I think people are missing the threat. The Trump campaign doesn't need to prove anything to a court

[Recursion]

All the Trump campaign needs to do is give the Michigan and Pennsylvania legislatures the political cover to simply appoint Republican electors. That's the audience in these proceedings: 80 Republican legislators in Michigan and 253 Republican legislators in Pennsylvania.

[BlueMTexpat]

1. Sorry, but NO

legislature has the power to do that.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/legislatures-override-electors/

...
As Americans exhaustively discuss (and often lament) in every presidential election year, the United States does not choose its chief executive based on whichever candidate receives the largest number of votes in a national election, but via an electoral college system under which each of the individual states holds a separate election to select a slate of electors who cast their votes for president.

This unique approach means that sometimes — as happened in 2000 and again in 2016 — the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide does not ultimately win the overall election. When that phenomenon occurs (and sometimes even when it doesn’t), partisans of the losing candidate start ruminating about ways to “game” the electoral college system to install their preferred choice in the White House regardless.

One example of this trend’s playing out in 2020, when U.S. President Donald Trump apparently lost both the popular and the electoral vote, yet he, and many of his supporters, claimed victory nonetheless and asserted claims (without credible evidence) that substantial election fraud had taken place. Some voices proclaimed that states in which Republicans controlled the state legislature should choose electors favoring Trump, no matter how the residents of those states may have voted:
...
The U.S. Constitution does not specify procedures for the nomination of candidates for presidential elector. The two most common methods the states have adopted are nomination by state party convention and by state party committee. Generally, the parties select members known for their loyalty and service to the party, such as party leaders, state and local elected officials and party activists. In some states, the electors’ names appear on the ballot along with the names of the candidates for president and vice president. However, in most states, electors’ names are not printed on the ballot. When a voter casts a vote for a candidate for President of the United States, s/he is in actuality casting a vote for the presidential electors who were selected by that candidate’s party.

[W]hen a candidate for president wins a state’s popular vote, that party’s slate of electors will be the ones to cast the vote for president of the United States in December. For example, Florida has 29 electoral votes. If President Donald Trump wins the state’s popular vote on Nov. 3, the 29 electors nominated by the Republican Party in Florida will be selected. These 29 people will gather on Dec. 14 to cast their votes for president of the United States.
...

Much more at the link.

[Recursion]

4. The Constitution is really clear, and SCOTUS would have the final say

Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas have all indicated in recent dissents they would use Bush v. Gore (where SCOTUS said the FL legislature can simply appoint whoever it wants) as precedent.

[BlueMTexpat]

8. Sorry, but NO.

Read this one all the way through.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/state-legislatures-cant-ignore-popular-vote-appointing-electors

Despite what was said in Bush v. Gore.

[Recursion]

10. It's not me you need to convince of that, it's 5 Justices of the Supreme Court (nt)

[BlueMTexpat]

12. I don't think

that you read through the link. Not ALL of the Justices are insane.

Here are the last two paras:

...
Applied in a principled way, Chiafalo changes the scope of any legislative superpower. Maybe in the context of the precise question raised in Bush v. Gore, there remains a presumption in favor of legislative text over judicial constructions of that text. But Chiafalo must mean that state legislatures cannot now act against the vote of the people any more than presidential electors can.

Thankfully, it appears very unlikely that any legislature will accept Mark Levin’s challenge, and select a slate contrary to the votes of its people. But if any legislature were to take up the call, the Supreme Court would be asked to review that unprecedented act. Its ruling should be clear that this move is illegal. Prominent originalist scholars have noted how far Chiafalo strayed from the framing design. It would be extraordinary now if, in the name of originalism, the justices would sanction an even greater perversion of the original design. The greatest charge against originalism is partisan selectivity. We do not believe that selectivity is inherent to originalism. But few would agree if, after ignoring the Framers in Chiafalo, the Supreme Court invoked the Framers now to defeat a candidate who has won an absolute majority of the public’s vote. Whatever else that result would say, it would certainly not communicate that “[w]e the people rule.”

[Recursion]

13. No, but 5 of them are

You're acting like we still have norms. We don't.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Sigh.

[Recursion]

18. OK, which 5 justices do you see voting against a legislature-selected slate in PA? (nt)

[honest.abe]

47. Our 3 plus Roberts so that's 4.

The you just need one more... I think Kavanaugh despite his outrageous statement. I doubt he would sink low enough to just hand a state to Trump that he clearly lost. Also Gorsuch is a strong possibility to vote with us.

The SCOTUS is not going to hand the election to Trump.

[Recursion]

30. More to the point, all they really have to do is refuse to certify

If AZ, PA, MI, and GA simply don't certify votes, or certify multiple slates in combination with the governor, the House and Senate have to agree about what to do. If they can't, the votes are counted from the other 46 states and DC. Which leaves us with Trump getting the majority of cast ballots.

[BlueMTexpat]

50. Before your speculations

get completely out of hand, I suggest that you read through the following links carefully.

Legal Provisions Relevant to the Electoral College Process https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/provisions

SUMMARY: STATE LAWS REGARDING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS https://www.nass.org/sites/default/files/surveys/2017-08/research-state-laws-pres-electors-nov16.pdf

Should any state legislature attempt to certify electors in a way NOT in accordance with its own state laws, then ANY US citizen of legal voting age who is a resident in that state would have legal standing to challenge that decision. Do you REALLY believe that legislators - even GOP legislators - would allow themselves to be open to such a challenge?

As for the US Supreme Court even getting involved, please remember that the US Supreme Court is NOT a court of first-instance except in VERY special cases. Selecting Presidential electors has never been one of them. In Bush v. Gore, the holding was about the counting of votes.

Supreme Court Procedures https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1

From the link:

...
The Constitution states that the Supreme Court has both original and appellate jurisdiction. Original jurisdiction means that the Supreme Court is the first, and only, Court to hear a case. The Constitution limits original jurisdiction cases to those involving disputes between the states or disputes arising among ambassadors and other high-ranking ministers. Appellate jurisdiction means that the Court has the authority to review the decisions of lower courts. Most of the cases the Supreme Court hears are appeals from lower courts.
...

Please remember that there is NO state where Biden has won in 2020 that has a margin of victory anything like the extremely close margin in FL in 2000 in Bush v. Gore. Please also remember that the GOP has already sent challenges to the US Supreme Court wrt this election and, except for the deadlocked decision on PA absentee ballots which left the state decision in place and its follow-up which compromised by separating some absentee ballots, the Court has sent everything back forthwith.

Here's a recent NPR article that lays many things out. https://www.npr.org/2020/11/07/932214005/will-this-election-be-a-replay-of-bush-v-gore-at-the-supreme-court-not-likely

********
Like you, I believe that GOPers will try every dirty trick in the book. But those dirty tricks are just that. They are not legal arguments. So please just stay the course.

FWIW: this is my last response to you in this OP. Google is your friend. And yes, I am an attorney, although now I am retired.

[Recursion]

51. I love how you think "it's illegal" means "Republicans won't do it"

That's quaint.

[Takket]

15. Bush v Gore said no such thing.

[Recursion]

17. Rheinquist based it on the plenary power of state legislatures over the elector selection process

He tried to say over and over again "you can't use this as a precedent for any other decision", but nothing will actually stop the current court from doing so.

[AkFemDem]

2. You have to wonder if party leadership

In those states but also on a national level would actually allow that though because the consequences would be grim and they know it. We just watched a summer and fall of protests and they’re not stupid- they understand that what we saw was just child’s play compared to the reaction on the streets if a legitimate election is stolen.

[Recursion]

6. They survived the reaction in the street in 2000 (nt)

[AkFemDem]

7. I'm not talking about party survival

I’m talking about towns and cities burning down. Think Portland on a national level. It’s a keg of dynamite and they understand that.

[SomedayKindaLove]

3. I believe PA leg has indicated several times that they will not be doing this

[Recursion]

5. They're being less insistent about that today (nt)

[dixiechiken1]

42. You are correct, Someday...

On Friday, State Senate majority leader Jake Corman said Republicans will honor the wishes of the voters.



https://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2020/11/09/pa-electoral-college-popular-vote/

[N_E_1 for Tennis]

9. Michigan law prohibits "faithless electors"...

Plus most chosen are party loyalists.

Here’s a link to the list of Michigan’s electors.

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2020/11/08/michigan-has-16-electoral-college-votes-cast-dec-14/6191614002/

[Recursion]

11. This has nothing to do with faithless electors

Faithless electors would be an elector being appointed with a mandate to vote for Biden but changing his mind and voting for Trump.

This would be the Michigan legislature appointing an elector who is legally bound to vote for Trump.

[Willto]

16. Stop, Just stop

with threads like this. There must have been 20 in the last 3 days. No court is going to throw out this election. The state legislatures are not going to throw out the actual election results and send different electors to vote for Trump. If the courts and legislatures were that blatantly crooked they would have just called off the election and appointed Trump king for life.

This whole stalling tactic with the lawsuits and the bogus election fraud claims are basically just a front to raise more money from Trumps koolaide drinkers. As everything is with Trump it's a fracking scam. Another bottle of snake oil his minions will gladly buy from him.

Oh and before you get a case of the squirts worrying about a recount somewhere let me head you off on that front too. Even in Georgia Biden's lead has now passed 14000. Recounts never move the dial in any direction more than a couple of hundred votes. And it's rare they move the dial even that much.

IT'S OVER! We got this.

[UCmeNdc]

20. But there is a chance that the Trump Kool aid takers will act .......

They hang on every word of Trump's as truth.

Trump is a con man looking for an "angle". A way in. A way in which to get what Donald Trump wants. Do you think US laws really matter to Donald Trump and William Barr? That is what you have to be aware of. Just how far will Donald Corruption Trump go to remain in power?

Laws mean nothing to this GOP crowd.

[Willto]

22. I don't care if US laws matter to Trump

On Jan 20th he will either leave the White House or be dragged out of it by the scruff of his orange comb over hair and kicked in the ass going out the gate. His choice but I think it will be a bad look for him.

[ck4829]

19. How would this work when Congress certifies the elections in December?

Joe Biden: Democratic Party 50.6% 2,790,648

Donald Trump: Republican Party 47.9% 2,644,525

We're declaring Trump the winner though

Sincerely, the Michigan legislature

I can just see everyone from Pelosi and Schiff to AOC and Tlaib reading that and going "Hahaha. No."

[Recursion]

23. At which point the contested states do not count towards the total

Take away the contested states with Republican legislatures, GA, PA, MI, and AZ, and suddenly Trump has the majority of the accepted electoral votes.

[ck4829]

25. This almost happened in 1960, Hawaii originally certified Nixon as the winner but Kennedy won

Then Rep. Daniel Inouye was prepared to call for an audit if Nixon's state certification was accepted.

I can’t picture Rep. Rashida Tlaib saying “just throw it out”, especially after they voted him out.

[Recursion]

28. I think honestly this is the more likely course; a state self-nullification

If the MI legislature and governor certify different sets of electors, and the House and Senate can't agree on which to accept, it's as if MI didn't exist for the purpose of 2020.

[brooklynite]

21. They're not going to...

Next conspiracy theory?

[Recursion]

24. The Republican party suddenly found a sense of shame or respect for norms? (nt)

[Willto]

27. Well what about the Martians?

What if Martians land; jump out of their ships; hold their butt cheeks apart; and fart a gas that selectively erases democratic votes off all the ballots in Pennsylvania.

OH MY GOD! WHAT IF THAT HAPPENS? WHERE"S MY PEPTO BISMOL?

[Recursion]

32. You were around for the past 4 years, right? (nt)

[gab13by13]

29. Exactly, a cornered rat is going to lash out,

Saying that the reason that Pa. Republicans won't appoint a separate set of electors is having faith that Republicans will do the right thing. Once a state selects 2 sets of electors it will be up to the Supreme Court to decide which set of electors is valid.

I think we make a mistake thinking that all of this ratfuckery is being done just to sow the seeds of the legitimacy of the election and not consider that it is being done to overturn a legitimate election. Just my humble opinion, now bash me for being concerned.

[beachbumbob]

26. some GOP'ers do have some honor, to defy the will of the people is an act of war

[jimlup]

31. Add Wisconsin and Arizona to that list...

All have Republican controlled legislatures.

[Recursion]

33. And Georgia (nt)

[In It to Win It]

34. In order for that to happen, state legislatures would have to change their own election laws

I don’t put it past them because anything can happen... but Republicans would have to get enough support in each of these states in their own caucus to change their state’s election law.

State legislatures make their own rules for how to appoint electors. State legislatures have passed that responsibility to voters via legislation. They would have to take that power back legislatively.

The Supreme Court won’t overrule the state’s own election law.

[Recursion]

36. Or, simply ignore their own election laws

That's more likely, IMO. The problem is there's no real way to stop them from doing that.

[In It to Win It]

38. If they ignore their own election law, that's where I think the Supreme Court would actually rule

against them.

[Recursion]

40. Which 5 justices do you think would rule against them? (nt)

[marie999]

43. All 9 would.

[In It to Win It]

45. I'm basing my argument on the conservative justices own opinion

that the state legislature (and only the state legislature) makes the rules.

My point that I’m trying to make is that if they really wanted to, they won’t ignore their rules but rather they would just change them.

If they ignored their own rules I think the Supreme Court would limit them to their own rules, but in the absolute worst case scenario, leave the door open for them to change it... and then they actually change them, effectively, having the same result as if they ignored the rules in the first place.

[Kaleva]

35. There's no evidence that suggests Repub legislators in MI will go along with that.

[Recursion]

37. Let's see what 3 weeks of full-bore Fox News pressure does to them (nt)

[Kaleva]

52. Fox News is even saying there isn't evidence.

And there's the fact Fox News has declared Biden the winner.

[gab13by13]

39. This article was written by David Mikkelson of Snopes,

Forgive me if I don't know how to link it properly.

The legal theory that would allow state legislatures to go rogue and appoint electors without regard for the popular vote rests on an argument made by Chief Justice William Rehnquist in Bush v. Gore, for himself and two other justices. On this view, a legislature is unconstrained in its power to set the manner by which electors are selected — meaning that even after an election, the legislature could ignore the results and select a different slate altogether. A recent opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggests that Rehnquist’s argument may be again on the rise.

But advocates for this view need to recognize that between Bush v. Gore and today, the Supreme Court has unanimously decided that presidential electors are not actually “electors” but are instead bound to the people’s vote. That principle that cabins elector discretion must also constrain legislatures — at least if the country is to avoid an abomination that the Framers expressly rejected.

That said, the law is only relevant to the extent that is it enforceable. If Republican-dominated legislatures were determined to flout their state laws regarding the designation of electors, and a Republican-controlled Senate were willing to facilitate the scheme, and a conservative judiciary were compliant in upholding the results, then such a plot might indeed succeed.

[Recursion]

41. Exactly. People are saying "but that would be illegal!" as if the past 4 years didn't happen (nt)

[marie999]

44. I don't care that 5 members of the Supreme Court would like to do it.

They won't. They know what would happen to this country and they are not that stupid.

[Turin_C3PO]

46. It's not going to happen.

I’m certainly not losing sleep over it. If you wanna be worried, go ahead, but there’s more pressing matters to concentrate on, such as winning the two Georgia seats in January.

[honest.abe]

48. Exactly. In fact I think that is a big part of the strategy to decoy us from focusing on GA.

We have a chance to win those two seats if we put all our efforts there.

[SlogginThroughIt]

49. The doom fantasies are getting old.

Please stop. There is no need to do this.