Courts can't just declare Trump the winner, since there isn't evidence of that either -> by what legal mechanism do the courts provide a remedy? What kind of judgment? What, since I don't think they can't explicitly rule that it goes to the state legislatures, do they do to send it down that road?
I think I got that answer from the litany of requests for 'declarative judgements' -> that is, Sidney's case asking (in addition to injunctions on certifications moving further) ... asking for all those declarative judgments.
That is, the court simply declares 'these elections are bullsh*t'. That doesn't say what is to be done about it, and maybe they can't un-certify -> but it seems it provides the political mechanism/cover and most importantly justified rationale backed by the court, for the state legislatures to appoint electors of their choice. That is, it's almost like the court saying 'well there's not much we can do, maybe we can restrain certifications to some extent, but at least we can declare it a fraud, and that way it doesn't look like a legal coup from the legislatures when they pick Trump electors, but instead a very legitimate course to take for a very illegitimate election.
Maybe that's obvious to everyone ... and the broad course of how we needed it to go I understood ... but the notion of 'declarative judgments' as the virtual remedy-widget if de-certifications or injunctions on certifications can't do it, was the missing piece to me. I didn't know there was such a thing.
They must have the vote totals before they were switched electronically. If they use the raw vote totals if they have them They it doesn’t need to go to the state legislature
You fail to see how the court is the check to the election process in our Constitutional Republic. You are looking for the court, a check in the process, to decide what the outcome is. The court’s role is quite clear in the Constitution. The Court can’t do anything but determine whether the election was fair and honest. If the election has been decided to be compromised or contested, then process reverts back to the legislators of the state to make a decision on who the Electors are. Or in other cases (e.g. State Senator, Representative etc.). The Courts cannot say or determine any other ruling than either the election was fair and honest or it was not. To expect the Court to decide anything else shows ignorance of the checks and balances of which was set forth by our Founding Fathers.
And for the last time, it is not for the courts to decide who the winner of an election is or is not. That responsibility is up to the constituents and lastly the legislature. You might try reading Sidney Powell’s complaint filed in Michigan.
That is, it’s almost like the court saying ‘well there’s not much we can do, maybe we can restrain certifications to some extent, but at least we can declare it a fraud, and that way it doesn’t look like a legal coup from the legislatures when they pick Trump electors, but instead a very legitimate course to take for a very illegitimate election.
To me the most likely outcome , if they feel voters were denied equal protection.
Even fits the Roberts mold of legislatures should determine.....
We shall see what new convoluted logic he comes up with and what the democrats
SC justices invent also..
This one really puts them all on the line with their most sacred duty, that is to protect the right to have fair and free determinations of the representatives of all the people.
Not just the Dems desires.