Not a lawfag, but here's my random interpretation.
All of what you described can theoretically be legal so long as the legislature is the one doing that. The Constitution says that states are allowed to run elections as they see fit only insofar as the state legislature is the one making that decision.
Michigan can invent 100 billion votes for communist parties for the purposes of counting their votes and deciding their allotted electors only as long as their legislature is the entity that makes that law: not the governor, not the State Supreme Court, not some elected official. The legislature has to make that decision to invent 100 billion votes for commies and how they run it.
As the election rules weren't run by the legislature, how these states ran their elections ought to technically be null and void. The only thing that I can think of that might circumvent this is a "State of Emergency" due to Covid enacting some exception to normal state processes, but I'm not sure if that argument was raised anywhere.
The big issue here is whether Texas and other states have legal standing to sue: if Joe gets into a car accident with Susan, you can't have a random lawyer Richard being the one to sue. Only an affected party can sue. I think there's significant precedence to say that Texas should have standing here from rulings in other cases and that's my understanding of what should have happened. My guess is that the Supreme Court Justices lack the courage to take more heat or are compromised in some way.
I don't know if legal remedies are yet exhausted, but here's where I think Trump wins either way. If the Supreme Court wants to say that the law means nothing, so be it.I hereby declare Trump emperor for life. The law means nothing and nobody has any standing to sue.
Sorry Biden bros, I know you're shidding and farding everywhere, but it's over, I've decided.
Not a lawfag, but here's my random interpretation.
All of what you described can theoretically be legal so long as the legislature is the one doing that. The Constitution says that states are allowed to run elections as they see fit only insofar as the state legislature is the one making that decision.
Michigan can invent 100 billion votes for communist parties for the purposes of counting their votes and deciding their allotted electors only as long as their legislature is the entity that makes that law: not the governor, not the State Supreme Court, not some elected official. The legislature has to make that decision to invent 100 billion votes for commies and how they run it.
As the election rules weren't run by the legislature, how these states ran their elections ought to technically be null and void. The only thing that I can think of that might circumvent this is a "State of Emergency" due to Covid enacting some exception to normal state processes, but I'm not sure if that argument was raised anywhere.
The big issue here is whether Texas and other states have legal standing to sue: if Joe gets into a car accident with Susan, you can't have a random lawyer Richard being the one to sue. Only an affected party can sue. I think there's significant precedence to say that Texas should have standing here from rulings in other cases and that's my understanding of what should have happened. My guess is that the Supreme Court Justices lack the courage to take more heat or are compromised in some way.
I don't know if legal remedies are yet exhausted, but here's where I think Trump wins either way. If the Supreme Court wants to say that the law means nothing, so be it.I hereby declare Trump emperor for life. The law means nothing and nobody has any standing to sue.
Sorry Biden bros, I know you're shidding and farding everywhere, but it's over, I've decided.