I think Marbury v. Madison did more to clearly define the role of the court with almost a tacit approval of the legislative branch in its ruling. The court asserted that its Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1 allowed it the ability to settle disputes, but only in a passive way in which cases must first be brought to it.

The court set its own precedent that it could not actively select cases either, which certainly has come into play in the modern era in a few different ways. The strength of the court to review is also its downfall, new laws can just be passed around the new ruling. I think in the modern era and interesting tactic has been to overwhelm the courts with a flurry of laws and social welfare programs that will take months to unwind or longer. Meanwhile those benefits become established, (DACA, ACA) and therefore, become significantly harder to remove...if it's possible at all.

As far as the elections, the cheating was too systematic to just bring a claim of meta data. It's going to need to have hard evidence and overwhelmingly compelling with the ability of the public to understand and see it. The federal bureaucracy wants this Administration, and actively worked on multiple fronts to insure it would happen.

I think Marbury v. Madison did more to clearly define the role of the court with almost a tacit approval of the legislative branch in its ruling. The court asserted that its Article 3, Section 1, Clause 1 allowed it the ability to settle disputes, but only in a passive why in which cases must first be brought to it.

The court set its own precedent that it could not actively select cases either, which certainly has come into play in the modern era in a few different ways. The strength of the court to review is also its downfall, new laws can just be passed around the new ruling. I think in the modern era and interesting tactic has been to overwhelm the courts with a flurry of laws and social welfare programs that will take months to unwind or longer. Meanwhile those benefits become established, (DACA, ACA) and therefore, become significantly harder to remove...if it's possible at all.

As far as the elections, the cheating was too systematic to just bring a claim of meta data. It's going to need to have hard evidence and overwhelmingly compelling with the ability of the public to understand and see it. The federal bureaucracy wants this Administration, and actively worked on multiple fronts to insure it would happen.