“Give it a rest non-sequitur - Biden was Obama’s choice and if found to be a fraud, then his choice was fraudulent - The vote was for Obama and not Biden.
Yeah, I’ll give it up. Just as soon as you point to whatever law or what article of the Constitution you used to arrive at your conclusion. Please point it out to me because I sure as hell can’t find it.”
Non-Sequitar:
SCOTUS HAS TAKEN LIBERTIES BEFORE ...
The following cases HAD NO LAW, NOR DID THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDE FOR:
Gideon v. Wainwright (right to court-apponted counsel)
Miranda v. Arizona (right to have rights read to suspects)
In THESE cases, SCOTUS asserted “original intent”, “originalism”, call it what you want, but they INTERPRETED the Constitution.
The laws came AFTER the SCOTUS decisions ...
See the 6th Amendment.
Miranda v. Arizona (right to have rights read to suspects)
Actually Miranda v. Arizona established the right to consult with counsel prior to questioning. Prisoners had to be informed of these rights prior to quesitoning. Again, see the 6th Amendment.
In THESE cases, SCOTUS asserted “original intent”, “originalism”, call it what you want, but they INTERPRETED the Constitution.
The Supreme Court interprets the Constitution all the time. That's their job. But they interpret it based on the Constitution itself, they don't make stuff up out of thin air (though some believe they do). They need something to go on, and I can't find anywhere in the Constitution where it deals with invalidating electoral votes, or even implies it. Can you point that part out to me?