It’s fairly obvious to me (and maybe others—I’ve only skimmed the thread so far) that the single sharpest arrow in Trump’s quiver is the Supreme Court. I may have blown this horn too hard for some people’s taste (see here: A terrifying thought about the Supreme Court (long) for my anticipation of their crazy ruling on Trump’s claim to absolute immunity). Still, developments subsequent to that thread have shown that Supreme Court is far more dangerous and evil-minded than many gave them credit for. They may well prove the extent of their powers again in the inevitable case of Trump’s election claims.
At least two Justices, Alito and Thomas, are in his pocket and will support his claims whether they be to the Presidency, or to ownership of the planet Neptune. Alito and Thomas are the definition of MAGAnuts, corrupt and eager to validate any reading of the law that Trump needs, and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, and Roberts are at the very least willing to consider Alito’s and Thomas’s MAGA-uber-alles positions as more valid than Sotomayor’s, Jackson’s, and Kagan’s opinions. And only three of those four Justices are needed for a 5-4 decision affirming Trump’s claims of election fraud.
In this scenario, a little less loopy than my previous one which was derided as “unrealistic,” “paranoid,” and a “faux Gish gallop of nonsense,” Trump picks off enough states where he lost that he finds fraud in, the state courts uphold his claim (or not—it doesn’t matter, because he can appeal any adverse rulings) and the issues are decided by the Supreme Court. They needn’t even rule that he won in the states he lost in—all that is needed is the Supremes rule that the fraud claims are murky enough to have the election decided, as the Constitution says, in the House of Representatives, where the crazy rules say that each state (not each Rep.) gets one vote. Since there are more states (26, I think) with GOP majorities, the House will then rule 26-24 that Trump is the winner.
All legal, all by the book, all very dangerous.
I hope I’m wrong, but let me ask you this: do you doubt that Alito and Thomas view electing Trump by any means necessary as preferable to Harris-Walz? And do you doubt that three other Justices could be persuadable that sending the election to the House would be the best way to settle fraud claims?