How does Trump win the election?

@HoraceGreenley How does he do that?

@Lila15 Most likely by getting the US Supreme Court accept and try a lawsuit or lawsuits.

@HoraceGreenley But the Supreme Court doesn’t rule on evidence, they rule on constitutionality. He would need to appeal a lower court decision based on an adverse conclusion from undisputed evidence.

@Lila15 SCOTUS can accept cases on a few different grounds. For instance, in this election, constitutional grounds may be argued in two ways:

1. Some votes were cast unconstitutionally because the voting procedures were changed by either a lower court, attorney general or election official. Article One of the constitution states that only a state's legislature may determine how the election is conducted. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that absentee ballots that were received after election day could be counted. It's a clear argument to make that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overstepped it's authority by allowing these ballots to be counted, when only the state legislature may make that determination.

2. The Equal Protection Clause of the constitution requires equal treatment for all citizens. Evidence of fraud, such has having more votes cast than the number of registered voters in a county, demonstrates that citizens were not treated equally by the introduction of ballots that are fraudulent.

Those are two simple examples, but there are many others. But the bottom line is that in all the states, Article One and the Equal Protection Clause are the arguments that will be used.

How much you want to bet SCOTUS refuses to hear the case @HoraceGreenley

@HoraceGreenley 1. They determined that the existing law allowed for votes received within a certain time frame to be considered acceptable. They changed no laws.

2. The Equal Protection clause doesn't mean anything of the sort, nor does any such evidence exist, because no such events happened.

@HoraceGreenley He still has to present evidence, and that has to be in a lower court first. Also, how many states would that affect? He can’t say that because of a question in Pennsylvania, the entire election is invalid. He would have to litigate each questionable vote individually.

@Lila15 i was merely giving an example. There are other issues as well in other states.

@OggggO Who is "they?" Article One violations are easy to determine.

This is exactly what the 14th Amendment requires.

@OggggO

@KaraLuvz SCOTUS will absolutely hear cases related to the election.

What do you suggest for a bet?

@Lila15 Lawsuits filed in lower courts will be appealed to SCOTUS. The lawsuits will be bundled together.

Yeah but after the initial supreme court’s of the states threw out the cases I tend to believe the courts going to rule that this is the states job to handle as it is written in the constitution @HoraceGreenley

@HoraceGreenley what you forget about point 1 in your so-called argument was that the SCOTUS actually ruled that Pennsylvania could accept late arriving ballots. It also ruled that Wisconsin could not.

Remember?

@Uachtarain Actually that is not what happened. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled late ballots could be received. However that violates article one of the constitution.

@Uachtarain SCOTUS did not issue an order preventing Pennsylvania from accepting late votes. SCOTUS said:

1. Late arriving ballots must be segregated from other ballots

2. It would revisit the constitutionality of this after the election.

But Pennsylvania did not segregate the ballots.

I expect SCOTUS to accept the appeal on this matter.

@HoraceGreenley Actually, Pennsylvania did segregate the ballots and it hasn’t counted them yet.

It has also said that they number less than 5,000 - nowhere near enough for Trump to overturn the result, even if he won every single one. Try again 🙂

@HoraceGreenley "They" being the courts you accused of misconduct, as was clear from context. What's also clear is that you have no idea what you are talking about, you are simply regurgitating an argument made by someone who also has no idea what they are talking about but was very sure of themselves. Neither of your claims has merit, and in fact are so far off base they are laughable. Article One regulates the Federal Government only, while the equal protection clause states that a right for one is a right for all and can only be removed from an individual via due process, i.e. a criminal conviction, it says nothing that would apply to these alleged fraudulent ballots, if they even existed, which I would like to remind you the Trump campaign refuses to allege once actually in court and under oath.

@OggggO i would break down your explanations into shorter paragraphs. It exhausts the brainpower of the Trumpettes otherwise, and they will refuse to read it and fall back on their trusty memes @HoraceGreenley

@Uachtarain Not helpful.

@OggggO I was only going from experience. Trumpettes become enraged if they feel they have to read long paragraphs. But ok, sorry

@HoraceGreenley The Supreme Court rules on questions of law, not evidence. So both sides would have to agree that massive voter fraud took place, and only differ on the response to it.

@LeopoldBloom Actually no. While I agree that SCOTUS would not rule on evidence of fraud, there are obvious constitutional issues on which they can rule.

@HoraceGreenley ..it’s over

@SW-User Thanks for that insightful comment, Oh Great and Powerful Oz

@HoraceGreenley 🤣🤣..

Seriously though... none of the cases brought by Kraken and Kraken LLC have gone anywhere...

SCOTUS isn’t trumps get out of jail card.
William Barr...🙄..knows it was a clean election..
Chris Krebs....knew it was clean...
My state of Georgia....with red up and down in state officials...
Know it’s done...

No self respecting constitutional lawyer would touch the case..so Jared and Rudy etc are putting on a show..
While Don is hustling money for his PAC.

THAT is the reality..