Quote:
Originally Posted by wodahs
Is that wrong?
Can you impart on us your vast experience and Factual knowledge of American electoral litigation law to show otherwise
Thankyou
|
Well i wasn't the one claiming a few more wins and this is over.
But since you asked for my opinion and I stress this is just my opinion, the Trump team strategy isn't to win in lower State courts but to outline an argument that can be taken to the Federal jurisdiction and ultimately be decided in the Supreme Court.
As I understand (could be wrong) it the crux of the Trump team argument where they lost in Michigan case is: In every instance where poll-watchers were not allowed to observe the process, those votes must be recounted. They must be recounted with poll-watchers from both sides present. If there are votes that cannot be recounted because the envelops were discarded, those votes must be discarded.
Solid argument imo. Losing in MI doesn't preclude the argument going forward in higher courts. The trump team will assess the result and move forward with the argument or decide if there is no chance of winning.
The second issue where I believe where the Trump legal team may and even more likely to succeed and have a victory in the SC is to do with rules imposed during the election that were not expressly made by a State legislature.
Here we can look at PA where we find The Supreme Court ruled, sort of, in this case already. They said, with 4 Justices led by Justice Alito that ONLY the Pennsylvania legislature can make or modify voting rules.
Why is this important?
The Pennsylvania legislature did not allow such voting changes, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court did. The U.S. Supreme Court could very easily rule that was judicial overreach.
This week, Justice Alito again said all votes coming in after 8:00 PM on election night need to be segregated. That is what is called a Federal Court Order. It is significant in that it indicates that the issue likely will be decided in the SC.