Bush v. Gore is not a perfect parallel.
Trump is an incumbent already entrenched in power. Trump has taken great pains to surround himself with loyalists. Trump is already laying the groundwork for contested results by preemptively claiming voter fraud. Trump also has state level politicians like DeSantis whose political futures hinge upon Trump's electoral success.
Most importantly, Gore was challenging the certified result and lost. In most doomsday scenarios, the GOP just says **** you and certifies the result they want. Again the legal challenge would be by the Dems, not Trump.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smudger2408
Just in, the Supreme Court on a 9-0 decision said electorates are bound by the states popular vote and states can punish those that go rogue.
Setting the tone that the Supreme Court will probably rule in favor of the counted votes in court cases.
Keyword here is states. All they are really doing is putting the decision in the hands of the states. A state
may punish a faithless elector, not a state
must punish a faithless elector. A key distinction.
So again, if FL says we only removed the mail-in ballots, which were tainted with fraudulent ballots, who is going to say otherwise? Certainly not the federal government, and most likely neither will SCOTUS. There is no way SCOTUS is going to say 'no FL, you're lying.' The most they can determine is whether or not FL has a legal right to throw out all the mail-in ballots.
Alito/Thomas/Kavanaugh/Gorsuch will for sure point out that the Constitution gives the right to running elections to the states. I am not so sure about Roberts. Judging from the gerrymandering decision, it is entirely possible he bitches out and goes 'ensuring the integrity and overseeing elections is beyond the purview of this court blah blah blah.'
Last edited by EADGBE; 07-06-2020 at 11:50 AM.
Reason: grammar