@HoustonSam
I read in the filing (somewhere near the end) that this was not intended to have the court decide the election results, but that the process itself didn't violate the constitutional provisions provided.
To me it's clear that the Constitution is the most important issue; to that end, I rate the poker hands differently than
@IsailedawayfromFR - I think Trump is the $10 hand and the Constitution is the $990 hand. Now it's certainly a fair argument that we don't respect the Constitution if people can ascend to office via corrupt means; if there is some kind of strike down of the Defendant states' election laws but Biden is still inaugurated I would consider that a mixed result about which I would have mixed thoughts and feelings.
This could happen if SCOTUS voids the popular vote in the Defendant states but their legislatures choose to award their Electors to Biden. That outcome would be completely Constitutional IMO, and perhaps it would be sufficient to prevent states in the future from jerking around election laws and vote-counting procedures in the way we've seen here. But it would mean a president took office through means that we all plainly see are not within the spirit of any meaningful law.
There are many on our side who will test the outcome
strictly by whether or not Trump remains in office after 20 January, and I think that's a short-sighted perspective; I'll say it again, Trump is a distraction. He arrived politically when he rode down the escalator, and he will exit the stage either 20 January or in four more years; the Constitution has governed since New Hampshire ratified in 1788 and we hope it will continue to do so for many more decades. It can only prevail if voting eligibility regulations are better maintained and vote-counting procedures are made much more transparent, with clear accountability and severe consequences for any who obstruct the latter.
