Reply With Quote
Not enough electoral votes at issue to change the result of the election.
I'm the guy saying I can't see how Trump can do it.
After the 3rd Circuit dismissed Trump's lawsuit, it looked like the WI Kraken, which eventually reached the WI Supreme Court, might be his next best chance. Trump lost that appeal today.
The new actions filed today in AZ and GA seeking to nullify the elections there don't have much time to be heard and decided, let alone to be appealed all the way up. SCOTUS usually defers to state courts on matters of state law. Generally speaking a case has to be heard in the highest state court or a Federal Court of Appeals before it can be appealed to SCOTUS. And even then, the appeal isn't automatic. SCOTUS granting cert is rare -- another tall hurdle for Trump. Not impossible, but very unlikely.
Bottom line: there's probably not enough time left for a single case to make it to SCOTUS, let alone for Trump to win enough cases to reverse the election.
Four days left.
Tick tock.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-05-2020 at 02:35 AM.
Not enough electoral votes at issue to change the result of the election.
There is no deadline, only during litigation.
Christopher, come back to earth.
Sure there is, the Consitutional safe harbor is December 8th. The Electoral College meets on Dec. 14th.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/5If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Cons ution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
Last edited by Winehole23; 12-05-2020 at 02:53 AM.
The uncons utional defense is the issue, not date requirement.
Bush V Gore: 37 days until SCOTUS ruling
Precedent: (1876)South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana had such fraud, a committee was formed to award those EC Votes. They threw out the people's votes.
You'll need to unpack this comment. All by itself it doesn't make sense.
To what "uncons utional defense" are you referring?
For which active case(s) is Bush v Gore a precedent? Can you explain how it is a precedent?
(I'm not a lawyer, so go easy on me, hoss.)
The PA lawsuit
Chumpettes' feelings hurt.
SCOTUS is beholden to fraud
Seriously, ask yourself how you got yoked with the board cuckold.
https://nationalfile.com/video-georg...ultiple-times/AND HERE IT IS: The evidence of a pattern!
This has been alleged in Michigan and Arizona. NOW WE HAVE VIDEO IN GEORGIA.
She runs the batch of ballots. She reloads the batch of ballots. She runs the same batch again. Three times that we know of!
HUGE!
Just stumbled on to this (the comments are also interesting)
Imagine hoping and praying on democracy failing all so some orange fat got can get 4 more years in power.
Chris
What past elections Dems throw out?
FIFYImagine hoping and praying on democracy failing all so I don't have to hear from some orange man that hurts muh feelings.
Last edited by Spurtacular; 12-05-2020 at 03:29 AM.
There's no evidence of fraud in this case though. None that can be proven in court so far anyways.
Florida didn't certify the votes in Bush vs Gore until the SCOTUS ruling. Not the case here. Safe Harbor applies.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...ates-election/
Executive Order on Imposing Certain Sanctions in the Event of Foreign Interference in a United States Election
This is daydreaming... no support for this is any of the states involved. Even in PA, where you posted an earlier letter, only 30% of legislators support it, which is not enough to pass an override in that State.
This isn't 1876.
yeah, I'm mad ITT... OP completely chill... lmao
If I were / am mad it would be appropriate. I don't take the theft of The Republic so lightly.
As it is, you're the one in a tizzy.
Chris
There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)
Posting Permissions
