.......if the election is contested like in 2000 (and some Dems have already signaled that they will not likely concede), then the case would go to the SCOTUS in one form or another depending on the dispute. With 4 cons and 4 libs, the court would likely be hung in which case, Pelosi would take over as president.
Is this wrong (I am asking)?
I do not recall the urgency for 9 justices on the bench to rule upon any 2106 election issues, or other important questions of law.
SCOTUS tie maintains the lower court decision.
In essence, it would give you a path to the presidency without actually winning it.
Trump should definitely name the nominee.
How about Joe naming his, hmmmm?
No urgency then?
But urgency now in September 2020?
Right now the Court leans 5-3 conservative on legal matters, although Roberts prefers to keep the Court out of political issues.
(no message)
That Court found you can't use use different standards of counting in different counties because this would violate the Equal Protection Clause and further ruled that any alternative method would exceed the statutory time limit for a determination of a controversy as to appointment of electors. But who knows what the issues might be this time. If there were a huge delay because of a flood of mail in ballots suddenly showed up and were contested they Court would wait for State Court rulings before getting involved. But I can't see Roberts letting Pelosi (assuming the Dens hold the House) to take over.
(no message)
Tell me what you think is wrong, and why.
The issue would be settled by the courts. It would be profoundly ugly.
But there is no scenario in which the Speaker of the House ends up as president. You are thinking line of succession, but that does not apply here.
.......if there is a SCOTUS tie, the lower court decision holds, and since we know it will be the D’s who file suit (or at least that is what we conservatives are concerned about), and they will thus be choosing the court in which to hear the case, then it would be foolish for Trump not to name a nominee.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
answer.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
mob.
burn the entire fucking thing down" So there you have it.
(no message)
These Dems are so of the most angry, hateful people I have even seen in my life. And trust me, I come from Philly, I know angry. These idiots make that crowd look like care bears. If they don't get what they want, the threat is to burn cities? They think that is going to help their cause?
(no message)
(no message)
Is correct from the standpoint of ensuring a non liberal verdict.
seem to be the same.