What happens, exactly, if Biden wins by a landslide and the scotus rules 5-4

[jorgevlorgan]

That Trump actually won? Or something to that extent? Would that really be a constitutional crisis, or could it be something we could just ignore? Say the states certify Biden as the winner, the electors vote for Biden, and the new congress certifies the result. Per the constitution, the candidate that was elected via the electoral college, becomes president. Right? Or am I way off base here?

Could the scotus really do something so entirely at odds with the constitution?

[jonahblah]

1. I Hope He Wins

I just hope Biden wins in November.

[jorgevlorgan]

3. I like to honk that's all that matters

But these shenanigans with scotus are concerning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

2. If Biden wins the electoral college that's the end of it.

The Supreme Court can't rule on anything unless there's a case before it; they can't just decide to overturn the results of an election without a justiciable controversy before them that involves a constitutional question. And the Constitution says the winner of the Electoral College is the president, period.

[jorgevlorgan]

4. Trump will make a case in front of them

Probably alleging fraud. And he will probably use examples of actual fraud brought on by his supporters which he encouraged And I'm not certain they won't take it. But yeah. I think a victory should be the end of it. Regardless of whatever stupid crap the president pulls.

[Rice4VP]

6. What's he going to do? Recount the whole

country? Hillary had 3M more votes and she didn’t even have a case for that.

[jorgevlorgan]

15. Good point!

[regnaD kciN]

32. Irrelevant comparison...

Yes, Clinton had more votes, but it the wrong states. No one questioned that Trump was winner in more than enough states to win the EC. This would be a completely different question – more like the 2000 fiasco, because it would really be a matter of who wins the whole thing being determined by which votes get counted and which don’t.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. Alleging fraud isn't enough. There has to be a *constitutional* question.

He can and probably will allege fraud of some kind, but that won't get him into court. And you can't start a lawsuit of any kind in the Supreme Court. Even the shitty Bush v. Gore case originated in the Florida court system and was an appeal from a decision of the Florida Supreme Court.

[jorgevlorgan]

13. Thanks that makes a lot of sense actually

I can't see one case having the power to throw out votes all across the country.

[regnaD kciN]

12. He can charge fraud on mail-in ballots...

...and the SCOTUS could agree with him and direct the relevant states to only use in-person votes to determine the winner. It would seem a total affront to the Constitution, but one of the other principles of the Constitution is that the SCOTUS has final say on how it’s applied, and there’s no appeal from their decision.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

54. On what grounds though?

Some states vote entirely by mail and have for years and there's been no inherent issues with it.

[Rice4VP]

5. SMH, why would that happen?

Bush v Gore was based on ONE state

[jorgevlorgan]

8. Trump said he hopes the courts will give him a victory in november

I assume that means he is counting on scotus to provide him with that. I dunno.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

11. He's blowing it out his ass; he has no idea how the court system works.

[regnaD kciN]

7. If the SCOTUS rules, for example...

...that only in-person votes can count, and therefore declare Trump the winner, that’s the way it is. There’s no higher court to which a SCOTUS decision can be appealed. The only option left would be what John Locke subtly referred to as “an appeal to heaven” (dog-whistle for “armed revolt”), but I doubt we’d succeed at that.

[jorgevlorgan]

10. Thats kinda what I'm worried about.

But again, maybe it would be pretty absurd to think 4 justices would even choose to take up a case like that.

[regnaD kciN]

16. Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and the new pick...

I count five votes right there. And that’s all they need.

[jorgevlorgan]

21. Gorsuch and alito have already shown they are more prudent jurists in

Many cases and less political. Even if the case is taken up due to the new justice, I cannot see them voting for something so stupid.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

22. And all of them are Constitutional originalists.

The Constitution gives voting procedures to the states, and also says the winner of the Electoral College is the president. An originalist isn't going to try to argue that the Constitution says anything different.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

14. There would be no legal basis for that decision,

since the states set their own voting procedures per the Constitution, and some vote only by mail, which means none of the votes of those states would count. Not gonna happen.

[jorgevlorgan]

18. Thanks Velveteen! Your responses are actually putting me at ease.

My imagination has been running rampant lately.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

20. I used to teach con law. I am *very* confident that even this Supreme Court

is not going to decide that only in-person votes will count. I am also very confident that no such case will even get that far (and cases would have to come out of every state, since voting procedures are different for each).

[jorgevlorgan]

24. Thanks again!

I was hoping somebody like you would be able to give a succinct answer as to why such a scenario couldn't happen. And you did!

[sprinkleeninow]

31. Don't make me come up there!

🤣

They're crapping on everything.

One minute I have some semblance of peace, then that falls apart.

I don't know what to think anymore.

It's all on shaky ground.

Peace, good health and safety be to you. 💙

[BGBD]

38. declaring all mail in ballots invalid

would absolutely violate the Equal Protection Clause anyway. You couldn't arbitrarily throw out the votes of everyone who voted in a way permitted by the state.

Nevermind that none of these Justices are actually Trump. They have much more respect for the institutions of the United States, and most likely aren't sociopaths. Their political futures would be unchanged if Trump wins or not. I don't think any of them would be willing to start a civil war by invalidating an election with a clear winner.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Absolutely!

Trump either thinks it could be done, or else he’s just blathering to his base, some of whom vote by mail.

[jorgevlorgan]

26. Wouldn't that mean all of washington, oregon and colorado's votes won't count?

Yeah that's crazy...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

28. Exactly. And that's one of many reasons why the whole idea is ridiculous.

[qazplm135]

43. and on what basis would they rule that?

There's no federal law, and they can't rule on state laws which is what each state voting is based on.

There's no constitutional right to in person voting versus mail in voting.

Seriously, people, stop creating what ifs. Spend that energy on GOTV efforts.

[Me.]

17. Sorry But This Is A Ridiculous Scenario

Please dtop

[jorgevlorgan]

19. The responses affirming that fact are easing my mind.

[A HERETIC I AM]

23. Ten million more people voted for someone else last time....

Than voted for Trumpy.

He lost to HRC by almost 3 million votes, but people seem to forget that another 7 million also voted for his opponents.

This time?

I have a feeling that there is a shitload of people who are just fed up with this asshole. He is going to lose the National popular vote by at least 15 points.

Your scenario is not going to happen. The SCOTUS won’t get involved because it won’t come to them.

[sarisataka]

25. Your answer is here:

https://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf

You may notice it says fuck all about SCOTUS role in the Electoral vote. That role is solely reserved to Congress

[qazplm135]

27. that is not going to happen

people need to stop coming up with things to be afraid of.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

29. There are enough things to be afraid of for real without inventing absurd scenarios.

[2naSalit]

37. +1

[JI7]

44. +

[DFW]

30. The Supreme Court doesn't just get up in the morning and start making decisions on their own

They render decisions on cases brought before them. They are not the writers of laws or rules.

[Bobstandard]

33. It's all about the electoral college

If polling of the electors of the electoral college determines that Biden wins, it’s over.

Even a landslide popular vote can be made moot by the EC. On the other hand, the EC can’t be over ruled except by coup, military, or judicial. Sadly we can’t rule that out

[vercetti2021]

34. Joe wins over 300

It'll be over. He can throw fits and all that shit.

[napi21]

35. The only way Scott's gets involved in the election is of the results are so

close the winner is questioned. I don't see that happening O think Joe will win decisively so none of the concerns will matter.

[BainsBane]

36. why would that happen?

It doesn't make sense to me.

[BigmanPigman]

39. Some states can still tell their Electoral College electors to vote for

tRump anyway. I heard that on MSNBC today.

[jorgevlorgan]

47. All states can

Still not likely to happen if the results are super clear.

[Thekaspervote]

41. Can we please stop with this endless what if...for god's sake!!

[RDANGELO]

42. What I think he is going to do is go the courts while they are still counting the mail in ballots.

He will make all kinds of exaggerated and bogus claims to stop counting the ballots. If there are substantial ballots that don't make it in in time, or they are still counting at deadlines, the Democrats will try to get those ballots counted. The latter is my biggest worry.

[Doodley]

45. He will declare himself the winner on election night, before mail-in ballots

are counted. He will declare that any change in results is due to mass fraud. He will tell his supporters that Joe Biden cheated and isn't legitimate. He will tell them to take to the streets if a rigged system doesn't accept he (Trump) won. Even without involving the SCOTUS, he will try to burn America to the ground. He is a Manchurian candidate, doing what Putin wants.

[Awsi Dooger]

46. Exactly, and there is far too much devotion to details in this thread

Details don't mean a damn thing. The only thing that matters is the caliber of a handful of people, and they are all Republican

[jorgevlorgan]

48. In most states though, mail ballots will be the first to be counted

It may be a tough sell

[radius777]

49. Yes, we're dealing with fascist thugs

who don't respect the rules of fair play. Thus, we have to be ready to fight it out in the courts, mass protests, etc.

We need to win FL or NC (iirc, all results will be in on election night) as this would signal a 'blue wave' as opposed to the 'red mirage' Trump is hoping for.

What it comes down to is we need to GOTV and win a landslide victory, also to win the Senate and get rid of Moscow Mitch.

[Doodley]

52. I hope Michael Bloomberg delivers the goods in Florida.

[JI7]

50. This is where the media failed to do it's job from the time he decided to run

and probably before that with the birther shit.

[Doodley]

51. Exactly. If the media had never stopped holding him to account for his birtherism, and

appropriately humiliated him, he would never have won the Republican nomination, and wouldn't have learned that he could get away with lies and racism.

[Chainfire]

53. I think that some people underestimate the

combined power of the Senate, the Courts and the President to do evil. Just because there is no precedent, just because it would be illegal, does not mean that it won't happen. If Biden wins by a "landslide" (however that is defined) it will not deter the Republicans from trying to negate the process. That is how far we have fallen.

So, if they pull some illegal trick out of their bags and declare Trump the President after an obvious loss, what will we do about it? That is the question that Republicans, like Graham and McConnel are calculating now.