The process was followed. At some point we do have to accept what the process has concluded, and I recognize that is why we have the de facto officer doctrine, etc.
But in this particular case, the courts are wrongly denying standing, and SCOTUS - by its own admission - is “evading the issue”, which may be OK for issues that don’t have national security implications but which is treason on the part of the court when it results in the US having no Commander-in-Chief, which is the situation we have right now.
The problem we have right now is with SCOTUS, pure and simple. There are several reasons they could be refusing to resolve this issue.
Could be it’s on the back burner until the republicans take the Congress so that the people who perpetrated the fraud (the dems) won’t be rewarded by being allowed to decide how an interim President is to be chosen, as prescribed by the 20th Amendment since the winner of the electoral vote has not even to this day been lawfully certified.
Could be because the justices were threatened somehow.
I don’t know what is the case, but I know that as we stand right now, we have someone who was inaugurated without ever being lawfully certified as the electoral winner. That is a coup. And SCOTUS needs to get its rear in gear and deal with it.
Could it be that the USSC is correct?