They must rule in favor of constitutional law. They have no guarantee that failing to rule would result in social calm, so may as well do the right thing.
Not to go all doomer, but I think they’ll rule the changes in election procedures were unconstitutional but allow the results to stand. They’ll make some excuse about not “disenfranchising” the voters who just followed the (unconstitutional) rules, but I think you’re pretty close to the mark when talking about social calm.
I do think it’s interesting that the Constitutional argument was successfully used by Tennessee to block changes to voting procedures before the election. While it’s not SCOTUS precedent, obviously, it means the federal judiciary on the whole is sympathetic to the argument. That can only help us
I am not a lawyer but that hypothetical argument is problematic, isn't it? I mean, if "we (voters) didn't know mail-in voting was wrong, and just followed as the election committee advised us to do, therefore we have no faults and our votes must be accepted" is an accepted argument, doesn't that cause a lot of problems when the argument is applied to other things?
For example, imagine you were buying a house. You signed the contract that the real estate agency provided to you, and paid the money. However, the real estate made an erroneous contract with a fake owner, and the real owner of the house says that the contract is invalid. If we apply the same rule, you could say "I didn't know that the contract was made with a fake owner. I just followed as the real estate agency advised us to do, therefore I have no faults and my purchase must be validated.", couldn't you? In short, whether someone knew it was legal or not, if it was illegal, it is illegal, isn't it?
I have a feeling they’ll treat it more like a technical error in a search warrant (transposed house number or the like). A Constitutional violation, but not one that invalidates the whole process. They’ll try to split the baby down the middle rather than making the hard decision.
if they rule against the constitution, there won't be social calm
If they say the Constitution doesn't matter, no laws matter. Shoot to kill.
Bingo!
There won't be social calm in either outcome
This. Winter is coming no matter who is declared President
100%
100% is too low. 110%. Who's with me?
They must rule in favor of constitutional law. They have no guarantee that failing to rule would result in social calm, so may as well do the right thing.
Not to go all doomer, but I think they’ll rule the changes in election procedures were unconstitutional but allow the results to stand. They’ll make some excuse about not “disenfranchising” the voters who just followed the (unconstitutional) rules, but I think you’re pretty close to the mark when talking about social calm.
I do think it’s interesting that the Constitutional argument was successfully used by Tennessee to block changes to voting procedures before the election. While it’s not SCOTUS precedent, obviously, it means the federal judiciary on the whole is sympathetic to the argument. That can only help us
I am not a lawyer but that hypothetical argument is problematic, isn't it? I mean, if "we (voters) didn't know mail-in voting was wrong, and just followed as the election committee advised us to do, therefore we have no faults and our votes must be accepted" is an accepted argument, doesn't that cause a lot of problems when the argument is applied to other things?
For example, imagine you were buying a house. You signed the contract that the real estate agency provided to you, and paid the money. However, the real estate made an erroneous contract with a fake owner, and the real owner of the house says that the contract is invalid. If we apply the same rule, you could say "I didn't know that the contract was made with a fake owner. I just followed as the real estate agency advised us to do, therefore I have no faults and my purchase must be validated.", couldn't you? In short, whether someone knew it was legal or not, if it was illegal, it is illegal, isn't it?
I have a feeling they’ll treat it more like a technical error in a search warrant (transposed house number or the like). A Constitutional violation, but not one that invalidates the whole process. They’ll try to split the baby down the middle rather than making the hard decision.