[LS]

You may, but you are now officially wrong, as the USSC didn't take the case. Look, this is an important statement for states' rights. We need to take all the states' rights cases, not just those that happen to support our candidate.

Now, in terms of the election, if Forrester can't beat this old coot straight up, he shouldn't be senator. Sooner or later, folks, we have to win elections---shenanigans be damned. There were major voting irregularities in almost every election in the late 1800s, so people came to expect it, like bad calls in a football game. This penalty is over. Let's move on and win the game. Forrester needs to give people a reason to vote FOR him, without completely losing the "Torricelli-Lautenberg Machine" phrase.

[steveegg]

I'll take the ones that are actually supported by the clear text of the Constitution. This is NOT one of those; rather, it's one that was created out of whole cloth by 4 lieberal and 2 "moderate" Justices that flies directly in the face of the clear text of the Constitution (or does "legislative" now also mean "judicial"?).

As for what now needs to be done, I wholeheartedly agree. We need to win, and we need to win with enough Senators that we can affirm Forrester's victory (you can bet your bottom dollar that if Forrester wins and that alone would put D'Asshole Hussein in the minority until another Jumper can be found, the RATs will not honor his election).