Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Edge-]

What are you going to do if they fabricate evidence of election fraud and make the now sycophant supreme court rule on it?

So far, there's zero evidence they'll get anywhere near the SCOTUS. Every legal challenge I've seen them throw out so far has been pretty aggressively rejected and dismissed by lower court judges so far. And almost all the lawsuits about actual ballots are about tiny handfuls (hundreds) that have no chance of changing who won the state.

[Kathranis]

What are you going to do if they fabricate evidence of election fraud and make the now sycophant supreme court rule on it?
Or worse yet, just say they have evidence but refusing to show it yet still cling onto power?

They're gonna have to do a hell of a lot better fabricating evidencd than they have been for the last five days.

[PhaelixWW]

We've discussed this before. Trump would basically tell Republican-led states to instruct faithless electors to just declare him the winner.

States with Republican legislatures include Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The electors are chosen by the party, so they're not likely to be faithless "just because".

PA, MI, and WI have democratic governors who would veto any bill attempting to pass last-minute alterations to the rules about the elector roster selection.

NC is already going Republican.

Biden would still win without AZ or GA.

So on paper, it might not matter -- if AZ finally ends and goes for Biden, that's still 270. But the point, like all the other lawsuits, is increasingly to delegitimize the lawful election and throw the country into chaos, use that chaos to get to the Supreme Court, and find a way to hand Trump a victory 6 to 3.

"They can't do that."

Pompeo is already saying the quiet part out loud. They're definitely going to try.

Fair enough.

[Kaleredar]

What are you going to do if they fabricate evidence of election fraud and make the now sycophant supreme court rule on it?

Well they’ve failed spectacularly at doing that so far, and they’re really running short on time to.

Trumps campaign legal team is not being headed by lawyers (you know, people who know anything about law.) all of their challenges that could in any way, shape or form effect the election outcome have been tossed out for... you guessed it, lack of evidence.

[Edge-]

Well they’ve failed spectacularly at doing that so far, and they’re really running short on time to.

Trumps campaign legal team is not being headed by lawyers (you know, people who know anything about law.) all of their challenges that could in any way, shape or form effect the election outcome have been tossed out for... you guessed it, lack of evidence.

Also, he David Bossie has covid now so I'm sure that's not helping their efforts.

[zorkuus]

They're gonna have to do a hell of a lot better fabricating evidencd than they have been for the last five days.

Why would they need to? Assuming they have the supreme court in their pocket.

[Breccia]

If they're postmarked before election day, they should be counted.

I think even Pennsylvanai's laws say "arrive by Friday". Don't quote me on that.

If any of those 1,000 or so votes was cast legally but delayed till illegal, that's on the USPS. DeJoy should be fired.

[Adam Jensen]

Maybe my fear is unwarranted but I feel like I'm watching the rise of American fascism in real time.

[Edge-]

Why would they need to? Assuming they have the supreme court in their pocket.

Because they can't really go directly.

These are state-level battles, so they can't go directly to the SCOTUS as there are courts that already exist for this type of legal challenge. SCOTUS doesn't have "original jurisdiction".

They'd have to go through lower federal courts and the appeals process for those, working their way up, and thus far there doesn't seem to be any chance of that.

Or through state Supreme Courts and take the case after it's gone through that appeals process.

Right now their only chance is looking like "original jurisdiction", which there's no legal backing for.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe my fear is unwarranted but I feel like I'm watching the rise of American fascism in real time.

That's been the last four years, we're seeing the first buds of that fruit starting now.

[zorkuus]

Because they can't really go directly.

These are state-level battles, so they can't go directly to the SCOTUS as there are courts that already exist for this type of legal challenge. SCOTUS doesn't have "original jurisdiction".

They'd have to go through lower federal courts and the appeals process for those, working their way up, and thus far there doesn't seem to be any chance of that.

Or through state Supreme Courts and take the case after it's gone through that appeals process.

Right now their only chance is looking like "original jurisdiction", which there's no legal backing for.

- - - Updated - - -



That's been the last four years, we're seeing the first buds of that fruit starting now.

When people set up authoritarian regimes they don't exactly do it by playing by the book.

[Edge-]

When people set up authoritarian regimes they don't exactly do it by playing by the book.

No, but even with the packed court there are enough Justices that care about the appearance of legitimacy that they would be unlikely to take up the case.

[Breccia]

Maybe my fear is unwarranted but I feel like I'm watching the rise of American fascism in real time.

Oh, you are.

You're not worried about the rise of American fascism. You're worried they'll win.

[Kathranis]

Why would they need to? Assuming they have the supreme court in their pocket.

Why should the SCOTUS risk so much to keep Trump in office for four more years? They have lifetime appointments.

And if we're going for fascist dictatorship, why would they back someone as incompetent as Trump?


I get the concern and the rhetoric is certainly worrying but I don't see this bozo pulling off a coup.

[Antiganon]

I know no way in which the state government, GOP-sympathetic or not, can compel the democrat electoral college voters assigned by the democrats to vote for Trump.

They send a different slate if electors entirely. The state legislature has supreme authority to determine how electors are chosen, if they they choose whimsy rather than elections, they technically have the legal right to do so.

[Breccia]

And if we're going for fascist dictatorship, why would they back someone as incompetent as Trump?

Timing. This is what they have and this is their last shot.

[Forogil]

The whole reason why the press held off so long on projecting the winner in Pennsylvania is because even though Biden was making up ground, they wanted to be sure in their call before they made it precisely because of Trump and his cult screeching "FRAUD!" and running around like their hair was on fire.

True which also means that as soon as some called it others could follow more safely, and additionally it was not only about being sure - but also about being seen as trustworthy. Calling as soon as it was clear that Biden would win PA would have meant calling it for Biden when Trump was still in the lead...

- - - Updated - - -

They send a different slate if electors entirely. The state legislature has supreme authority to determine how electors are chosen, if they they choose whimsy rather than elections, they technically have the legal right to do so.

No, they cannot do that at this point in time.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/le...ride-electors/

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1...rc=twsrc%5Etfw

Reporter: "Senator, have you congratulated Vice President Biden yet?"

Sen. Ron Johnson: "No."

Reporter: "Why not?"

Johnson: "Nothing to congratulate him about."

Video in the link, but Ron Jonson needs to be careful with his language. If he keeps this up he'll have corporations bidding on his body to get access to the salt mines within.

[ati87]

So far, there's zero evidence they'll get anywhere near the SCOTUS. Every legal challenge I've seen them throw out so far has been pretty aggressively rejected and dismissed by lower court judges so far. And almost all the lawsuits about actual ballots are about tiny handfuls (hundreds) that have no chance of changing who won the state.

The idea is to through enough mud and to see what sticks. If for some reason you can invalidate enough votes you can maybe draw that to invalidatie more votes to the point you can undo some part of the election, maybe give the win to Trump.

Frankly it's hard to imagine any judge going down this route though. Unlike in 2000 when it was just about the recounts you are now trying force a judge to be part of that election in a direct way, not something you want to be part of really if your a judge.

Second problem with this route is if Trump is serious in his goals and achieves it at this point you kind of destroyed any legitimacy of the election
and the presidency. Hence why no judge would want to be part of this (going back to number 1)

[beanman12345]

Why should the SCOTUS risk so much to keep Trump in office for four more years? They have lifetime appointments.

And if we're going for fascist dictatorship, why would they back someone as incompetent as Trump?


I get the concern and the rhetoric is certainly worrying but I don't see this bozo pulling off a coup.

Another thing to keep in mind. look how much power these SCOTUS have. if they make trump dictator, that power diminsishes greatly if not forever gone. If he's dictator the constitution would be meaningless and therefore they're lifetime cushy powerful jobs are at risk. it's not gonna happen. Congress is different cause any election they might lose. SCOTUS are on the gravy train for life.

- - - Updated - - -

Timing. This is what they have and this is their last shot.

Timing? a few months ago they had the PERFECT opportunity to rule the president is above the law. It's not gonna happen.

[Kaleredar]

They send a different slate if electors entirely. The state legislature has supreme authority to determine how electors are chosen, if they they choose whimsy rather than elections, they technically have the legal right to do so.

I believe they’d have to change the law to do so, no? And has been noted, the democrat governor of many of the states in question could simply veto such a change.