are the Supreme Court justices probably watching all the news about the voter fraud? what they are thinking probably ?
they get to decide their opinion over the hearings being televised next week?
- Favourite answer
Most of them are probably hoping they don't have to weigh in on it at all. Given that if the election were thrown to Trump the nation would experience a great loss of life and property from rioting, that's a heavy thing to have to be responsible for.
- Anonymous2 months ago
They sure are, with fraud happening in our great country and not upheld will mean all elections will be fraud. We can't have that or your vote will never count,
The Supreme Court will not hear any election fraud case
Trump and his supporters best quickly realize its over
- Anonymous2 months ago
The Pennsylvania SC just told the dotard to shut up and go away.
- What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
- LiliLv 72 months ago
They're thinking that the Trumpkins are stupidly desperate and wasting everyone's time.
They won't hear the Pennsylvania case or, indeed, any of them. There are no issues of constitutional law to be decided here, no evidence of electoral fraud. The Justices will let the lower-court dismissals stand.
And after that happens, it will be amusing to hear Donnie screaming, "Those people owe me!"
- Tmess2Lv 72 months ago
That's not how the Supreme Court or the legal system works.
The way that the legal system works is that a party files a case in a trial court. Most election cases have to be filed in state courts. In fact a Trump appointee to the Third Circuit just wrote a blistering opinion lambasting Giuliani and Powell for trying to file suit in federal court with no legitimate federal claims.
The trial court then hears evidence and decides the facts. If you lose in the trial court, you get to raise claims of legal error in your state's intermediate appellate court. The appellate court will accept as correct the factual findings of the trial court unless there is no evidence supporting them.
If you lose in the intermediate appellate court, you can ask your state Supreme Court to hear the case, but the state Supreme Court can decline to take the case with no need to explain why they didn't feel that the legal issues in the case merited their time.
Finally, if you lose in your state Supreme Court or your state Supreme Court declines to take your case, you can ask the U.S. Supreme Court to take your case. But, unless the Supreme Court shortens the time frame, your opponent has thirty days to respond to your request before the U.S. Supreme Court even considers your request. Even then, you are limited to the issues that your presented in the lower court and the U.S. Supreme Court will not consider any factual disputes, but will take the facts as found by the lower court. And most importantly, the U.S. Supreme Court will not hear issues of state law, and what is a valid vote and what is a fraudulent vote is an issue of state law.
So far, this year, the U.S. Supreme Court has only intervened in the election to uphold their general rule that federal courts should not change the rules governing elections in the last two months before an election. But they have also left in place any last minute changes made by the states or by state courts.
They have been sitting on a case from Pennsylvania (Case Number 20-542) for four weeks and have just granted Pennsylvania an extension of time (to Monday) to file a response. They have not yet scheduled the case for review at any conference. Given that they have not rushed this case, I am doubtful that there is any case that they are seriously considering taking.
- mercedesLv 72 months ago
They can side step any frivolous case brought to them.
- MichaelLv 72 months ago
I suspect they're more interested in the court filings than the news, and things aren't exactly going well for team Trump in court.
- 2 months ago
they think its a waste of time
get upset all you like, no evidence besides hearsay