299
Comments (9)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
13
TrumpVictorious 13 points ago +13 / -0

IMO they are simply noting that the constitutional clock is ticking, and the investigation and discovery of the fraud that should normally require years in most civil process has to be done basically in a month.

These state courts refusing to even listen to the evidence is good in this sense; it greases the path to SCOTUS.

Don’t believe the dem line that SCOTUS can’t take up a state law issue. They did in Bush v Gore in 2000, because it affected a federal election.

3
v8power 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank you - so he's just stating the facts.

Now, I heard Trump mention January 20th as opposed to December 14th as a deadline. Is he giving himself another month for a favorable SCOTUS ruling? Can they reverse the electors' vote?

4
TrumpVictorious 4 points ago +4 / -0

Dec 14 is the electors vote but that vote is not certified until Jan 6. Presumably SCOTUS could intervene to invalidate the electors, although I don’t know of examples. Also there is an opportunity for congress members to raise objection prior to certification of the vote on Jan 6.

I think Trump’s best bet is to get a ruling by or before Dec 14th. SCOTUS might demand a review process of ballots with meaningful Republican involvement; or simply invalidate the vote, putting the selection of electors in the hands of the state legislatures (where it technically resides anyway).

1
MakeAmericaLegendary 1 point ago +1 / -0

How likely is it that SCOTUS is going to bundle up multiple cases? Or is it likely that we'll be seeing them several times over the next two weeks?

And speaking of the constitutional clock, while it's ticking, are we doing decently well enough in terms of time?