[hoosiermama]

I see it differently. The cases that have thus far came before the SCOTUS in conference have to do with putting the responsibility for vetting the candidates in the lap of the individual SoS of each state. IMO this is unreasonable as each Sos would have to verify each candidate for each office. The task would be next to impossible.

OTOH if the burden is put upon the candidate/party to prove their eligibility, than the Berg/Keyes cases seem to have more merit.

I'm sure the SCOTUS is weighing who is responsible for vetting in the future as much as whether BO is guilty of fraud now.

[Star Traveler]

You said — “I see it differently. The cases that have thus far came before the SCOTUS in conference have to do with putting the responsibility for vetting the candidates in the lap of the individual SoS of each state. IMO this is unreasonable as each Sos would have to verify each candidate for each office. The task would be next to impossible.

OTOH if the burden is put upon the candidate/party to prove their eligibility, than the Berg/Keyes cases seem to have more merit.”

—

If the Supreme Court is gong to respect “states rights” and their right to control their own electors to the Electoral College — then the Supreme Court should decided to *stay out of the states business* of running their elections.

It’s a states rights issue and the states have to determine (each one for themselves) how they are going to vet candidates and how they are going to send the electors’ votes to the Electoral College...

In this sense and if the Supreme Court was to be *conservative* then the Supreme Court should have *nothing to do* with this issue (pertaining to the state’s Secretary of State and how they vet candidates).

[lilylangtree]

Then from SCOTUS’ viewpoint, the logical source to vet each presidential candidate would be the Federal Elections Commission, right? What would be the pros & cons of having FEC do the vetting of candidates?