> You are talking about a president that is not accepting the result of a democrating election, exactly like he announced 4 years ago, and the republicans almost fully cooperating with him in trying to destroy the democratic system. That's way past the point of platitutes like politicians and good vs bad liars. This is Weimar.

Oh, please. Following the constitutional process for disputing an election is Weimar now? Could this be more Godwin's law?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/arizona-gop-asks-fol... - This is not the constitutional process for disputing an election. There is no constitutional processor for disputing a fair election. And this literally reflects the instability of the end phase of Weimar.

Sometimes reality just reaches that point where Godwin's law references are not funny anymore.

> This is not the constitutional process for disputing an election. There is no constitutional processor for disputing a fair election. And this literally reflects the instability of the end phase of Weimar.

Therein lies the rub. If a court is not the venue, then what is the venue?

> If a court is not the venue, then what is the venue?

I think the parent poster was referring to the link they posted which says:

"Arizona GOP asks followers if they'd die to overturn Trump loss".

That seems to go well beyond a court challenge.

There's stupid on both sides. For example:

> In a three-minute video posted to her Facebook page, the Democrat from Detroit said "This is just a warning to you Trumpers... be careful. Tread lightly. We ain't playin' with you..." > Johnson then added "And for those of you who are soldiers... you know how to do it. Do it right. Be in order. Make them pay." [0]

[0]: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/make-them-pay-michigan-l...

Pressuring state lawmakers to throw out the outcome of an election because you lost is the "constitutional process" now?

Filing frivolous lawsuits based on not one shred of evidence other than "too many Dems voted!" is the "constitutional process" now?

If you think this is the constitutional process for disputing an election, you're mistaken.

Trump is arguing that (a) SCOTUS should (b) order several states to have their legislatures appoint new electors (c) on the basis of a suit brought by Texas against several other states (d) alleging that state court rulings modifying electoral law (in accordance with state statutes) are unconstitutionally overruling state legislatures' ability to determine their electors. (See http://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163234/20201...)

There are 4 separate elements in that assertion that are each unprecedented in terms of disputing an election. SCOTUS is not the venue for election disputes; state courts are. No one has ever before argued that state legislators can appoint electors in lieu of popular vote, and as some briefs have pointed out, several state statutes (including some of the states involved here!) expressly forbid that. No state has ever before tried to challenge the election procedures of another state. And the legal basis for doing all of this is itself without precedent.

This is not normal.

There is no constitutional process for disputing an election, there are only rules on the electing process itself. This is uncharted territory and will remain so unless the supreme court creates a new precedent.