Supreme Court has a 'self-serving' interest in helping the GOP win the midterms: expert
A Supreme Court expert warned on Sunday that the Court has a "self-serving" interest in helping Republicans hold their majority in Congress after the midterm election, and that this could influence how the court rules in a major upcoming case. Lisa Graves, executive director of True North Research and co-host of the "Legal AF" podcast, argued during a recent episode that the Supreme Court has already signaled to Republicans that it is willing to help them during the midterms. She noted that the court previously operated under the dictum that it would not interfere in the election process during election years, but threw that principle out when it decided to allow Louisiana to redraw its congressional map in Louisiana v. Callais. That raises the stakes for a forthcoming Supreme Court decision regarding a case from Mississippi that could determine when states are allowed to count mail-in ballots, Graves argued."All bets are off because we know the Roberts court has been actively, aggressively intervening in our elections while elections are underway to put their thumb or their fist on the scale of justice on the side of Republicans," Graves said. "I think not just because Donald Trump has wanted to change the maps and basically cheat to get an advantage in this midterm election, but also because John Roberts has a multi-decade antipathy for the Voting Rights Act."He's joined in that by people like Sam Alito who have been opposed to the apportionment cases and more," she continued. "And also, it cannot go unmentioned by me that if Congress were to become controlled by Democrats, there would probably be a robust investigation of this Roberts court. So, they have a self-serving interest as they are trying to move the law to aid what the RNC wants or what Republicans want." Graves noted that the Callais decision highlighted the Supreme Court's "self-serving" interest in helping Republicans, because a Republican majority would not investigate the court, whereas Democrats would.Graves added that there are several things Democrats could investigate the Supreme Court for. She noted that Justice Clarence Thomas has not yet answered questions about his financial disclosures and a recreational vehicle that he purchased on loan from a wealthy associate that was later forgiven. Justice Sam Alito has also not answered questions about trips he took that were funded by wealthy donors. "There's a lot of investigations that need to take place," Graves said.
