Assuming that the claim Trump's attorneys are making (that Trump actually won more than 70 million votes and got over 400 electoral votes based on the data from the server they got in germany) are true, that would be an absolutely incredible scandal.
They definitely need an overwhelming amount of evidence to prove it though (and for the supreme court to take up the case for constitutional reasons). Supposedly they have that evidence because Trump definitely hasn't given up yet, despite a few courts denying to hear the case.
If the supreme court takes up the case to investigate, then it's highly likely that they do actually have that evidence.
Just have to wait and see what happens.
@aminewatcher either way, it's out of my hands and the best thing I can do for myself is live my life as best as possible regardless of which arbitrary rich old man takes office.
@aminewatcher The Supreme court does not consider evidence or the validity of a case. They only seek to find constitutional violations or legal precedent that a lower court denied the plaintiff. The case itself is not what is being heard at a scotus level.
For example if you get to the supreme court on murder charge even if the evidence that you are a murderer is 100% absolutely clear it has no bearing or consideration int he supreme court case and in no way effects if you win or not. Instead you'd be arguing something like "A lower court did not provide me with my right to an attorney and thus my case was not considered in a constitutional manner"
so there would have to be some violation in the lower courts handling of the case for the higher courts to consider it and it would not be a weighing of evidence itself.
@freemo I agree for most cases, but in this case, involving an incredibly important and visible constitutional process, they really do need to take the amount of evidence into consideration, specifically because they don't want to risk it being a situation where they could be said to be "choosing the president", which would violate the separation of powers.
Certainly it more than likely needs to go through the lower courts first, but the supreme court isn't going to take any appeal without having so much evidence that they have no choice but to take the case.
The supreme court really needs to be careful with this situation because if they just get involved in election process appeals willy nilly, they will be seen to be stepping outside of the authority of their branch.
@aminewatcher the point is not that they wont hear evidence, the point is a supreme court is not considering the question you think they are considering.
A supreme court case would **not** be considering if trump legitimately wont he presidency and was cheated out of it by a scandal. The lower courts heard that (or considered hearing it and rejected it), appeals are not to have the original case reheard at a higher level, that's not how appeal processes work, it is to call into question the constitutional process of the lower court to see if the plaintiff was given due process or not. that is all they are allowed to consider.
Obviously they **do** consider any evidence relevant to that question, but it wouldnt and isnt the evidence or question you are referring to
@freemo That doesn't make much sense.
The supreme court definitely rules on far more than just whether or not the process of lower courts was followed properly. The supreme court very obviously itself gives rulings directly on the cases appealed to it, not simply on the processes of the lower courts. Yes, it's rulings set direct precedent for the lower courts rulings, but that doesn't mean that every ruling the supreme court makes is only about how the court process should work.
I feel like we're perhaps talking about two entirely different things and not just understanding each other?
@aminewatcher Keep in mind "due process" != "process".
They are not just ruling on process, that is not what I said, (or atleast didnt mean to). They are ruling on due process. In other words, all they are ruling on is if the court and the law applied in the ruling of the lower court was in line with the constitutional rules they are required to hear cases under. They can not actually dictate the ruling for the lower court however, but they can throw out of invalidate a lower courts ruling.
For example if a murderer is found guilty and gets 20 years and managed to avoid the death sentance, and it goes to the supreme court, the supreme court can not and will not consider if the person commited murder, nor will they be able to consider if the person should get the death penalty. The court can really only do one of two things.. uphold the lower courts ruling as is, or invalidate the lower courts ruling and let the person go free (or get a reduced sentance if only some out of several charges are dropped). Butt he question of "did he murder x" is not even being considered.
Its the same here, the question that is originally presented to the lower court to be heard is not and can not be the question heard by the higher court, they will only and can only considered the lower court was in violation and if such invalidate and/or create new precedence for that court.
"They can not actually dictate the ruling for the lower court however, but they can throw out of invalidate a lower courts ruling."
Ah, okay. Got it. That's what you meant.
"Butt he question of "did he murder x" is not even being considered."
In one sense yes, in another sense no. They are considering whether or not the ruling made by the lower court is valid, which should in many cases require, at the very least, a consideration of whether or not the evidence given was properly considered.
But I guess I do understand now what you are saying.
Perhaps the supreme court is not the correct court of focus on for this case.
@aminewatcher Sorry for all those typos.
They are considering whether or not the ruling made by the lower court is valid, which should in many cases require, at the very least, a consideration of whether or not the evidence given was properly considered.
In a sense you are correct here but probably not in the sense most people would think. Let me give a hypothetical.
Lets use the murder example again for simplicity. Let us say someone is declared guilty for murder, and yet there is a video take of the guy across town in a minimart security camera that proves he was no where near the scene of the murder. Lets presume in the consideration of the supreme court justices, if they were to see the video, that they would be thuroughly convinced the person on the video looked exactly like the defendant and their personal opinion is that the evidence is obvious that the dude is innocent.
In such a scenario that would not get the defendant off the hook, because as I said the supreme court isn’t considering the evidence. or if it was given proper consideration in that sense.
However what they might consider is, for example, if the jury when considering the evidence violated the rules of course. For example lets say one jury member during jury selection was asked “Have you ever expressed the opinion that the life of a black man is worth less than yourself?” in a bid to try to probe if they were racist (lets assume it was a black person who was accused).. and lets say that a jury member answered no and thus made it onto the jury. But evidence shows that the jury did, in fact, on many equations express such racist comments and there is further evidence that while the jury deliberated that the juror repeatedly suggested that the defendant must be guilty because of
In this case the higher court would rule, as you suggested, on the fact that the evidence wasnt given due consideration. But again not in the straight forward way you or others may think. In other words the scotus does not retry, they do not reconsider the evidence and their opinion of the strength of the evidence, no matter how strong, does not (or at least should not) effect their decision. What they are judging is if the individuals in the lower court followed the rules, more or less.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.