, so it's possible to reverse the outcome of an election by tossing out a small number of votes in a few closely contested states. Indeed, that's the GOP's whole strategy for 2020.
Technically, the constitution says state legislatures determine how their electors will be chosen. All state legislatures have determined to use the general election to chose the electors. Main and Nebraska do say the electors will reflect the choices of their congressional districts. Another way to change the way the electoral college reflects the national vote is for all states to pass a simple law that says their electors will be determined by the national vote.
This would avoid the necessity of passing an admendment by 2/3rds of the House and Senate followed by 3/4th of the states.
However, this is all highly unlikely. Democrat-led states may be willing to pass such laws, but Republican states do not want to give up their power over the current system.
I don't know how much power he has to do so, but were I Biden I would, once in the White House, order a review of Republican behaviour before and after the election wrt voter suppression and attempts to overturn results, because I imagine some internal emails would be little too bit honest about what they're doing.
Federalizing elections requires the same Constitutional amendment process as simply abolishing the electoral college, so from a procedural standpoint there's nothing to to be gained. From a practical point of view the problem is that the electoral college as it currently exists "bundles" the votes of everyone in a state into a single, winner-take-all bunch, so it's possible to reverse the outcome of an election by tossing out a small number of votes in a few closely contested states. Indeed, that's the GOP's whole strategy for 2020.
Technically, the constitution says state legislatures determine how their electors will be chosen. All state legislatures have determined to use the general election to chose the electors. Main and Nebraska do say the electors will reflect the choices of their congressional districts. Another way to change the way the electoral college reflects the national vote is for all states to pass a simple law that says their electors will be determined by the national vote.
This would avoid the necessity of passing an admendment by 2/3rds of the House and Senate followed by 3/4th of the states.
However, this is all highly unlikely. Democrat-led states may be willing to pass such laws, but Republican states do not want to give up their power over the current system.
I was looking at how the system works the other day and discovered there is a move to do this though you may be aware. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact it aims to to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote.
I find it interesting that T and all his enablers are not crying fraud and cheating on the Republicans who won their elections in the same states that Trump lost. Hmmm. Pretty tricky vote manipulation, I would say.
I find it interesting that T and all his enablers are not crying fraud and cheating on the Republicans who won their elections in the same states that Trump lost. Hmmm. Pretty tricky vote manipulation, I would say.
There is absolutely no attempt at any consistent logic. That is not the point. The point is to pretend that Trump did not lose and to maintain an adversarial POV.
I don't know how much power he has to do so, but were I Biden I would, once in the White House, order a review of Republican behaviour before and after the election wrt voter suppression and attempts to overturn results, because I imagine some internal emails would be little too bit honest about what they're doing.
As President, no power to do that, and it would be perceived as vengeful. The DoJ might express some curiosity...
Bringing the Voting Section of the Justice Department back up to full staffing levels would be a good start. For some reason that's not been a Republican priority.
Abolishing the House of Lords will be easier than abolishing the Electoral College (the Canadian Senate will likely outlast both, but that's another thread). Softening its effect by increasing the number of Representatives can be done with congressional legislation, not requiring an amendment.
Federalizing the voting process would require a constitutional amendment, and I expect that would be a process taking some years, even if possible. However, there are Supreme Court judgements which suggest that some federal regulation is possible, so perhaps something can be done. As well the Civil Rights voting legislation can be re-introduced in a way which can survive recent Supreme Court rulings, and this might improve the situation against states restricting voting.
@stetson 's 3d suggestion would require another constitutional amendment, but I think it has a fighting chance. Earlier in US history, the lame-duck period lasted well into March. Why not bring it to January 1, which would allow the outgoing president one last round of Christmas cards, as well as a New Year's Eve party which terminates at 11.59 so everybody, cleaning staff excepted, gets to go home early?
As well the Civil Rights voting legislation can be re-introduced in a way which can survive recent Supreme Court rulings, and this might improve the situation against states restricting voting.
This seems unlikely as long as John Roberts is on the court. His opinion in Shelby County v. Holder seems like it's designed to prevent Congress from passing any similar legislation. Roberts omitted mentioning what part of the Constitution the old VRA supposedly violated and invented a completely new "Constitutional" standard, the equal sovereign dignitude of the states, to back this up. In other words a Congress trying to pass a new voting rights law would be flying blind and about how to avoid the boundaries of a doctrine that exists only inside Roberts' head and hoping he doesn't just invent something else new. It's worth the effort, but any voting rights legislation that comes before the Roberts Court is probably doomed.
@stetson 's 3d suggestion would require another constitutional amendment, but I think it has a fighting chance. Earlier in US history, the lame-duck period lasted well into March. Why not bring it to January 1, which would allow the outgoing president one last round of Christmas cards, as well as a New Year's Eve party which terminates at 11.59 so everybody, cleaning staff excepted, gets to go home early?
Part of the problem is that Congress is the ultimate certifier (and arbiter) of the presidential election and the new Congress isn't seated until January 2 or 3.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Re Michigan, what just happened? Michigan GOP and RNC seek a 2 week delay in certification pending an audit of Wayne County.
They did. AFAIK nothing has changed. See CNN, https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/20/politics/michigan-house-speaker-will-meet-trump/index.html. Barnabas, are you referring to another nuisance lawsuit or ... ? Because as far as I can see, that's the only thing they could try at this point. And since certification is Monday, the judge is quite likely to say "WTF?" and throw it out.
National and state Republicans have mounted a last-ditch effort to keep Michigan's Board of State Canvassers from certifying results from the presidential election.
In a letter sent Saturday, Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel and Michigan Republican Chair Laura Cox urged the board to adjourn for 14 days to allow a full audit and investigation so "numerical anomalies and credible reports of procedural irregularities" can be addressed.
<snip>
Republican state canvasser Norm Shinkle told the Detroit News on Friday that he was considering throwing his support behind an audit or delay of the final certification after two Republican members of the Wayne County Board of Canvassers unsuccessfully attempted to rescind their certification of the county’s results after learning an audit would not be conducted prior to state certification.
Shinkle said he couldn’t make a decision before seeing the Michigan Bureau of Elections report on the certifications from 83 counties.
There are four members — two Democrats and two Republicans — on the Michigan State Board of Canvassers.
Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson said earlier this week that her agency would perform a post-election audit of Wayne County and some other local jurisdictions. But she said the audit could not be done before state results were certified because election officials don’t have legal access to the documents needed until then, according to the Detroit News.
So this is a request by the national and state-level Republican parties. No one official has taken any action . . . yet.
As President, no power to do that, and it would be perceived as vengeful. The DoJ might express some curiosity...
Yes, re vengeful. IMHO, Joe Biden needs to both be seen as and actually be bringing the country together; being the calm and steady hand on the tiller; and the calm, responsible, and wise grownup taking over a bad situation.
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
Croesos
You have it in one. The “request” does seem to contain an implied threat. That the two Republican state canvassers will block certification on Monday. Creating a situation of great difficulty with unclear outcomes.
Thanks LC, that has made it much clearer - it seems that the long story short is that every desperate Tr*mp maneuver would meet a legal dead end somewhere. Thank goodness!
As well the Civil Rights voting legislation can be re-introduced in a way which can survive recent Supreme Court rulings, and this might improve the situation against states restricting voting.
This seems unlikely as long as John Roberts is on the court. His opinion in Shelby County v. Holder seems like it's designed to prevent Congress from passing any similar legislation. Roberts omitted mentioning what part of the Constitution the old VRA supposedly violated and invented a completely new "Constitutional" standard, the equal sovereign dignitude of the states, to back this up. In other words a Congress trying to pass a new voting rights law would be flying blind and about how to avoid the boundaries of a doctrine that exists only inside Roberts' head and hoping he doesn't just invent something else new. It's worth the effort, but any voting rights legislation that comes before the Roberts Court is probably doomed.
@stetson 's 3d suggestion would require another constitutional amendment, but I think it has a fighting chance. Earlier in US history, the lame-duck period lasted well into March. Why not bring it to January 1, which would allow the outgoing president one last round of Christmas cards, as well as a New Year's Eve party which terminates at 11.59 so everybody, cleaning staff excepted, gets to go home early?
Part of the problem is that Congress is the ultimate certifier (and arbiter) of the presidential election and the new Congress isn't seated until January 2 or 3.
You're quite right-- I had forgotten about the seating of the new Congress, which needs to be there for their certifying responsibilities under the 20th amendment. Perhaps, then, we could have an amendment to move inauguration day to January 30th, even if that causes some inconvenience to our US friends who like to celebrate the feast of Charles King and Martyr. They can adjust. I recall reading, while sheperding my mother to Florida on the annual maternal transhumance (interrupted this year), a political thriller on how a sitting and deparating president facing a post-election international crisis, appointed the election victor vice-president, and then selflessly resigned so that the new president could manage the crisis, but such self-sacrifice might be too much to ask of some figures.
As far as CJ Roberts is concerned, I would be tempted to push the Voting Rights Act right back at him, but although he is very sensitive to political sentiment perhaps that might not be wise until a few more appointments can be made to the Supreme Court. I have seen a scurrilous reference on the internet to Justice Kavanaugh's blood pressure but such speculation is always improper.
The better, for the American people, would be to change the seating of the new congress to closer to the election day, rather than stretch it out. They won't because legislators have demonstrated they value taking a holiday over doing their jobs.
As far as CJ Roberts is concerned, I would be tempted to push the Voting Rights Act right back at him, but although he is very sensitive to political sentiment perhaps that might not be wise until a few more appointments can be made to the Supreme Court.
That is a priority of Democrats in the incoming Congress. Whether they're able to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2021 will probably depend on the outcome of those two special elections in Georgia.
Roberts was practically daring Congress to try another formulation of the VRA in his Shelby County opinion. My guess is that his preferred approach to the next voting rights law (should one be passed) will be the same approach he took to the last one: find (or invent) some narrow pretext to throw the whole thing out and suggest Congress correct the matter, while being deliberately vague as to what kind of correction he'd find Constitutional.
Comments
1. If there are only a few days before inauguration is doesn't leave time for Senate approvals of appointees (forget the proper term)
2. I'd like to see complaints of voting irregularities registered within days of the election to be accepted, dealt with not by partisan-appointed State officials so no-one can string things out for weeks with an ongoing list of feeble complaints
I think "confirmation" is the word?
If so, point taken, I guess with the separation-of-powers, the senate does need time to hold hearings etc.
Under Westminster, of course, the most important cabinet-appointees are drawn from the elected MPs. Not exactly sure how they get baptized into their cabinet jobs, though I don't believe it involves parliamentary approval.
Again, I'm not saying that it isn't valuable and relevant experience. I'm simply saying that no one I know who has served as a law clerk on any court, including SCOTUS, would call their clerkship "judicial experience." I served as a law clerk (not SCOTUS), and while I think it was an enormously valuable experience that did give me insight into how judges consider issues, I would never tell anyone that I have judicial experience. That's all I've been saying.
Federalizing elections requires the same Constitutional amendment process as simply abolishing the electoral college, so from a procedural standpoint there's nothing to to be gained. From a practical point of view the problem is that the electoral college as it currently exists "bundles" the votes of everyone in a state into a single, winner-take-all bunch, so it's possible to reverse the outcome of an election by tossing out a small number of votes in a few closely contested states. Indeed, that's the GOP's whole strategy for 2020.
For example, Joe Biden received over 5.9 million more votes for president than Donald Trump did in 2020, but if you manage to throw out ~35,000 Biden ballots in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin (that's 35,000 total ballots, not 35,000 in each state) then the election would go to Donald Trump*. Changing who administers the election isn't going to change that, and I'm not sure Mike Pompeo (state-level Secretaries of State usually handle election administration) counts as a reliable arbiter of the vote.
"Confirmation" is the most common vernacular term used for the process. In Constitutional parlance it's "Advice and Consent" (Art. II, § 2, cl. 2).
*Technically the electoral college would be tied throwing the matter to the House of Representatives. Since the House would vote by state caucuses and the Republicans control more state caucuses that's the same as a Trump victory.
IAMNAL and 2020, so...
Don't be so sure about that. Eleven states just had gubernatorial elections and seven had elections for secretary of state.
And worse, Biden’s vote majority in Michigan is dependent on votes in counties with a predominantly Black vote. I cannot think of anything more incendiary to do.
I got that. I just think concentrating solely on the presidency is a mistake. There are other elections going on at the same time, and while the presidency is arguably more important than any of these, it's not more important than all of them put together.
Technically, the constitution says state legislatures determine how their electors will be chosen. All state legislatures have determined to use the general election to chose the electors. Main and Nebraska do say the electors will reflect the choices of their congressional districts. Another way to change the way the electoral college reflects the national vote is for all states to pass a simple law that says their electors will be determined by the national vote.
This would avoid the necessity of passing an admendment by 2/3rds of the House and Senate followed by 3/4th of the states.
However, this is all highly unlikely. Democrat-led states may be willing to pass such laws, but Republican states do not want to give up their power over the current system.
I didn't see any recent updates on this thread, so here.
Thanks for the heads up, Golden Key.
There is no end to the costs of polarisation. I foresee another court case to resolve this. Unless something happens at the top.
I was looking at how the system works the other day and discovered there is a move to do this though you may be aware. It's called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact it aims to to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Bringing the Voting Section of the Justice Department back up to full staffing levels would be a good start. For some reason that's not been a Republican priority.
Federalizing the voting process would require a constitutional amendment, and I expect that would be a process taking some years, even if possible. However, there are Supreme Court judgements which suggest that some federal regulation is possible, so perhaps something can be done. As well the Civil Rights voting legislation can be re-introduced in a way which can survive recent Supreme Court rulings, and this might improve the situation against states restricting voting.
@stetson 's 3d suggestion would require another constitutional amendment, but I think it has a fighting chance. Earlier in US history, the lame-duck period lasted well into March. Why not bring it to January 1, which would allow the outgoing president one last round of Christmas cards, as well as a New Year's Eve party which terminates at 11.59 so everybody, cleaning staff excepted, gets to go home early?
This seems unlikely as long as John Roberts is on the court. His opinion in Shelby County v. Holder seems like it's designed to prevent Congress from passing any similar legislation. Roberts omitted mentioning what part of the Constitution the old VRA supposedly violated and invented a completely new "Constitutional" standard, the equal sovereign dignitude of the states, to back this up. In other words a Congress trying to pass a new voting rights law would be flying blind and about how to avoid the boundaries of a doctrine that exists only inside Roberts' head and hoping he doesn't just invent something else new. It's worth the effort, but any voting rights legislation that comes before the Roberts Court is probably doomed.
Part of the problem is that Congress is the ultimate certifier (and arbiter) of the presidential election and the new Congress isn't seated until January 2 or 3.
I think this is what you're referring to.
So this is a request by the national and state-level Republican parties. No one official has taken any action . . . yet.
Yes, re vengeful. IMHO, Joe Biden needs to both be seen as and actually be bringing the country together; being the calm and steady hand on the tiller; and the calm, responsible, and wise grownup taking over a bad situation.
You have it in one. The “request” does seem to contain an implied threat. That the two Republican state canvassers will block certification on Monday. Creating a situation of great difficulty with unclear outcomes.
It’s a stalling tactic.
Thanks LC, that has made it much clearer - it seems that the long story short is that every desperate Tr*mp maneuver would meet a legal dead end somewhere. Thank goodness!
Yes it’s a good link. We’ll see how it plays out. I hope a court hearing is avoided.
There may be some vague thought of setting a precedent of calling irregularities without having to provide evidence or apply consistent standards.
Trump campaign's biggest lawsuit fails in court
Do you fear this will be appealed up to the SCOTUS?
I fear that it will, but what really scares me is the thought that they might rule in Trump's favour.
Their essential problem is that they have a necessary theory (wholesale fraud) in search of evidence that stands up in a court.
You're quite right-- I had forgotten about the seating of the new Congress, which needs to be there for their certifying responsibilities under the 20th amendment. Perhaps, then, we could have an amendment to move inauguration day to January 30th, even if that causes some inconvenience to our US friends who like to celebrate the feast of Charles King and Martyr. They can adjust. I recall reading, while sheperding my mother to Florida on the annual maternal transhumance (interrupted this year), a political thriller on how a sitting and deparating president facing a post-election international crisis, appointed the election victor vice-president, and then selflessly resigned so that the new president could manage the crisis, but such self-sacrifice might be too much to ask of some figures.
As far as CJ Roberts is concerned, I would be tempted to push the Voting Rights Act right back at him, but although he is very sensitive to political sentiment perhaps that might not be wise until a few more appointments can be made to the Supreme Court. I have seen a scurrilous reference on the internet to Justice Kavanaugh's blood pressure but such speculation is always improper.
That is a priority of Democrats in the incoming Congress. Whether they're able to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act of 2021 will probably depend on the outcome of those two special elections in Georgia.
Roberts was practically daring Congress to try another formulation of the VRA in his Shelby County opinion. My guess is that his preferred approach to the next voting rights law (should one be passed) will be the same approach he took to the last one: find (or invent) some narrow pretext to throw the whole thing out and suggest Congress correct the matter, while being deliberately vague as to what kind of correction he'd find Constitutional.