[RideForever]

The judge acted correctly. A court can only determine whether an election was UNLAWFUL for failing to follow the state's election laws. It cannot prescribe a remedy due to the 'plenary powers' state legislatures have with respect to election laws.

Rights without remedies aren't really rights.

The remedy is for the electorate to elect moral representatives in their state and national elections that can follow the US Constitution. Thus the two bodies elected directly by We the People is the source of the remedy. Not the courts. Not the Governors or President.

[JohnnyP]

She facilitated the crime of election fraud. She has multiple law degrees from prestigious universities. She knew what she was doing.

[Dr. Franklin]

The remedy is for the electorate to elect moral representatives in their state and national elections that can follow the US Constitution. Thus the two bodies elected directly by We the People is the source of the remedy. Not the courts. Not the Governors or President.

Your argument goes around in a logical circle like a dog chasing its tail. If the executive branch does not run legal elections, and the courts refuse to require that the elections are run legally, then the people cannot elect their representatives. What results is a sham and a fraud. Without the ability to redress of grievances from the executive branch or meaningful remedies from the courts, what is left to restore a republic?