A key error here is that it assumes that the Electoral Count Act is illegal and assumes that states can set aside the laws they have on the books for allocating their electors.
In fact, rules governing the election have to be in place before the election.
The idea was to create chaos and give Trump's claim that he won the election more legitimacy.
He still wouldn't have stayed in the White House because this wouldn't have worked -- but it may have persuaded more people that Biden didn't win, which undermines the government.
That's the goal: Undermine and effectively destroy the federal government so that Republicans can take complete control.
That's what McConnell's latest is about, and why Republicans are trying to prolong the pandemic.
The side that wants to destroy has the easier job.
The courts would not have allowed this. The Supreme Court and other courts had plenty of chances to set aside the law and Constitution and hand the election to Trump.
But yes, it would have been a bigger mess partly because the plan to work needed Pence.
The Republican Party is now the party of insurrections and destruction.
But what I find interesting is that many of them come to a line they won't cross. The Supreme Court will not help create a tyrant (even a conservative one). Pence said no to this. . .etc.
By the way, some of left-leaning Twitter has a weird* idea of criminal law and the justice system. They want justice to be swift and brutal.
The problem: That can backfire. Right?
*authoritarian
2/
For someone to be prosecuted, there has to be a specific statute on the books, and the prosecutor has to prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high standard.
One question is whether Trump has violated Georgia Code § 21-2-604.
The latest attacks are in the Calfornia recall with a chorus of voices, including TFG, insisting that if Newsom wins, it will be because the election was rigged (CA went for Biden 63.5% to Trump 34.3)
The problem: A swatch of angry and militant Californians think it’s true.
3/
. . . for government actions that are (1) needed to protect public health and are (2) reasonable and limited in scope.
He said a school district’s decision to require student masking to prevent the spread of the virus falls within that exemption.
2/
I can't imagine such a debate. If Trump wants the nomination (and is in a position to be the nominee -- I am skeptical) I suspect everyone will step back.
Speaking of women as "host bodies" (we were speaking about that, weren't we?) this is from a 1908 Supreme Cort case on why legislatures were justified in passing laws that "protected" women.
In fact, I'm stumbling on these because I'm reading my Ruth Bader Ginsburg book aloud for my YouTube channel. I'm up to chapter 9, but I haven't gotten around to posting them yet.