>>But Jost, an adjunct professor at Georgetown University Law Center, says that’s no barrier to having the Supreme Court abolish the Electoral College by fiat.
...
“Plaintiffs in a legal challenge could be voters in any of the most populous states. They could correctly argue that their votes are being systematically undervalued in presidential elections,” he continues, glossing over that the Constitution clearly designed the Electoral College to mitigate the influence of large states.<<
Sorry, that bridge was burned since every single challenge to obozo’s reign due to his lack of citizenship was dropped for some version of lack of specific damage/harm.
Not only would the plaintiffs have to show the process was unconstitutional (damn near impossible for the Constitution to be unconstitutional), but then they would have to show how they were specifically harmed (completely impossible).
All those obozo cases can be stacked higher than the rafters as stare decisis.
Note: an “adjunct professor” is just a temp hire to teach a class or 2 and means noting about any academic qualifications.
If it had any merit, the same argument would be even stronger when used in reference to representation in the Senate. Pretty poor rationalization for wanting to radically change the Constitution.