387
Comments (35)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
18
goingtomaga [S] 18 points ago +18 / -0

Key Word: “May”

7
NoahGav 7 points ago +7 / -0

I truly do believe the supreme court will rule in our favor.

3
pithys 3 points ago +3 / -0

the constitution was violated so yeah. But the relief is a different thing. They could throw out 2M votes, or they could do nothing. Or maybe something like throw out the election

0
BrakeRemovalMechanic 0 points ago +1 / -1

The Supreme Court typically does not rule on State issues unless they infringe on federal statutes or the Constitution. This would break long standing tradition. So I would not get any hopes up.

4
QueMalaHarris 4 points ago +4 / -0

Even if something happened that was unconstitutional?

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
BrakeRemovalMechanic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Only if it violates the United States Constitution. Typically if it is in violation of the State Constitution, they allow the State's Supreme Court to have their rulings. There are no laws however preventing the Supreme Court from intervention, and there is the argument that the State's court has been in gross violation of the Constitution. I am not aware of this level of corruption reaching the Supreme Court before.

1
BillDStrong 1 point ago +1 / -0

They rule on the Fedral Constitution. The stats are supposed to rule on the State Constitution.

2
KSto7 2 points ago +2 / -0

I would assume state level fraud on a federal level, especially that alters the outcome of the Presidential vote, would warrant the tradition break.

2
BrakeRemovalMechanic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yes. Or even the Equal Protection clause. However, we are talking about Conservatives here. Tradition and precedent are held in very high regard. We are asking Conservatives to venture out into more liberal territory. If this was a liberal majority they would do it without hesitation for a Democrat. However I don't know if our Conservative Justices understand that we are at war for the very fabric of this country.

2
BillDStrong 2 points ago +2 / -0

They could simply rule the State must take up the case, since the state has placed them in a catch 22. The state dismissed it because it was too late since it happened after the election, but the same state dismisses cases if the election hasn't happened yet.

This would allow them not to appear partial, avoid ruling on it themselves and uphold the Federal part of the constitution.

Also, any election that has a federal candidate gives jurisdiction to the Supreme court.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
BrakeRemovalMechanic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yes. See my above reply though. The Supreme Court has a history of punting when it feels uncomfortable.

1
NoahGav 1 point ago +1 / -0

Then why did they even take the case?

2
Jimmy_Russler 2 points ago +2 / -0

Which supreme court? State or SCOTUS?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0