General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumsseems like trump is looking for a case to take before SCOTUS for the win
that's why they are coordinating all these attacks on state certification. eventually he will get a call his way that is challenged legally and the challenge will end up at SCOTUS since repubs are behind him all the way
Eliot Rosewater
(31,109 posts)GOP has given up on Democracy, and that means this can get real bad real fast.
stillcool
(32,626 posts)and didn't think the Supreme Court had any say in how a state chooses it's electors. But I've thought a lot of things lately that were dead wrong.
Blue_true
(31,261 posts)conspiracy theories. I dont think that we should join them in that area. The fact is more than one Trump appointed Federal Judge has told him to go fish, even the US Supreme Court recently refused to hear an appeal by Trump lawyers.
keithbvadu2
(36,778 posts)"We don't have to convince this kangaroo court, only the Supreme Court where we have ..."
Dinesh D'Souza bragged about repubs' packing the Supreme Court with their conservatives for just this purpose.
Link to tweet
AmericanCanuck
(1,102 posts)StarfishSaver
(18,486 posts)Do much for what Dinesh thinks ...
AmericanCanuck
(1,102 posts)He has steadfastly refused to get involved.
no_hypocrisy
(46,083 posts)Let's say Trump consistently loses in federal district court. He appeals to the federal appeals court. He loses again. He appeals to the full appellate court. He loses yet again.
So Trump files a writ of certiorari to the USSC. The Court doesn't have to take it. They vote on it and four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1#:~:text=Typically%2C%20the%20Court%20hears%20cases,vote%20to%20accept%20a%20case.
And let's say there are four votes to hear the case. The meter is still on and December 14 is coming up hard and fast. The USSC can't extend that date for certifying the presidential election.
Do you really believe, Federalist Society aside, that the USSC will rule that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence are quaint artifacts, that they are discretionary? I don't. These standards are the framework of American jurisprudence and to set them aside for even one case would sow chaos into the Court System.
No evidence, no merit to the cases. That would be a bridge too far.
Don't get me wrong: I believe Trump would have the vote of Clarence Thomas no matter what. But I can't see Alito, Kavanaugh, and Barrett going along with the charade. (Plus, Barrett and Kavanaugh are ensconced. They're not going anywhere if they rule against Trump.)
leftyladyfrommo
(18,868 posts)made it anywhere.
Can you appeal a non case?
Goodheart
(5,321 posts)state legislatures are allowed to change their own rules for electors once their established rules did not yield the partisan results they hoped for.
Seems to me like a clear violation of the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also would be a violation of Article I Section 10's prohibition against ex post facto law.
We are, however, dealing with a Republican Supreme Court which means, unfortunately, dishonest justices to their very core.
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors ... which Day shall be the same throughout the United States
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)The electors of President and Vice President shall be appointed, in each State, on the Tuesday next after the first Monday in November, in every fourth year succeeding every election of a President and Vice President
struggle4progress
(118,280 posts)Kaleva
(36,294 posts)And the losing parties appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
Vinca
(50,269 posts)lands there. I can't see even the most far right appointees - maybe with the exception of Thomas - trying to "help him out." Chances are they just won't hear the case.