Likelihood of SCOTUS Nightmare

[Stuart98]

I am an election judge

oh no

[DrScholl]

In my opinion this would only happen if the election was decided by a few hundred votes in one state, because that would leave room for the court to play Trump's game. But if we are talking about a large win for Biden that is far outside of questioning I cannot see the court being that crazy. But at this point I don't see the results being overturned.

[MATTROSE94]

I am an election judge

oh no

He does have a law degree, so maybe he actually is an election judge.

[Gustaf]

1. While Alito and Thomas are hacks, the other GOP justices seem to be willing to rule against Trump so I think they would if he was clearly just trying to ignore the result.

2. I don't think Trump wants to "win". He want to be able to say that he won and he wants to scam his supporters out of money. But I don't think he cares for being president. So he'll throw a tantrum but not actually do much to stay in office.

[SteveRogers]

It depends on what the legal issue is that the Court is asked to rule on. Bush v. Gore worked for Bush because Bush was aheac in the count certified by the Florida Secretary of State, so the Court invented a pretext to stop the recount. Those types of shenanigans are harder to pull off when you’re behind.

I don’t think there’s a plausible scenario where SCOTUS just declares “all mail-in ballots are illegal.”

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

For there to be a Bush v. Gore II, I think it'll need to be the case that the decision in a single close State decides the election. That would mean that Biden doesn't have a comfortable EV lead, so this particular premise is essentially impossible.

[MATTROSE94]

It depends on what the legal issue is that the Court is asked to rule on. Bush v. Gore worked for Bush because Bush was aheac in the count certified by the Florida Secretary of State, so the Court invented a pretext to stop the recount. Those types of shenanigans are harder to pull off when you’re behind.

I don’t think there’s a plausible scenario where SCOTUS just declares “all mail-in ballots are illegal.”

It’s a stretch, but the Supreme Court could rule mail in ballots as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment using the ridiculous belief that mail in ballots can be tampered with, which would amount to a violation of equal protection for all voters. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and maybe Amy Coney Barrett might agree with that interpretation.

[Common Sense Atlantan]

Not very likely. If there is a true red mirage, it's possible, but Trump would need more evidence than "BuT tHe MaIL Ins FRUaDeRsszzz."

[One Term Floridian]

If the Court were to essentially install its own President...we have just reached peak banana republic and might as well let this buffoon run and win as many times as he wants

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

If the Court were to essentially install its own President...we have just reached peak banana republic and might as well let this buffoon run and win as many times as he wants

Justice O'Connor was upset when she heard Gore won Florida. Enough said.

[One Term Floridian]

If the Court were to essentially install its own President...we have just reached peak banana republic and might as well let this buffoon run and win as many times as he wants

Justice O'Connor was upset when she heard Gore won Florida. Enough said.

Yeah. Partisan hack then goes on to hack the election with 4 of her hack colleagues.

[MATTROSE94]

If the Court were to essentially install its own President...we have just reached peak banana republic and might as well let this buffoon run and win as many times as he wants

Donald Trump did say that he wants to serve as President until at least 2032. I am sure the Supreme Court will find a way to allow that to happen if they turn out to be in Donald Trumps pocket after the 2020 election.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

For there to be a Bush v. Gore II, I think it'll need to be the case that the decision in a single close State decides the election. That would mean that Biden doesn't have a comfortable EV lead, so this particular premise is essentially impossible.

This basically. This sort of scenario requires the election to come down to one state.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Its not likely to be a close enough election, Biden is gonna get 70M votes while Trump gets 60M like last time, D's have the majority in the upper Midwest and the two coast that won't cost us the EC map in a Pandemic. LA, SF, Chi and NY are the main metros along with MKE, Philly and Dtw

[7,052,770]

It depends on what the legal issue is that the Court is asked to rule on. Bush v. Gore worked for Bush because Bush was aheac in the count certified by the Florida Secretary of State, so the Court invented a pretext to stop the recount. Those types of shenanigans are harder to pull off when you’re behind.

I don’t think there’s a plausible scenario where SCOTUS just declares “all mail-in ballots are illegal.”

It’s a stretch, but the Supreme Court could rule mail in ballots as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment using the ridiculous belief that mail in ballots can be tampered with, which would amount to a violation of equal protection for all voters. Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and maybe Amy Coney Barrett might agree with that interpretation.

I don't think that's remotely plausible, because what about the equal protection for the millions of citizens who were told by their states that they could vote by mail and did so under that impression? The time to do that was a year ago, not after the fact, and even Thomas/Alito/Barrett aren't that insane and brazenly corrupt.