Well, congress is firmly Democrat, but there are procedural options that Pelosi has to shut down certain maneuvers, such as what would happen if electors weren't selected.

The issue with outright dismissal of an election result is this: Elections are handled by the states. The SCOTUS (because of the constitution and the large body of precedent) are very reticent to muck about in how states manage and certify their elections. They need some sort of entry point to even attempt such a ruling. The current cases are either very narrow or so broad that their claims are easily dismissed. It doesn't mean the cases are right/wrong, it just means the SCOTUS can't really do much with them.

Say state legislators do pick electors, in PA. What happens. Well, the framers specifically didn't empower congress to choose presidents. They specifically didn't want state governors choosing the president. They didn't want state legislatures either, so they discarded that. The framers chose electors. Electors are chosen on election day. That is the whole premise of our election system. Electors, chosen by states, on election day, by popular vote per state, are who choose president. There is of course the legal theory floated by reihnquist that says legislatures have the power to select electors.

So why can't state legislatures do this? Or why don't I think they legally can. And why do I think the SCOTUS won't side with them? Because it all works on the theory that the state legislatures can't be constrained in this regard by the state law itself... but... ultimately, over time that power (super power as Reihnquist called it) was displaced by democracy. This is why people on here get so feisty that we are Republic. Maybe a lot of them don't /know/ why this is kind of dense legal stuff, but the people that promoted that saying have always understand that if we are a Republic legislatures maintain that power [to select electors]. Unfortunately, those people are wrong and we are a democracy (we the people), at least legally speaking.

Anyway, that's all just the legal theory, and why it's unlikely the SCOTUS will do anything... but the composition has changed and perhaps if enough compelling evidence is brought before them they would decide that "the people" should not decide the election and instead that electors, and thus state legislatures are unbound by the will of the people.

The issue at hand is that, essentially, we are claiming there is unprecedented fraud and "we the people" didn't choose biden. So if that is the claim, which Trump's legal team has been pursuing, then they have to prove that. Which would then free the electors to choose a president contrary to the election results. So, the total subversion of democracy in at least one state must be shown, and some standard for how to measure that subversion has to be created. This is a huge order for any legal team and things like the Kraken are the laughing stock of the legal community because of how sloppy it all is.

[keep in mind, my personal feelings are not entirely reflected by the above, but this is the realistic challenge these cases face in order for SCOTUS to unbind electors from the vote of the people.] It is a monumental effort. I am sure some justices (Kavanaugh, maybe Clarence) will stay based and go our way, but I don't think even Gorsuch would rule in Trump's favor in such a case. Unfortunately so many things have to happen before they can even issue a ruling if this sort. Basically, this was all set in stone on Nov 3rd, that's the day congress said there would be a vote. That's the day and vote that matters in the constitution. How that vote happened was determined by each state. All but a couple states say to use popular vote. You can see where this is going. It's pretty inescapable. If we want to overturn a state's election it has to be shown beyond a shadow of doubt that the popular vote was wrong. To date, that has simply not happened in a legal sense. Of course plenty of circumstantial evidence has surfaced and we believe there is enough evidence to point at the fraud, the shape of it at least, but courts don't work on that type of data. There has to be actual legitimate proof, at scale. 10 votes here and 100 votes there and a pile of affidavits about election procedure aren't going to cut it.

So... dragon energy, no dooming, blah blah blah, but people should be taking a cold hard look at what is happening and figuring out their next moves based on the probability of what is coming and how we react to it and fight for our country.

Anyway, this turned into a long post, but I have been doing my best to learn about what our options are.

Well, congress is firmly Democrat, but there are procedural options that Pelosi has to shut down certain maneuvers, such as what would happen if electors weren't selected.

The issue with outright dismissal of an election result is this: Elections are handled by the states. The SCOTUS (because of the constitution and the large body of precedent) are very reticent to muck about in how states manage and certify their elections. They need some sort of entry point to even attempt such a ruling. The current cases are either very narrow or so broad that their claims are easily dismissed. It doesn't mean the cases are right/wrong, it just means the SCOTUS can't really do much with them.

Say state legislators do pick electors, in PA. What happens. Well, the framers specifically didn't empower congress to choose presidents. They specifically didn't want state governors choosing the president. They didn't want state legislatures either, so they discarded that. The framers chose electors. Electors are chosen on election day. That is the whole premise of our election system. Electors, chosen by states, on election day, by popular vote per state, are who choose president. There is of course the legal theory floated by reihnquist that says legislatures have the power to select electors.

So why can't state legislatures do this? Or why don't I think they legally can. And why do I think the SCOTUS won't side with them? Because it all works on the theory that the state legislatures can't be constrained in this regard by the state law itself... but... ultimately, over time that power (super power as Reihnquist called it) was displaced by democracy. This is why people on here get so feisty that we are Republic. Maybe a lot of them don't /know/ why this is kind of dense legal stuff, but the people that promoted that saying have always understand that if we are a Republic legislatures maintain that power [to select electors]. Unfortunately, those people are wrong and we are a democracy (we the people), at least legally speaking.

Anyway, that's all just the legal theory, and why it's unlikely the SCOTUS will do anything... but the composition has changed and perhaps if enough compelling evidence is brought before them they would decide that "the people" should not decide the election and instead that electors, and thus state legislatures are unbound by the will of the people.

The issue at hand is that, essentially, we are claiming there is unprecedented fraud and "we the people" didn't choose biden. So if that is the claim, which Trump's legal team has been pursuing, then they have to prove that. Which would then free the electors to choose a president contrary to the election results. So, the total subversion of democracy in at least one state must be shown, and some standard for how to measure that subversion has to be created. This is a huge order for any legal team and things like the Kraken are the laughing stock of the legal community because of how sloppy it all is.

[keep in mind, my personal feelings are not entirely reflected by the above, but this is the realistic challenge these cases face in order for SCOTUS to unbind electors from the vote of the people.] It is a monumental effort. I am sure some justices (Kavanaugh, maybe Clarence) will stay based and go our way, but I don't think even Gorsuch would rule in Trump's favor in such a case. Unfortunately so many things have to happen before they can even issue a ruling if this sort.

So... dragon energy, no dooming, blah blah blah, but people should be taking a cold hard look at what is happening and figuring out their next moves based on the probability of what is coming and how we react to it and fight for our country.