Replies

It's not that simple. Trump would have to demonstrate that he has actually suffered some kind of harm -- or is facing potential harm that could not be reversed through later court action -- in order to have standing. Losing an election is not actual harm, from what I can tell.

This is why election cases that end up in the courts almost always center on ballot access by voters, due process of voters, and those sorts of things. Denying someone the right to vote involves actual -- and irreparable -- harm in our system of government. Allowing the "wrong candidate" on the ballot is rarely a matter for courts to decide. This is why the U.S. Supreme Court never took up the infamous case in New Jersey a few years ago when that fossil Frank Lautenberg was dragged out of a graveyard and put on the ballot in place of Robert Torricelli even though the deadline for finalizing the ballot under state law had passed.

"Denying someone the right to vote involves actual -- and irreparable -- harm in our system of government. Allowing the "wrong candidate" on the ballot is rarely a matter for courts to decide."

Perhaps that was true pre-Obama.

Loser in an election contest has the right to contest. If it's on account of close vote, the margin matters. If the challenge is based on fraud of qualifications, the challenge may proceed, unconditionally. Although, with the electoral college, the rules probably get a little muddy.

I recall telling you I thought any and all lower court would toss a Cruz eligibility case, so I'm puzzled why you keep telling me how difficult it is to get a decision out of the court. I mentioned the academic question of SCOTUS v. Congress, in case Congress approved an unqualified president-elect. I doubt SCOTUS would intervene, "impossible" is about it. Just as a matter of theory, SCOTUS might decide to step in (after all, IT is the entity who defines and applies justiciability for itself), assert that it can take the case. There is nothing Congress can do about it. Same goes for lower courts. If they decide to take a case, who is going to stop them?

Marbury v. Madison is another illustrative possibility. Court says it can't take the case, but in the process, it said clearly how it would decide the case, if it had jurisdiction.

There is a huge variety of possibility. The rules are sooooo flexible.