[ScholarWarrior]

So, I think your point is, the USSC will take up at least 3 election cases (to get enough evs) that are probably decided by the lower courts against Trump, and then instead of overturning them and causing Trump’s election, they will overturn Sullivan. Did I get that right?

Frankly, at this point, what difference does it make?

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

I think your point is, the USSC will take up at least 3 election cases (to get enough evs) that are probably decided by the lower courts against Trump, and then instead of overturning them and causing Trump’s election, they will overturn Sullivan. Did I get that right?

No, IMHO SCOTUS will overturn the election of Biden in those states.

But instead of anointing Trump President-elect, they will punt to the legislatures of those states which have plenary authority to name Electors under the Constitution. And the state legislators themselves are likely to punt to the House of Representatives by naming Electors pledged to vote for Mike Pence for POTUS and Trump for VP instead of the other way around.

Because overturning a presidential election is such a hot potato, nobody will be happy doing more than they must.

By voting for Pence for POTUS, the disputed Electors would, on behalf of the Legislature, not take responsibility for naming Trump. It would also make Pence the third-place finisher in the EC - allowing the House of Representatives to consider him as well as Trump and Biden.

The House of Representatives would then decide, voting one vote per state delegation, for Trump or Pence. I’m not certain they wouldn’t give five of those votes to Pence on the first and second ballots - thereby putting the Democrats on the spot to either vote for Pence, or let it default to Trump on the third ballot.

Again, still a hot potato, and Democrats should be forced to buy in to Pence, or at least negatively buy in to Trump, as the POTUS for the next 4 years. Which would be Hobson’s choice since they hate Trump more, but Pence might run as sitting POTUS in ’24.

Again, SCOTUS needs to overturn Sullivan some day, and no time like the present to put the kibosh on the licentiousness of the lying “media.” Which is the actual engine of extreme partisan division in the 21st century.

Talk radio need not be collateral damage to overturning Sullivan since, as I noted, successful talk radio hosts are (etymologically speaking) Philosophers. Their business model is to articulate facts and logic in contradistinction to the sophistry and lying of “the media."