I don't think you can present new evidence before the Supreme Court. They'd have to argue that the judge in the original case, based on the evidence he had seen, made a mistake. Or that he had failed to let them present evidence, in which case I think they'd have to send the case back to the original judge and order him to listen to the evidence.
Correct. The Supreme Court can also simply refuse to hear an appeal from the Court of Appeals. In addition, there is no requirement that the Court of Appeals rush the case. Trump is running out of time. Pennsylvania will certify its votes on Monday.
Or not. Remember the US Supreme Court does not have to hear an appeal.
Yes. But I think they will. Could be wrong but I believe they'll consider it's just too big a thing for them to set aside.
Actually, the Supreme Court does its best to avoid political questions. E.g. that's how it justified the failure to deal with gerrymandering. Their purpose is to deal with constitutional questions. Remember, you can't even present evidence to them, because they're not reviewing evidence. They're reviewing whether courts interpreted the law properly, and whether the law is constitutional. There are no constitutional questions here. There are questions of fact: whether substantial fraud or misbehavior occurred. Their decisions so far have in fact been telling courts to stay out of it, even when they are dealing with disenfranchisement of voters. It is very unlikely that they will intervene, unless they are overtly partisan. I'm still hoping that they are not.
He gets his examples from countries like the Ivory Coast:
This makes excuses for something to be allowed to continue that is wrong.
Are you saying that counting all legal ballots is wrong and that democracy is wrong and should not be allowed to continue?
