This sort of thing is the reason Republicans put people on the Supreme Court: Not to get rid of Roe v. Wade or any of the other petty agenda items they cloak themselves in, but simply to guarantee that Republicans take and keep power. That's it - that's all the Republican Party exists for: To ensure that the loyal servants of the economic elite remain in power in perpetuity, and that the power they wield is as broad and unchecked as possible. So when a case comes before the Supreme Court speaking directly to the core mission of the GOP - its ability to take and keep office regardless of the will of the American people - there is no mystery what will be decided. The question is, what are you going to do about it when the obvious happens - and what are you going to demand the Democratic Party do about it?
We are a nation of laws, not of men - that much was emphasized repeatedly at our Founding in order to make clear that merely possessing an office or political title did not give people the authority to do whatever they please with it. Usually that principle has been cited to rebuke members of the Executive branch who exceed their Constitutional authority, but ever since the Bush v. Gore judicial coup in 2000 - when five putschists in black robes ruled that actual votes were irrelevant to the official outcome of a presidential election - the criticism has applied equally well to the Supreme Court. The extent of lawlessness on the Court was only reinforced in 2010 with the ludicrous Citizens United decision essentially striking down even the idea of regulating campaign finance, and in the process declaring that corporations are people, money is speech, and the wealthy are thereby entitled to a greater share of influence over the course and content of elections.
Needless to say, no law or even philosophical principle remotely justified either decision - it was a simple matter of power calculus: In 2000, the Justices had a choice whether to uphold the law and possibly allow the American people to deny a Republican the office being sought, or just arbitrarily rule in the Republican's favor and acquire the US Presidency for the GOP under whatever pretense they deigned to conjure. Naturally those five "Justices" chose the latter. And in 2010, they actually had three choices: Dismiss the laughable complaints being brought against America's campaign finance laws in their entirety; narrowly address the complaints and leave intact a functioning system of campaign finance regulation; or plunge off the deep end, declare financial entities to be human beings, send the US election process back to the McKinley administration, and guarantee a Republican landslide in the upcoming Congressional elections.
A Court whose conservative majority was simply being principled would have chosen the second option, but the ultimate decision of the conservatives on the Court was not even in doubt - they were put there precisely to issue decisions like that: To "interpret" the law completely out of existence for the benefit and empowerment of the Republican Party. All of the lines of corruption responsible for Republican politics converge on the simple necessity to wield maximum power as much of the time as possible with minimal uncertainty about the ability to obtain and keep it: The Party's financiers demand regular returns on their investments, and democracy does not suit that requirement.
So in the likely event the Supreme Court upholds the new Jim Crow laws being put in place in various states to guarantee Republican victory; in the event that SCOTUS reverses lower court decisions that held these "laws" unconstitutional; in the event that five of these "Justices" do what they were appointed to do and issue the ruling that Republicans desperately need to avoid catastrophe at the hands of the American people in November; are you prepared to deal with it assertively, or would you react with the usual Democratic shock, dismay, and disarray at predictable events occurring at exactly the time one would expect? Are you prepared to reject the ruling for the lawless act of tyranny it is, and insist that all legitimate votes be counted? Are you mentally prepared to go from the euphoria of believing we are on a path to victory, to understanding that the GOP would now have carte blanche to rig the election and throw millions of Democratic votes in the garbage?
Even with such a decision under their belt, President Obama might win anyway - he might even win by a big margin, given how well he is doing and what a filthy rat Mitt Romney is proving himself to be even in the eyes of "mainstream" punditry. But let's be clear: Such a decision would guarantee the GOP keeps the House and takes the Senate, and as such it cannot be tolerated - it would be 2/3 of a coup if they could subject this country to another disastrous stretch of obstruction, fiscal hostage-taking, and gridlock, even if we kept the White House.
And that is why I've made and will continue to make a simple demand of all Democratic candidates: You will not concede to any "defeat" whose margins are smaller than the numbers disenfranchised by GOP voter suppression efforts. Whatever office you are running for, under no circumstances will you accede to the theft of our democracy. All candidates should have a plan in place if they are faced with this kind of situation, coordinate those plans with each other, and decide how they intend to constructively confront the issue, because frankly - for obvious reasons - just taking it to the courts is unlikely to be sufficient, although that would certainly be the immediate response.
Furthermore, we citizens need to make clear upfront well before election day that we will not tolerate legitimate votes being thrown out or voters denied their rights; that we will not tolerate faux-"statesmanlike" concessions to outcomes that occur purely due to these tactics; and that elections are not the candidates' to concede when they have been subverted, but ours alone - and the duty of candidates in that situation is to uphold the rights of those who have chosen them to lead. Also, we might have to get used to the idea of legitimate authority becoming separated from the machinery of governance, because the alternative would simply be to concede the end of American democracy - and that I will never do, nor should anyone with even the slimmest shred of honor and dignity.
I would like to believe that this won't happen - that John Roberts' decision to side with ACA showed true independence rather than an opportune charade to later justify lockstepping on decisions of more direct significance to GOP power. But I am realistic, and understand that the most likely outcome is for SCOTUS to uphold the GOP's voter suppression efforts 5-4. So if that happens, it simply comes down to us: Whether we would step into uncharted territory and refuse to accept fraudulent outcomes, or look for the false security of obeying machinery that had been hijacked, most likely never to return back into the hands of the people. That America came back from 2000 is a miracle, and we should not tempt fate by shriveling in the face of a second point of decision.
Flooding elections with corrupt propaganda is one thing, despicable and unpatriotic as it is; even trying to trick people into not showing up and other dirty tricks Republicans typically resort to is just cowardly rat-fuckery; but the idea that an American could show up to the polls to exercise their sacred right and be turned away because Republicans find their rights inconvenient makes my blood boil. We must vow that it will not be tolerated - that the outcome of this election is to be decided by how people voted, not by which votes Republicans choose to acknowledge from the infinite depths of their selfish treason.
We must make clear and credible that no office obtained purely by throwing away people's right to vote will be recognized, no authority acknowledged on the part of people who attempt to exercise those offices, and no statute passed through their control of legislative bodies will be admitted or obeyed as law that would not otherwise have passed. And furthermore, that these authorities do rest with the people who were elected, if they have the courage to accept and exercise them lawfully without the cooperation of hijacked institutions. It's not the kind of situation that makes one feel safe and secure, but ultimately the survival of the Constitution rests with the people's willingness to only invest authority in those who obey at least the most fundamental tenet of our republic - that We The People determine who governs. We cannot be free forever expecting democracy to be spoonfed to us by institutions - sooner or later, people have to practice democracy without a net, on their own initiative, or it simply disappears.