Will SCOTUS rule that the states actions in 2020 election were illegal but moot since Biden has been inaugurated?

wiscoaster

Active member
What about ruling that the election law changes by the states were unconstitutional and illegal but moot in terms of state re-votes.
They could rule all kinds of unconstitutional behaviors by all the states involved and still find "moot" because a President has been inaugurated and taken the oath of office, which is something that can't be undone.

One has to wonder if maybe that was their plan all along.
 

tyrant

Member
They could rule all kinds of unconstitutional behaviors by all the states involved and still find "moot" because a President has been inaugurated and taken the oath of office, which is something that can't be undone.

One has to wonder if maybe that was their plan all along.


So they would rule what the executive and judicial branches of these governments did was unconstitutional and illegal so it couldn't be done in future elections?
 

roscoe

Active member
So they would rule what the executive and judicial branches of these governments did was unconstitutional and illegal so it couldn't be done in future elections?

Keep in mind that these are state governments. If they did something against their respective state constitutions, it would fall under the jurisdiction of each state's highest court (e.g. the state supreme court, or highest appellate court). So far, these state courts have not ruled against the election results as they currently stand.

I am not sure how the US Constitution would apply. Hence, SCOTUS tending to turn away the appeals.
 

wiscoaster

Active member
So they would rule what the executive and judicial branches of these governments did was unconstitutional and illegal so it couldn't be done in future elections?
Well, even if they ruled that I don't think it would prevent it from being done in future elections. SCOTUS can't make law.
 

roscoe

Active member
So they would rule what the executive and judicial branches of these governments did was unconstitutional and illegal so it couldn't be done in future elections?

Actually, other than the accusations of ballot manipulation, I am not sure what these arguments are. What are the things that are argued to have been unconstitutional?
 

tyrant

Member
Actually, other than the accusations of ballot manipulation, I am not sure what these arguments are. What are the things that are argued to have been unconstitutional?



Similar unconstitutional actions by the executive and judicial branches in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania which would be enough to over-turn the election.

This isn't election fraud per-se but election fraud via state governments and they used the COVID pandemic as their excuses but it still doesn't float.

The Constitution clearly states that the legislatures make election laws and there are quite a few procedural steps that they have to take such as multiple debates, putting a notice of the law in newspapers, and such that they were all completely ignored. The executive branch made unconstitutional, illegal changes to voting laws, and then the judicial branch gave them the stamp of approval which if heard by SCOTUS should be over-turned as they were blatantly unconstitutional.
 

roscoe

Active member
Similar unconstitutional actions by the executive and judicial branches in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, and Pennsylvania which would be enough to over-turn the election.

This isn't election fraud per-se but election fraud via state governments and they used the COVID pandemic as their excuses but it still doesn't float.

The Constitution clearly states that the legislatures make election laws and there are quite a few procedural steps that they have to take such as multiple debates, putting a notice of the law in newspapers, and such that they were all completely ignored. The executive branch made unconstitutional, illegal changes to voting laws, and then the judicial branch gave them the stamp of approval which if heard by SCOTUS should be over-turned as they were blatantly unconstitutional.

Can you send me a link for these arguments? Some specifics? I have heard these arguments alluded to, but it would be useful to understand exactly what the legal arguments are.

But like I said, if these are state issues, I am not sure how SCOTUS has jurisdiction. Do these complaints fall under federal law or the US Constitution? As far as I know, the 10th Amendment kind of puts this stuff into the state domain. You can't just appeal just anything to SCOTUS (although, obviously, folks try).
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Active member
.... I am not sure how SCOTUS has jurisdiction. Do these complaints fall under federal law or the US Constitution? As far as I know, the 10th Amendment kind of puts this stuff into the state domain. You can't just appeal just anything to SCOTUS (although, obviously, folks try).
1) Relevant law: US Constitution, Article I, Section 5.
2) Jurisdiction over interpretation of Constitution: SCOTUS:
3) Parties having standing: the people of the United States of America.
4) Harm parties suffered: the people were disenfranchised, having had their votes discarded, altered and/or diluted, and thus no electors representing their votes were legally and lawfully certified.
5) Judicial remedy for finding in favor of plaintiffs: ????????

Like I said before: what can they do now? They can find in favor of the plaintiffs but there is no possible way to remediate the harm caused.
 

wiscoaster

Active member
If the intent of asking the question is to discover if SCOTUS can remove Biden from office based on election fraud, the answer is "no". SCOTUS power is equal to but does not exceed the Executive. SCOTUS cannot unseat a sitting President. The only mechanism provided for removal of a sitting President is impeachment and conviction by the Legislature for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President while in office. Since the high crimes and misdemeanors were committed by others on Biden's behalf and committed before he was in office, impeachment doesn't apply, either.
 

roscoe

Active member
1) Relevant law: US Constitution, Article I, Section 5.
2) Jurisdiction over interpretation of Constitution: SCOTUS:
3) Parties having standing: the people of the United States of America.
4) Harm parties suffered: the people were disenfranchised, having had their votes discarded, altered and/or diluted, and thus no electors representing their votes were legally and lawfully certified.
5) Judicial remedy for finding in favor of plaintiffs: ????????

Like I said before: what can they do now? They can find in favor of the plaintiffs but there is no possible way to remediate the harm caused.

How does Article 1 Section 5 apply? "Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" - that is the power of each house of Congress to police its own elections (and there is plenty of fun historical precedent there).

Normally, elections are held to be state affairs, and the relevant laws are all enforced by state authorities. The only time the feds are brought in is when the election fraud specifically violates federal statute, as in the various federal voting rights acts. But the feds have no jurisdiction over common voting fraud, irrespective of whether the election is for the the local alderman or Electoral College electors.

I agree that it is moot. I am just curious as to the legal arguments, being interested generally in legal theory.
 

tyrant

Member
If the intent of asking the question is to discover if SCOTUS can remove Biden from office based on election fraud, the answer is "no". SCOTUS power is equal to but does not exceed the Executive. SCOTUS cannot unseat a sitting President. The only mechanism provided for removal of a sitting President is impeachment and conviction by the Legislature for high crimes and misdemeanors committed by the President while in office. Since the high crimes and misdemeanors were committed by others on Biden's behalf and committed before he was in office, impeachment doesn't apply, either.


There is a specific harm though, Biden being an illegitimate president which is harming all Americans for 4 years with his actions and executive orders, foreign policy, and everything else.


So, interesting how this would go.
 

tyrant

Member
Can you send me a link for these arguments? Some specifics? I have heard these arguments alluded to, but it would be useful to understand exactly what the legal arguments are.

But like I said, if these are state issues, I am not sure how SCOTUS has jurisdiction. Do these complaints fall under federal law or the US Constitution? As far as I know, the 10th Amendment kind of puts this stuff into the state domain. You can't just appeal just anything to SCOTUS (although, obviously, folks try).


"Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election," the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was "conducted illegally."









 

roscoe

Active member
"Pennsylvania’s General Assembly exceeded its powers by unconstitutionally allowing no-excuse absentee voting, including for federal offices, in the election," the challengers argued in court papers. As a result, the election was "conducted illegally."










Right - that Texas v. Pennsylvania case pretty much reflects what I am saying. SCOTUS dismissed the suit without hearing it. They were telling Texas, in effect, to mind their own business, because the Pennsylvania election was a matter for Pennsylvania. They also declined Kelly v. Pennsylvania (the case cited in the USA Today article).

You can see the list of relevant cases here:

But I think the main take-away can be see from this citation (from the SCOTUS Texas v. Pennsylvania decision):

1613591349167.png
 

tyrant

Member
Right - that Texas v. Pennsylvania case pretty much reflects what I am saying. SCOTUS dismissed the suit without hearing it. They were telling Texas, in effect, to mind their own business, because the Pennsylvania election was a matter for Pennsylvania. They also declined Kelly v. Pennsylvania (the case cited in the USA Today article).

You can see the list of relevant cases here:

But I think the main take-away can be see from this citation (from the SCOTUS Texas v. Pennsylvania decision):

View attachment 1210


Legally Texas didn't have standing but if a state unconstitutionally runs their election and alters the presidential race it does affect everyone in the US including Texas.

If SCOTUS takes the Pennsylvania case and rules that the judicial and executive branch usurped the power of the legislative branch unconstitutionally than it is saying they affected Texas.
 

roscoe

Active member
Legally Texas didn't have standing but if a state unconstitutionally runs their election and alters the presidential race it does affect everyone in the US including Texas.

If SCOTUS takes the Pennsylvania case and rules that the judicial and executive branch usurped the power of the legislative branch unconstitutionally than it is saying they affected Texas.

Well, these two Pennsylvania cases have been dismissed. Are there any others still open at SCOTUS? To your second point - is that what the claimants are offering as their argument? Because I am not sure how that would follow. You mean the executive and judicial branches of the State of Pennsylvania? Or did you mean the Congress and Office of the President?
 

tyrant

Member
Well, these two Pennsylvania cases have been dismissed. Are there any others still open at SCOTUS? To your second point - is that what the claimants are offering as their argument? Because I am not sure how that would follow. You mean the executive and judicial branches of the State of Pennsylvania? Or did you mean the Congress and Office of the President?


It appears election cases from PA, MI, WI, and GA are potential cases for SCOTUS.


And yes, the executive branches of state governments made unconstitutional/illegal changes to election laws in all 4 of those states such as allowing ballots after the cut-off time of 8pm and them their state supreme courts ruled that that was fine when it clearly breaks the law when it is only the legislature that can make changes to election laws.

The hope and reasoning that SCOTUS will take this or these cases to prevent this in upcoming elections which would be 2022 for the senate.
 

roscoe

Active member
And yes, the executive branches of state governments made unconstitutional/illegal changes to election laws in all 4 of those states such as allowing ballots after the cut-off time of 8pm and them their state supreme courts ruled that that was fine when it clearly breaks the law when it is only the legislature that can make changes to election laws.

Just because it breaks the law does not mean it has any traction with SCOTUS. It has to relate to the US Constitution or federal law. I just don't know how that applies here. These are all state laws you are talking about.

Anyway, what are the actual cases - does anybody know?
 
Top