So calling people dense isn’t name calling. Right. Tattle to the moderators if you want. I really don’t care.
It is still idiotic of you to assert that anyone could be successful in a lawsuit by claiming that they had not voted for electors when the ballot had clearly stated that they were voting for those electors. Idiotic, as in put forth by an idiot. Now run crying to the moderators, because I was mean to poor little you. Talk about an indicator that you’ve lost an argument.
Glad you calmed your tone. So back to the point: how did the lawsuits regarding the very clearly written Palm Beach ballots go?
It won. It sent all the way to the USSC, meaning, for the fourth time, just like disclaimers-—CLEARLY WRITTEN DISCLAIMERS-—do not protect you from judgments, neither do clearly written statements about voting for electors rather than people mean anything. It is a court that decides and in America anyone can find courts to rule for them.
It then ends up in the USSC which, unless you can find another justice between now and December, would be 4-4 and case remanded to lower court-—which would be the same court that allowed the person to get to the USSC in the first p,ace (I.e., the one that said that langauge doesn’t matter).
Or, for some reason the USSC could cite Bush v. Gore and say you cannot have multiple elections/vote counts-—regardless of the language on the ballot.
There is no scenario in which a court would just allow electors to be “assigned” because a party ways it so OR because “that’s what the language say”. In our legal world, the specific language of documents means nothing (remember Roberts’ Obamacare decision?)