Trump and his army of evil do not have to win on 11/5, they just have to make it unclear who did. The Dems (probably Harris) could get 10 million more votes and still lose if the vote certification (and so the electoral college votes) are disputed in the courts. If those disputes go to SCOTUS and they rule, 5-4, that the election must be decided by a Congress where Republicans control 27 State delegations out right, we could have an election which a President Trump lost by 10 million votes.
2 Likes
The disputes don’t immediately go to SCOTUS, those cases have to work through the courts in each disputed state first. Michigan SC is 4-3 Dem, Wisconsin SC is 4-3 Dem, PA SC is 5-2 Dem. The SC courts are not so favorable towards Dems in NC/GA/AZ
This is just another reason why the Dems path to victory should not depend on southern states like NC/GA.
2 Likes
Totally! It seems in the course of politics (of which the Supreme Court unmistakenly plays an illicit role), where there’s an evil will, there’s a way.
1 Like
Not necessarily - Bush v. Gore 2020
" On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court had ordered a statewide recount of all undervotes, over 61,000 ballots that the vote tabulation machines had missed. The Bush campaign immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay the decision and halt the recount. Justice Antonin Scalia, convinced that all the manual recounts being performed in Florida’s counties were illegitimate, urged his colleagues to grant the stay immediately."
SCOTUS just said stop and the rest is history.
3 Likes
What’s your point? My statement was “disputes don’t immediately go to SCOTUS, those cases have to work through the courts in each disputed state first.” In 2000, once the Florida SC made a ruling then SCOTUS was petitioned to get involved.
1 Like
And we will get to see if independent media outlets ranging from TYT to Medias Touch are blowing collective smoke up our butts about actually being part of a real Democracy, or, perhaps, the truth is that no such thing has existed to begin with.
2 Likes
What was your point?
Me: It is possible SCOTUS can hand the election to Trump.
You: Not immediately.
I didn’t say immediately. So what part of my post were you replying to? You appear to be a knowledgeable person, so why are you replying to a point I never made? I took your reply to be a refutation of my premise. Apparently, it wasn’t. So why are we even having this conversation?
1 Like
Bust out that popcorn. Here it goes again.
1 Like
hasnt their conduct throught coronation of kamala informative enough?
Plus I think if every election is being decided by courts, I think Democracy has already lost that debate.
3 Likes
I agree. Nowthenzen vs forwardmoving is indeed popcorn worthy.
2 Likes
Ah so here is your magical math. Not an electoral calculation but a judicial one. You will still need AZ tho it seems. By electoral math
1 Like
I’m somewhat concerned about it too, but the executive branch technically has the power to ignore the Supreme Court decision. Andrew Jackson did this in the 1800s when he proclaimed “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it”. The balance of powers system exists for a reason - so one branch of government can block the corrupt over-reaches of another branch.
This is also why it’s important that democrats and independents come out in record numbers, to deliver a landslide victory against Trump. If it was a Bush v. Gore situation (knock on wood) where the election is so close, the Supreme Court could probably get away with pulling a Bush v. Gore again. But if it isn’t that close and lower courts do not find outcome determinate fraud, the Supreme Court would have a hard time overturning a legitimate Kamala win, because their decision would be seen as illegitimate and they don’t have any power to enforce their own decisions.
4 Likes
That sounds like exactly what we do internationally. How will UN enforce their decisions?
Now, Imagine trump does that. You cant just justify something like that by saying “its okay because we did it”
2 Likes
The argument is not that only Democrats should be able to disregard a Supreme Court decision. The point is that any branch of government can resist a decision that is so illegitimate and not founded in the law that it lacks validity.
The system of checks and balances ensures that no single branch, including the Supreme Court, has absolute power. If the Supreme Court makes a decision that is widely seen as illegitimate and not based on the law, the executive branch, guided by its oath to uphold the Constitution, has the authority to not enforce that decision.
This isn’t about endorsing lawlessness or saying “it’s okay because we did it.” It’s about preventing any branch from corruptly overpowering another. For example, if the Supreme Court were to issue a ruling that blatantly violates constitutional principles, the executive branch would have the constitutional duty to challenge and not enforce such a ruling.
2 Likes
I don’t perform for spectators, so I see no need for popcorn.
Your point about the wording of your original post was fair, valid, and clear.
1 Like
LOL, I was just thinking that! 
1 Like
It’s kinda an inside joke.
1 Like
I agree and would love to see that actually put into practice.
1 Like
Well said.
1 Like
The problem is, if Dems ignore a Right Wing SCOTUS most rich people will stop giving them $$, and $$ is what most of them really want.
1 Like