Do they really think that they can hide a supreme court decision that flips states
they do and they are not wrong to think that because that's how it went last time SCC found election to be fraudulent in 2000.
They said 'this is wrong, but we can't think of a just remedy at this point'.
This is the current Dem. tactic - they need to stall as much as possible so that by the time SCC ruling is out, it's too late.
Also that's how 2010 court proceedings for a senate seat went too. Courts found election was fraudulently won through illegal ballots cast by felons. But than they allowed it to stand
I’m not familiar with this 2010 case. If the fraud was large enough to turn the election then why wouldn’t they just invalidate the vote? Or was it the case that the fraud was smaller than the margin?
Problem was that the decision came 6 months after election. The fraudulently elected Senator was already in office and everyone just decided to let it slide.
problem is that the case we have mostly been hearing about that was taken to SCC in PA - that was initiated pre-election and SCC couldn't rule on it due to split 4-4.
But most of the fraud evidence that showed up since - those would have to be new cases. A new case cannot just head straight to SCC, it has to jump through state level courts first.
And for example, PA courts have been very unfair to Trump campaign so far. All they need it to put the breaks on the courts they seem to be in control of.
I don't know how other states, but PA seems to have activist judges and I think they will be able to hold PA for dems by simply running out the clock.
they do and they are not wrong to think that because that's how it went last time SCC found election to be fraudulent in 2000.
They said 'this is wrong, but we can't think of a just remedy at this point'.
This is the current Dem. tactic - they need to stall as much as possible so that by the time SCC ruling is out, it's too late.
Also that's how 2010 court proceedings for a senate seat went too. Courts found election was fraudulently won through illegal ballots cast by felons. But than they allowed it to stand
I’m not familiar with this 2010 case. If the fraud was large enough to turn the election then why wouldn’t they just invalidate the vote? Or was it the case that the fraud was smaller than the margin?
no, it definitely pushed it over the margin.
https://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2010/07/20/al-franken-may-have-won-his-senate-seat-through-voter-fraud
Problem was that the decision came 6 months after election. The fraudulently elected Senator was already in office and everyone just decided to let it slide.
Oh I see. Thank you.
In can’t imagine this one lasting that long. Every eye is on it.
problem is that the case we have mostly been hearing about that was taken to SCC in PA - that was initiated pre-election and SCC couldn't rule on it due to split 4-4.
But most of the fraud evidence that showed up since - those would have to be new cases. A new case cannot just head straight to SCC, it has to jump through state level courts first.
And for example, PA courts have been very unfair to Trump campaign so far. All they need it to put the breaks on the courts they seem to be in control of.
I don't know how other states, but PA seems to have activist judges and I think they will be able to hold PA for dems by simply running out the clock.