Indeed, this is a procedural, Constitutional matter. However, I think his argument about Congress being required to hear, investigate and rule on objections, is a weak one to make, especially given that Congress has no Electoral adjudication power under the Constitution. Doesn't matter what 3 USC (fka the ECA 1887) says if the statute itself is unconstitutional. The real criminals liable here, are the state officials who certified unlawful elections and illegally appointed Electors who didn't actually win any elections, and the judges who have refused to adjudicate the cases challenging the unlawful elections.
As to whether review will be granted, I highly doubt it. SCOTUS will argue "lack of standing." The legitimate plaintiffs are the Electors who had their elections stolen (not Trump, technically). Unfortunately, because SCOTUS wrongly ruled in Chiafalo, precedent has been set that will destroy our Electoral system unless remedied.
That is what I thought as well but it seems anything is possible.
At the time Jay Sekolow argued that this could go either way and set a precedent. And it did set a precedent which I think has caused a lot of difficulty moving forward due to how the SC ruled at the time.
Indeed, this is a procedural, Constitutional matter. However, I think his argument about Congress being required to hear, investigate and rule on objections, is a weak one to make, especially given that Congress has no Electoral adjudication power under the Constitution. Doesn't matter what 3 USC (fka the ECA 1887) says if the statute itself is unconstitutional. The real criminals liable here, are the state officials who certified unlawful elections and illegally appointed Electors who didn't actually win any elections, and the judges who have refused to adjudicate the cases challenging the unlawful elections.
As to whether review will be granted, I highly doubt it. SCOTUS will argue "lack of standing." The legitimate plaintiffs are the Electors who had their elections stolen (not Trump, technically). Unfortunately, because SCOTUS wrongly ruled in Chiafalo, precedent has been set that will destroy our Electoral system unless remedied.
How do constituents, and legal voters, not have standing to demand their representatives investigate a matter?
Not that I necessarily agree with it, but legal magick š
That is what I thought as well but it seems anything is possible.
At the time Jay Sekolow argued that this could go either way and set a precedent. And it did set a precedent which I think has caused a lot of difficulty moving forward due to how the SC ruled at the time.