ST Alpha - "Just to be clear, I don't think they're saying what you're saying. I think they're responding to Trump's claim that the SC needs to step in and " (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 156

In response to "If you're wondering, like me, what are the actual odds of SCOTUS throwing out enough votes to re-elect Trump, SCOTUS blog says "no way." -- (link)" by mara

Just to be clear, I don't think they're saying what you're saying. I think they're responding to Trump's claim that the SC needs to step in and

Posted by pmb (aka pmb) Nov 6 '20, 08:05

decide the election. Essentially decide overwhelming lack of vote integrity and declare Trump the winner. Your statement is still likely true, but I don't think that's what they were responding to. I do think there is a question what they will do with PA and have no idea whether the votes at issue would be sufficient to overturn whatever the result is.

Responses:

I don't understand your distinction. -- nm - mara Nov 6, 08:18 1
- Trump said the SC should just step in and decide he's the winner. They are saying there is no chance of that. I don't think they are saying that if - pmb Nov 6, 08:48
but doesn't it have to come from a state case before it hits the Supremes? -- nm - Remlik Nov 6, 08:14 1
- There was a state case and it went to the SC. The SC basically said "segregate the ballots at issue, and if it's relevant we'll take another look". - pmb Nov 6, 08:19

Post a message top

Just to be clear, I don't think they're saying what you're saying. I think they're responding to Trump's claim that the SC needs to step in and

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.