[ought-six]

“SCOTUS doesnt have to “negate or reverse” the election because the results are illegitimate and unconstitutional. All they have to do is affirm that.”

Technically true. But by affirming that the election was illegitimate and unconstitutional SCOTUS is for all practical purposes negating the election. Then the Dems can pull an Andy Jackson and declare “SCOTUS has ruled; now let us see them enforce it!” It would go back to the states, and then we are on a sprint toward civil war. THAT is why I can’t see SCOTUS affirming it. Now, I think SCOTUS SHOULD affirm it, but I don’t see it doing so.

[cgbg]

then we are on a sprint toward civil war.

This is kinda like Dred Scott--the sprint will continue either way...

[ifinnegan]

“Then the Dems can pull an Andy Jackson and declare “SCOTUS has ruled; now let us see them enforce it!””

What would the Dems do or not do in this scenario?

[joegoeny]

“SCOTUS doesnt have to “negate or reverse” the election because the results are illegitimate and unconstitutional. All they have to do is affirm that.”

Technically true. But by affirming that the election was illegitimate and unconstitutional SCOTUS is for all practical purposes negating the election. Then the Dems can pull an Andy Jackson and declare “SCOTUS has ruled; now let us see them enforce it!” It would go back to the states, and then we are on a sprint toward civil war. THAT is why I can’t see SCOTUS affirming it. Now, I think SCOTUS SHOULD affirm it, but I don’t see it doing so.
____________________________________________________________
SCOTUS doesn’t have to enforce it. President Trump will enforce it.