[Sense]

“if you prove something after the electoral college votes... then it’s too late because the electoral college has already voted”

That’s patently wrong... simply incorrect.

Include in that... that the law always assumes correctness in result... unless there’s a reason to find that what was assumed to be correct... was instead wrongly assumed ? That might often happen on appeal, with either findings or error in fact or in law... or simply as a result of additional information emerging, that had been wrongly withheld ?

Didn’t something like that happen to Gen. Flynn ?

An illegally won result, like any other fraud... isn’t made somehow sacrosanct only because a fraud being practiced succeeded... for a time. Generally, in those instances, what you find is that the error in assumption of correctness could not occur... without some misrepresentation.

Judges tend to be unforgiving of frauds on the court.

Didn’t Alito already mention, to PA, that it the plain text of the Constitution requires it is legislatures and not state elections officials that define the “manner” of holding elections ? And, you think he’s simply ignoring it and ruling against Trump when they poke him in the eye ?

I also disagree with you re Powell’s efficacy... but might be seeing designs in her efforts that you are not seeing ?

[Boise3981]

That’s patently wrong... simply incorrect.

It's not.

In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton argues that the electoral college can act as a safeguard against a manifestly unqualified candidate. In addition Washington wasn't elected via a popular election either time. That. plus the plain text of the constitution, tells us that the votes of the people on 11/3 and the votes of the electoral college on 11/14 are only as related as the state legislature wants them to be.

That means that once the electoral college has voted, it doesn't matter what happens with the 11/3 election, because it's been superseded by the 11/14 election (which is the one that really counts).

All those people saying "Biden isn't president-elect until the electoral college votes" are telling you the same thing. 11/14 is the vote that counts. Once they've voted, it's done.

Didn’t Alito already mention, to PA, that it the plain text of the Constitution requires it is legislatures and not state elections officials that define the “manner” of holding elections ? And, you think he’s simply ignoring it and ruling against Trump when they poke him in the eye ?

You're getting your cases mixed up.

There are 2 PA cases. In one the SCOPA extended the deadline for receiving mail in votes in direct contrast to the wording of Act 77. That resulted in about 10,000 votes that were received and might be counted. You're right, Alito very strongly hinted that the SCOPA couldn't overrule the will of the legislature even via the state constitution. He ordered those ballots segregated (saying they'd likely be thrown out).

The second case, the important one, involves the exact opposite logic. The PA legislature approved Act 77 which included excuse free mail in voting. It is possible that it violates the PA state constitution. But Alito indicated in the previous case that the state legislature is the ultimate authority and the SCOPA and state constitution couldn't really impede what the legislature wanted when it came to elections. By that logic, the mail in ballots will stand and Trump will lose PA.

No, I don't expect Alito to change his stance on the supremacy of the state legislature when it comes to elections. Which is why I believe the more recent Act 77 case will uphold the mail in ballots.