[ClearCase_guy]

It all boils down to the question: "Do we have to accept fraudulent elections in the US?"

If the VP declares that he has the power and if he rejects the electors, then it becomes a Constitutional issue:

Executive Branch says "He can do that"
Legislative Branch says "He can't do that"

It has to go to the Supreme Court. They cannot dodge it. They have to hear the case. They are the tie-breaker.

And the question remains: "Do we have to accept fraudulent elections in the US?" Is the Supreme Court going to shrug and say "Biggest cheater wins"?

[gundog]

They are the tie-breaker.

That characterization troubles me. The three branches are co-equal.

[dontreadthis]

” all boils down to the question: “Do we have to accept fraudulent elections in the US?”
I’d say it’s a question of constitutionality. Much of the fraud is a byproduct

[Reverend Wright]

“Do we have to accept fraudulent elections in the US?” Is the Supreme Court going to shrug and say “Biggest cheater wins”?

Too late. they already have.

[magna carta]

in my mind THEY will have to take it to SCOTUS

[pacificus]

Supreme court in NOT in the Constitution...was created afterwards...

They are not the final say on this Congressional matter.

Elections are different, there are laws governing state and federal elections, but again those are for the states to follow...

Supreme court has no standing within the congress!!!

We’ll know soon enough where this country is headed.

The only way Dems lose is if Trump wins.

Dems win all other scenarios...they know it and so do the squishy rinos!!!