Seems like that “no recounts” rule is probably gonna be challenged up to the Supreme Court (of the US, not MS), regardless of who technically wins the election
Bush v Gore was a notable and shameful exception. They are ignoring Trump’s recent temper tantrum filings because he’s asking for way too much for even the crazy corrupt Alito and Thomas to abide. But don’t kid yourself, they will forsake what few principles they have in a heartbeat if it suits them.
If the one seat would make a difference in the majority then they would throw any principles aside. If the one seat isn’t going to make them any safer they will pretend to have standards.
Seems like that “no recounts” rule is probably gonna be challenged up to the Supreme Court (of the US, not MS), regardless of who technically wins the election
States get to run their own elections?
That is part of how elections are run in the US, yes. There is, by design, no centralized federal voting system.
That’s in the constitution. And we’re glad for it it Trump would have rigged it.
How? States manage their elections, not the Fed?
The same way any case gets to them. The loser sues and the civil case gets appealed repeatedly.
I guess anything can get to the supreme court that way. The supreme court has been rejecting all election cases though
Bush v Gore was a notable and shameful exception. They are ignoring Trump’s recent temper tantrum filings because he’s asking for way too much for even the crazy corrupt Alito and Thomas to abide. But don’t kid yourself, they will forsake what few principles they have in a heartbeat if it suits them.
If the one seat would make a difference in the majority then they would throw any principles aside. If the one seat isn’t going to make them any safer they will pretend to have standards.
Look into what happened in the 2000 election around Florida, and how the SC got involved