[Jim Noble]

The loser in an election has an absolute right to sue on eligibility grounds

Probably untrue, because a loser, by definition, would not have a majority of electoral votes cast, and therefore would not be elected even if the "winner" were disqualified.

What is SUPPOSED to happen under those circumstances (which the Founders devoted quite a bit of time to) is that the House of Representatives, voting by states, is supposed to elect the President.

That is what should have happened in 2000, the country would have been much better for it, rather than the USSC's rash and unwise decision to hear Bush v. Gore, rather than to declare it a nonjusticeable political question (which it was).

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

:: The loser in an election has an absolute right to sue on eligibility grounds ::

Just to correct the record...

Cletus did not post that statement.

[Cboldt]

I’m talking about the loser in the state elections. Each state stands on its own.

[Political Junkie Too]

That is what should have happened in 2000, the country would have been much better for it, rather than the USSC's rash and unwise decision to hear Bush v. Gore...

All that SCOTUS did was stop the activism from the Florida state Supreme Court. There was still a vote in Florida that was certified, so there was nothing that the House could do.

-PJ