Question: Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court

Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court, would you accept their ruling and accept the p

  • Yes, but only if Biden wins

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Yes, but only if Trump wins

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    20
  • Poll closed .

hislegacy

Memories pre 2021
Supporter
Nov 15, 2006
43,649
13,930
Broken Arrow, OK
✟689,334.00
Country
United States
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court, would you accept their ruling and accept the person as a legitimate President?

The question is posed to see if the Supreme Court is considered the final authority if this matter comes before it. Please do not use the opportunity to insult either candidate or political party. Civil discourse will get a reply.
 

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Since there are absolutely no issues that any other court has identified that require the Supreme Court's intervention, the Supreme Court should refuse to hear any cases involving the election. The Supreme Court often refuses to hear cases and let lower cases stand.

Given that the lower court decisions frequently indicate that the plaintiffs bring absolutely no credible evidence to the table, the Supreme Court should not dignify these tactics with a hearing.

In 2000, 537 votes in one state were at issue. In 2020, Biden won the popular vote by 6 million, and won the five states in contention--Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, and Georgia--by margins of 12,000 to 170,000 votes.

My only surprise is that Biden did not win by even more. Something like a Reagan/Mondale election in which Reagan won 49 states and Mondale won only 1. Mondale was certainly a better candidate than Trump.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Where is the harm? It will open the doors to forensic audits of the system across the board. Where is the harm? How can anyone think that is not a good idea in the fight against outside influence, especially in a time when the old ways have been replaced by a new one. Why is it that people are careful to put virus and malware checkers on their computers, but a forensic audit on the digitized and paper trails seems so unnecessary in such a vulnerable and important system?
 
Upvote 0

Fantine

Dona Quixote
Supporter
Jun 11, 2005
37,039
13,063
✟1,077,460.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The harm is that in the perception of 50% plus 6 million voters along with a significant number of the nation's leaders, including Republicans like AG Barr, the plaintiffs are trying to subvert democracy. Despite overwhelming evidence that mail-in voting is safe and fraud free--garnered from the 6 states that have used it universally for years, a long track record of fraud-free absentee ballots, etc., and numerous 2020 judicial rulings that the plaintiffs have no evidence--the plaintiffs want to subvert the will of the people.
Because of the pandemic, the need for mail-in voting was undeniable and urgent. In addition, the efforts of Texas and several other states to make in-person voting difficult and unavailable in urban areas with large Democratic populations, it is a matter of equity to remedy this gross injustice by allowing mail-in voting.
The verdict is in in 35 or so cases. The verdict: there is no evidence. Continuing to support this fruitless quest runs contrary to our system of government.
 
Upvote 0

Jonathan Walkerin

Well-Known Member
Feb 12, 2019
3,720
2,772
44
Stockholm
✟72,396.00
Country
Sweden
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Supreme Court can’t win on this. If they rule Trump win without evidence they are shown to be bought political hags.

If they rule Biden win all Trump supporters won’t believe anyway and they will still have much harder time in the future with whatever decisions they make.

And considering all the evidence is failing like in record time in lower courts why would they take it on ?
 
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Where is the harm? It will open the doors to forensic audits of the system across the board. Where is the harm? How can anyone think that is not a good idea in the fight against outside influence, especially in a time when the old ways have been replaced by a new one. Why is it that people are careful to put virus and malware checkers on their computers, but a forensic audit on the digitized and paper trails seems so unnecessary in such a vulnerable and important system?

Chris Krebs, the head of election security, has said that this was the safest, most secure election in US history and that the methods employed were/are the most accurate methods ever used.

Because of this trump fired him! Any lawsuits that have been, are, and continue to be put forth are all examples of trump (and giuiliani) being unable to accept the will of the people.

The votes have been tallied and certified. There is nothing to bring to the Supreme Court.
 
Upvote 0

timothyu

Well-Known Member
Dec 31, 2018
22,444
8,397
up there
✟303,917.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
The verdict is in in 35 or so cases. The verdict: there is no evidence. Continuing to support this fruitless quest runs contrary to our system of government.
No it runs contrary to the right to act in a free and open way. What is there to fear in verification if all is supposedly ok? Why should openness suddenly become a right/left battle when it is for the good of all?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hazelelponi
Upvote 0

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
No it runs contrary to the right to act in a free and open way. What is there to fear in verification if all is supposedly ok? Why should openness suddenly become a right/left battle when it is for the good of all?

That makes as much sense as being pulled over when you weren't speeding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The question is a tough one to answer at this time and to answer with certainty. But it probably will depend on what, exactly, the Court rules and which justices vote which way.

There has to be a specific case for the Court to even hear it. trump et al can't just go the the Supreme Court and say, "look, we've been cheated by a corrupt system".
 
Upvote 0

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Should the Election issues rise to the Supreme Court, would you accept their ruling and accept the person as a legitimate President?

The question is posed to see if the Supreme Court is considered the final authority if this matter comes before it. Please do not use the opportunity to insult either candidate or political party. Civil discourse will get a reply.
Only if enough provable fraud is found to affect the actual outcome of the election.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

A_Thinker

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Apr 23, 2004
11,911
9,064
Midwest
✟931,284.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hence, no harm in a forensic audit
Whether the states audit their results is a state affair. The federal government would only be concerned with anything that would change the national result.

The states, however, have a compelling interest in choosing their slate of electors in the way that they have led their voters to expect, else they leave themselves open to lawsuits and, of course, ... the wrath of their voters ...
 
Upvote 0

JSRG

Well-Known Member
Apr 14, 2019
1,400
786
Midwest
✟157,715.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
I'd be astounded if the Supreme Court actually takes up a case in this. The real question is whether they'll formally dismiss the appeals to them (most appeals to the Supreme Court are dismissed, which means the lower court decision stands) or just take no action on it whatsoever and let it become moot after Biden/Harris is sworn in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pescador
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

pescador

Wise old man
Supporter
Nov 29, 2011
8,530
4,776
✟498,844.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Coming elections are not that far off, giving plenty of opportunity to gather evidence and come to a conclusion.

Are you referring to Canadian elections? Here in the US the elections (except for two races in Georgia) are over.
 
Upvote 0