The remedy has not been used. By “the remedy” I do NOT mean taking a presidential election case to SCOTUS. I mean the specific grounds of this case and the relief sought.
________

That’s a matter of definition. Actually, Texas offers several remedies. One, throwing it to Congress, has happened twice. Of course, circumstances do not repeat exactly; they never do.

I naturally tend to think of most things as probabilities and act accordingly. I’m not sure how common that approach is, but it seems to be how I am wired.

Because almost nothing has a 0% probability (if I pick a fork up off the table in front of me and release it there is some, small probability it will “fall” up and strike the ceiling) and tend to be lease shocked when unexpected things happen. I suppose, the way I see the world, everything is “expected” it’s more a factor of how many times the experiment is run.

I suppose this makes me a bit cynical, or, perhaps, not vary altruistic, but I find it handy. Also, I’m not sure I can change. I’ve looked at things like this for as long as I can remember.

Without an election to worry about so much, Trump could more easily send in the national guard to restore order.

Why am I the only one giving a percentage chance that Trump wins (now 5%)? For those who study decision analysis, probabilities are treated as measures of information. They’re not “right” or “wrong” — tho 5 out of 6 times the “5%” comes up makes others think that the one giving that estimate should not hired. Sort of like 538 being wrong on polls.

Another thing I like about probabilities of events in the future is that it can become more clear what the argument is about. “If Trump is elected, he will do X”. I don’t believe it – I call it a probability of only 10%. You say 90%? Will you bet $10 on it happening or not in the next year, with 9:1 odds? I pay you $10, almost for sure if you’re right; you’re sure you’re right so you agree to pay $90 if you’re wrong, but since you’re sure you’re right it’s OK…

But yes, when I try to get Dems to bet on actual events, they don’t. But I think about the future in probabilities, all the time. When I’m awake. And thinking about the future. Maybe 30% of my waking time….

I did not understand why Trump’s people didn’t use the same rationale as the Texas case. But, then again I don’t make big bucks developing legal strategies. I would like to believe that knowing they could not get 18 or 20 states on board with them if they went at it, they brilliantly orchestrated the strategy of having a major state initiate the suit. This also bypassed all of the “little courts”. Now the pressure is really on SCOTUS in my opinion. Which, I hasten to add, doesn’t mean they won’t cave.
Everyone knows that all hell will break loose if they rule for Trump, whereas the Trump supporters will pout and grumble–and vow to get better organized next time, if there is a next time— if they go they other way.

The remedy has not been used. By “the remedy” I do NOT mean taking a presidential election case to SCOTUS. I mean the specific grounds of this case and the relief sought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZ-xPkWE2dY&feature=youtu.be

Any thinking person knows that this suit is not about fraud in the ordinary sense of manipulating the vote. This is about unlawfully changing the very nature of the election in the guilty states. There is no question that under existing law the elections were invalid. It only requires that the responsible agency make the formal declaration. The vote totals are irrelevant. The constitution contains a remedy.

I believe that the Trump team went to SCOTUS in advance about the unlawful changes in Pennsylvania, and SCOTUS kicked the can.

I have little confidence in SCOTUS, but it does boggle the mind to think that they would neglect to take up a matter of fundamental national importance that is presented to them in concert by nearly half of the states in the union.

Of course, there’s always gonna be somebody who’s not amused…
https://twitter.com/ZZZJazzy/status/1336849283857846273