That cant happen, Constitutional issues. But no it wouldn't stop anything... why would the same exact claims not arise? Hell Trump still thinks he won the popular vote in 2016
Auditing the signatures is provisioned for in the GA law. Spoiling them on the basis of signatures is also provisioned for in law. If a judge can be persuaded by his own appointed expert to do so, then he has the proper ability to remedy that.
Right, they will confirm the adjudication of the lower court in each battleground state where there was FRAUD. Why do you think there called Battle Ground states?
they can have issues and when you think there might be a problem spot you verify by audit of paper ballot recount and once Dems had the evidence they said dang we were wrong
I just want to dissolve the trump cult somehow, may be impossible. Well at least trump is old and his kids don’t seem as competent at building that kind of brand @JD~Jordan
Ok buddy. Clearly you don't understand this let me help. If the Supreme Court affirms the lower courts ruling (as you stated they will) Trump loses. Because no lower courts have ruled in his favor.
Like I said in general-chat, "when unequivocal evidence that the election in Georgia was conducted in violation of the U.S. Constitution, Federal and State Law, how can the election be legally certified? In a legal perspective, allowing the election to stand when it was Unconstitutional and unlawful, it would set a precendent that the Law no longer applies to Georgia elections. Other States would then follow suit if they see that no one is held accountable for noncompliance with the Law."
Not correct. The auditing process is explained in the statute. The court doesnt get to pick an expert. The court can order the state to conduct an audit per statute... The statute controls the process.
okay assume this happens with some envelopes ... then what? ... you suggested throwing out ballots based on a ratio but that's a probabilistic answer, yes it's the most probable answer mathematically but it's not the only possible answer and no judge is going to do that ... I'm saying they will argue on end about the subjective nature of signature validation before they throw out votes ... you're going to need some hard evidence of intention fraud NOT the poll workers did a poor job of signature validation
The way I see it, it is like a contract. If the contract is in violation of the law, it is invalid. The same, legally, applies to elections, if the Law is followed. If an election is in violation of the Law, it is invalid.
Do you see the flaw with that... If all it takes is a party to say "they don't trust the state department to perform that correctly" then they set precedent for this to happen in every future election by the losing candidate.
Which is why we have to require a real reason to request the relief sought.
