True thought. If scotus overturn election, this NOT separation of power

If they side with Texas they won’t be deciding the election or overturning it. It would be saying that those states conducted their elections illegally and the states legislators will have to decide how to cast their electors.

@codyhere2004, you just advanced to level 4!

Kewl

I agree. Scotus should not over step power then constitution is useless

Scotus has jurisdiction when there is conflict between states.

Scotus just needs to clarify

Maybe, my thought was that the guidance might actually be the best outcome. I am not looking forward to the next 4 years with a Biden/Harris administration but with the guidance in place to prevent this from happening again would be best.

As an ardent 2A supporter I am actually borderline dreading it. Especially if SCOTUS refuses to hear this case and does nothing since there is nothing preventing them from doing it again in the GA run off and getting a 50/50 split in the senate.

Rewrite constitution as little as possible

It allows redress between states so that the United States is less likely to have a civil war.

@Darkangael, you just advanced to level 2!

Well the good thing is that alito and Thomas believe that the Supreme Court must hear cases between states.

Trump should win, but not at all cost. Preserve constitution where possible

I agree. I don’t think the Supreme Court should decide elections. It sets a bad precedent for our country.

When we give scotus power to twist constitution, it’s not always best for liberties

I doubt they will decide directly they will send it to legislators or if that fails it will go to Congress and Senate as set out in the Constitution.

When you present argument to scotus, it opens windows to remove freedoms

There is "no where possible." It needs to be full stop preserve unless it is properly amended by the US Congress or by Article 5 Convention of the States

They all quote scotus

When they change constitution

That’s why we need to win the senate run off in Georgia. Because if the election goes to congress and the Dems win both seats pence would have to cast a vote for himself and it would make him look bad.

That's 2 of 4 for certiorari... And I wish that at least one if not 2 of the liberal justices would also take the case as well... I am afraid that if only the conservative justices agree to hear it the left is going to cause issues over this.

Well more issues.

Detail interpretation of constitution is the same as a change of the constitution

A ruling, becomes a rule

Article 3 Section 2 says that the Supreme Court **SHALL** take the case

It says that the Supreme Court Shall have original jurisdiction... I don't know if it's a shall take the case.

It's too late at night for me to want to go look it up at the moment... I am about to head to bed... I have work in the morning.

Why did the city of Detroit file this amicus brief?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163437/20201210163842796_City%20of%20Detroit%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

@kennyb, you just advanced to level 1!

fraud only happens if Trump wins, russia russia never china

@Ghostdog that is a line from the Dems. Russia as with other Countries have always tried to influence our elections. But this year those states where problems and questionable numbers are out of, invited the possibility.

Yes while a case involving the Dem states taking GOP states to court for cheating would be funny because all the sudden the GOP filings would be full of things about states rights. Let's not forget the shoe was on the other other foot. When the southern states led by Tennessee said look even though our conservative states obviously have the longest history of cheating in elections that continues to this day we feel it's our states right to run our own state and pass laws which clearly violate the Constitution and not have federal courts breathing down our neck and making sure we arent stopped in time for an election.

Cheating provisions which heavily impact federal elections like this one because the justices on the bench said go to town and they did on a massive scale in the name of voter integrity.

Oh my God

States can and do operate their state constitution but states can't subvert the constitution. Give it a rest

@Dedkraken , could you give some specific sources for those who would like to see what you are talking about?

Shelby county vs holder the gutting on the 1965 voting rights act. Part of the law said look we know certain states have a history of dunking on people of color to rig their elections and they are going to keep making laws like that even though those laws break the US Constitution. The preclearance measure made them run election changes by federal court before enacting them. The scotus basically said yes this was a warranted states rights check and yes they still make bad laws but we feel the frequency is not enough to have this in place any longer. Following which they all rushed to immediately put laws into place which they could not not even waiting a short time.

The south was blue then....

@Dedkraken ^^

@Just A Dad Gamer @Dedkraken Yeah in the Jim Crow Era.

My point is the shoe was on the same foot if you read dedkrakens last post