Here's the analysis: It wouldn't make sense, from a constitutional perspective, for SCOTUS to take this case. If the situation were reversed, we know a left leaning SCOTUS would take the case anyway and create law out of thin air for their own benefit, but we already know "conservative" justices don't operate that way, so it's likely they'll decline to hear the case because it's a state's rights matter.
Trump's legal team was arguing about the constitutionality of the recent changes for voting in PA, correct? If so, how is that conflicting with another state law if the PA Supreme Court just ruled everything is fine with those changes. Which federal law does it conflict with?
Look, it's the world of law, there's no hard and fast facts. Trump's team could come up with a brilliant legal argument the likes of which no one is expecting or currently can foresee, or SCOTUS could take up the court case against expectations. I'm just saying temper your expectations.
Here's the analysis: It wouldn't make sense, from a constitutional perspective, for SCOTUS to take this case. If the situation were reversed, we know a left leaning SCOTUS would take the case anyway and create law out of thin air for their own benefit, but we already know "conservative" justices don't operate that way, so it's likely they'll decline to hear the case because it's a state's rights matter.
Unless it interferes with another state or federal law. Which is does. Stop spreading ignorance.
Trump's legal team was arguing about the constitutionality of the recent changes for voting in PA, correct? If so, how is that conflicting with another state law if the PA Supreme Court just ruled everything is fine with those changes. Which federal law does it conflict with?
Do you know this for a fact?
The loss was always expected, so they have to have some kind of plan.
This isn’t a state matter at this point, either. They will do the right thing, or they will be traitors.
Look, it's the world of law, there's no hard and fast facts. Trump's team could come up with a brilliant legal argument the likes of which no one is expecting or currently can foresee, or SCOTUS could take up the court case against expectations. I'm just saying temper your expectations.