Legalese speaker her: what he really claims is that courts have never invalidated election results before, and allowing it to happen will likely open the can of worms where every election in the future will be contested.
Granted, he has a point in the sense that it's very convenient to just "trust" the system and have it be over with in 24 overs
Unfortunately, and this is clearly where he's wrong, the events of this year have completely erased that trust. So we HAVE to open this can of worms and finish it start to end.
Legalese speaker her: what he really claims is that courts have never invalidated election results before, and allowing it to happen will likely open the can of worms where every election in the future will be contested.
Granted, he has a point in the sense that it's very convenient to just "trust" the system and have it be over with in 24 overs
Unfortunately, and this is clearly where he's wrong, the events of this year have completely erased that trust. So we HAVE to open this can of worms and finish it start to end.
TL;DR: asking courts not to look into it.