Despite the length of time it took to determine the result, this is not a close election. Everyone who has felt that the last four years brought American democracy perilously close to collapse should now feel relieved. Biden’s margin of victory in the decisive states is too large to be overturned by typical recounts or by the usual toolbox of legal challenges. As I will explain in this post, however, we’re not completely out of danger yet.
Über den Wahlverlierer Trump, Spannungsbögen und den Unterschied zwischen einem Punkt und einem Strich
On the loser Donald Trump, several arcs of suspense and the difference between a dot and a dash
Die Wahl in den USA ist gelaufen, und es sieht doch eigentlich nicht schlecht aus für Joe Biden und seine Chancen, Donald Trump aus dem Weißen Haus zu vertreiben. Sollte man meinen. Aber neben diesem Wahlauszählungs-Spektakel läuft parallel noch eine ganz andere Partie, von der man nicht so viel mitbekommt, eine juristische nämlich, und die könnte es sein, die am Ende über Sieg und Niederlage entscheidet. Worum es in diesen Gerichtsverfahren geht, welche Strategie dahintersteckt und was das alles für die demokratische Verfassung im ältesten und größten demokratischen Verfassungsstaat bedeutet, darüber rede ich heute mit der Anwältin ANJA VON ROSENSTIEL, die in Boston lebt und in den letzten Monaten im Wahlkampfteam von Joe Biden mitgearbeitet hat und dieses juristische Spiel, das die Republikaner im Augenblick treiben, aus der Nähe verfolgt.
The American electorate seems to have spoken and it seems to have rejected President Trump. But the there is still the possibility of mischief if Trump succeeds in using the law to thwart the election results. The US constitutional system with its strange and unique system for selecting a president is just rickety enough to make it possible for Trump to litigate his way out of an election loss.
There are numerous reasons why people feel anxious about the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Donald Trump seems more than willing to use the tools at hand to manipulate the democratic game to his own advantage and to use the law and courts to impact the election, to manipulate the democratic game, and to extend Trump’s political power beyond the 2020 presidential election. Judicial intervention has, however, a self-defeating potential in terms of legitimacy. Outlined here is the clash between democracy and juristocracy, and the potential it holds for a latent autocracy.
During the recently completed United States Senate committee hearings for Donald Trump’s nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island used his time to try to demonstrate how right-wing groups, including the Federalist Society and Judicial Crisis Network, use dark money to shape the American judiciary. A common reaction, certainly on the part of those continually disadvantaged on the policy side, is that massive dark money investment in the legal system’s actors and outcomes subverts the rule of law. Although ordinary citizens, informed commentators, and political representatives make this claim, theorists have paid scant attention to explaining why this might be so. This omission is likely rooted in the sort of concept theorists think the rule of law is.
The passing of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her replacement by Judge Amy Coney Barrett has led to a spike in interest in imposing term limits for Supreme Court justices. The proposals now on the table are for doing so by statute because amending the U.S. Constitution is so difficult. They face constitutional and political obstacles, which in combination make their adoption unlikely.
On Bill Barr's constitutional theory
Über Bill Barrs Verfassungstheorie
13. September 2025
Giovanni Capoccia
12. September 2025
Anne Peters
12. September 2025
Anne Peters