It is my opinion that if SCOTUS had serious intentions, they would not wait this long. In the Gore/Bush situation, they issued an emergency stay almost immediately. The second date 1-16-98 is very telling...four days before the inauguration. I do not believe SCOTUS will do anything. I’ve watched the court for years...fascinating. They don’t like to get involved in elections first of all which is why everyone was surprised in 2000. I just don’t see it happening. I have no crystal ball, but I would be very surprised...Now I thought in December it was a possibility, but we saw how that was handled.
It is my opinion that if SCOTUS had serious intentions, they would not wait this long.
***You didn’t even read the post to you, let alone the other thread. You haven’t been keeping up with the reading. There was an article about how Berg would have standing against Obama once a quantifiable damage has been done and that means he’s pres-elect. Also, the 20th amendment, which you so proudly love to overlook as a troll.
In the Gore/Bush situation, they issued an emergency stay almost immediately.
***That’s because there was fraud in the vote counting. This case alleges fraud in the eligibility. The 20th amendment states, “if the PE fails to qualify”, so it wouldn’t even come into effect until there is a PE. My expectation is that you’ll just breeze right over this argument and say something like you already said, “my opinion is...” What a bunch of hogwash.
The second date 1-16-98 is very telling...four days before the inauguration.
***The second date is not very telling. See how arguments from silence work?
I do not believe SCOTUS will do anything. I’ve watched the court for years...fascinating.
***Many of us might share your belief, but your activity in trying to discourage and dismay those who are in the fight makes you a despicable troll. This is a constitutionalist website discussing a constitutional issue and the first sentence of JimRob’s statement to everyone is about defending the constitution. I don’t see you doing that. I see you being a simple troll.
They don’t like to get involved in elections first of all which is why everyone was surprised in 2000.
***They have a job to do.
I just don’t see it happening.
***So what? That does not explain your actions as a troll. You do not know what will happen, just like you didn’t foresee them getting involved in 2000. What you’re engaged in is an extended fallacy of arguing from silence. Knock it off, troll.
I have no crystal ball,
***Then STFU
but I would be very surprised...
***Just like you were in 2000, so STFU until then. Your activity is beyond someone who “would be surprised”, it is the activity of a provocateur.
Now I thought in December it was a possibility, but we saw how that was handled.
***Once again you have failed to read the 20th amendment, proving you are a troll.