Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

igottagetoutofthis t1_ixilvot wrote

Until it’s blocked again.

1

code_archeologist t1_ixinv6b wrote

They would have to go to federal court to block it now... which is highly unlikely to succeed.

30

justforthearticles20 t1_ixipw4i wrote

They technically would have to show that there was a violation of the US Constitution which does not exist. If they score a Trump judge, the lack of jurisdiction thing won't matter.

20

notcaffeinefree t1_ixjg022 wrote

>They technically would have to show that there was a violation of the US Constitution which does not exist.

That's basically the argument in Moore v Harper. If the ISL theory is accepted by the Court, a state court would have no authority over this matter.

7

justforthearticles20 t1_ixjgiao wrote

That precedent would allow California and New York and every other Blue state to make every House seat Blue, and Democrats would take the House forever.

2

notcaffeinefree t1_ixjhn5p wrote

Not necessarily. Currently states with entirely blue legislatures make up only 149 House seats. Split legislatures make up another 106 seats leaving 180 seats in red states.

6

justforthearticles20 t1_ixjioy9 wrote

Split states would be required to abide by their actual election results, but are trending Blue, at which point they would be Blue forever.

0

Ayzmo t1_ixizdo3 wrote

SCOTUS has said state election laws are generally outside the purview of federal courts. And this was recent.

9

Chippopotanuse t1_ixinaxm wrote

I don’t know if they actually want it blocked. They just want to toss a baseless complaint at a court for the theatrics of it.

They just want to be able to create plausible controversy so they can claim the election was “stolen”

My guess is to get ready for talking points to emerge (after Warnock wins) that Warnock “only won” the election because “activist courts” and “crooked Democrats” paid and bussed “illegal voters” on a Saturday to these “fake” polling sites to cast “fraudulent” votes.

19