I’ve already opined on the retard level of this case. Feel free to read my post history if so inclined.

If I lie to myself and tell myself this case rests on solid legal grounds, this post is totally wrong. The issue in this case before the Supreme Court is NOT “if there is no penalty for breaking the oath of office, then why have it at all.” It is whether or not the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims. IF SCOTUS heard this case, that is the only issue that would get decided.

The claims for relief arise out of contract law and tort law. So the issue is whether contract and/or tort law govern what Congress did when certifying the election. No serious legal scholar would argue it does. And that is why these grifters have been booted from the courts 3 times, and have asked to get kicked out a 4th time.