Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes (if constitutionally enacted) hold supremacy over state law. A violation of the Constitution is a violation, period. If states violated the Constitution, and a Congress failed to hold those states accountable, then anything they "certified" is void. SCOTUS can certainly rule that what Congress did was unconstitutional. Just because it's not happened before, doesn't mean that it can't be done. SCOTUS has never ruled against a petition for such remedy. They've never heard even heard such a petition, at least not at this level and significance. They have however, ruled on at least 3 dozen election related cases, included federal elections, some of which impacted results.
But as I pointed out, the Court doesn't have enforcement power. In 2000, it would have been interesting had Florida or Congress, or Gore, attempted to disregard SOCTUS' ruling. But nobody did. Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congess redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final. If anyone refuses to abide by a ruling, how does it get enforced? Executive branch, police action. If the DOJ disregards their responsibility, then it falls to the DOD and military to protect the Constitution. But them doing so, would not be "mutiny" in the same way that refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law would not a criminal act. If an individual unlawfully tries to hold office, they have no authority and are not owed any allegiance. It's only mutiny if a LAWFUL authority is disobeyed.
Military and all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution, first and foremost, not to obey a usurper.
Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congress redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final.
I guess I'd like to drill down on this part. My contention is that SCOTUS has no authority to override the legislatures' appointments, especially when those legislatures themselves made no serious effort to revoke consent to those appointments. In this particular case, the state legislatures have a higher constitutional authority than anything the Supreme Court could say.
And frankly, I would find it outrageous if SCOTUS could willy nilly invalidate electoral votes. Think of a hypothetical in which a lawsuit alleged that minority voting rights had been disproportionately violated because of voter ID.
You are correct that state legislatures are allowed to choose the electors, and Congress is allowed to certify the electoral votes, but that presupposes all sides have followed the Constitution in doing so. Otherwise, their actions were not properly conducted within the Constitution and therefore are not binding. SCOTUS does get to determine if something is constitutional. If SCOTUS decides that an election violated the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, then the fact that Congress or a state certified it is meaningless, because the whole process is already unconstitutional even before the certification. Indeed, this is exactly the argument SCOTUS used in Bush v. Gore in 2000. So it is not willy nilly invalidating electoral votes. It is invalidating a result specifically because the process used violated the highest law of the land.
In your example, if minority voting rights genuinely had been disproportionately violated due to voter ID, in violation of the 14th Amendment, and that violation demonstrably changed the outcome of the election, then SCOTUS would not only have the right but also the duty to correct the problem. We have arrived at this point in time today specifically because SCOTUS vitiated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
So, no, they never override a legislature's appointments. They simply rule that the legislature never legally appointed anyone in this circumstance because the procedure they used violated the Constitution. Then, they can offer remedies on how to correct the illegal action.
Yes, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Federal statutes (if constitutionally enacted) hold supremacy over state law. A violation of the Constitution is a violation, period. If states violated the Constitution, and a Congress failed to hold those states accountable, then anything they "certified" is void. SCOTUS can certainly rule that what Congress did was unconstitutional. Just because it's not happened before, doesn't mean that it can't be done. SCOTUS has never ruled against a petition for such remedy. They've never heard even heard such a petition, at least not at this level and significance. They have however, ruled on at least 3 dozen election related cases, included federal elections, some of which impacted results.
But as I pointed out, the Court doesn't have enforcement power. In 2000, it would have been interesting had Florida or Congress, or Gore, attempted to disregard SOCTUS' ruling. But nobody did. Play out the hypothetic, of SCOTUS ruled that plaintiff states in question violated the Constitution, ordered that the votes of those Electors be voided, and require state legislatures to appoint new Electors to submit legal votes and have Congess redo the process. SCOTUS rulings on matters of constitutional law are in theory, final. If anyone refuses to abide by a ruling, how does it get enforced? Executive branch, police action. If the DOJ disregards their responsibility, then it falls to the DOD and military to protect the Constitution. But them doing so, would not be "mutiny" in the same way that refusing to comply with an unconstitutional law would not a criminal act. If an individual unlawfully tries to hold office, they have no authority and are not owed any allegiance. It's only mutiny if a LAWFUL authority is disobeyed.
Military and all public officials take an oath to defend the Constitution, first and foremost, not to obey a usurper.
I guess I'd like to drill down on this part. My contention is that SCOTUS has no authority to override the legislatures' appointments, especially when those legislatures themselves made no serious effort to revoke consent to those appointments. In this particular case, the state legislatures have a higher constitutional authority than anything the Supreme Court could say.
And frankly, I would find it outrageous if SCOTUS could willy nilly invalidate electoral votes. Think of a hypothetical in which a lawsuit alleged that minority voting rights had been disproportionately violated because of voter ID.
You are correct that state legislatures are allowed to choose the electors, and Congress is allowed to certify the electoral votes, but that presupposes all sides have followed the Constitution in doing so. Otherwise, their actions were not properly conducted within the Constitution and therefore are not binding. SCOTUS does get to determine if something is constitutional. If SCOTUS decides that an election violated the equal protection clause of 14th Amendment, then the fact that Congress or a state certified it is meaningless, because the whole process is already unconstitutional even before the certification. Indeed, this is exactly the argument SCOTUS used in Bush v. Gore in 2000. So it is not willy nilly invalidating electoral votes. It is invalidating a result specifically because the process used violated the highest law of the land.
In your example, if minority voting rights genuinely had been disproportionately violated due to voter ID, in violation of the 14th Amendment, and that violation demonstrably changed the outcome of the election, then SCOTUS would not only have the right but also the duty to correct the problem. We have arrived at this point in time today specifically because SCOTUS vitiated their oath to uphold the Constitution.
So, no, they never override a legislature's appointments. They simply rule that the legislature never legally appointed anyone in this circumstance because the procedure they used violated the Constitution. Then, they can offer remedies on how to correct the illegal action.