[Hoot Gibson]

No, he actually does not make a valid point. The lawsuits that Trump and his allies filed were filed in the courts that had jurisdiction. In many cases, they had no option but to file first in state court. For example, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court changed the deadline for accepting absentee ballots, which was contrary to the deadline set by the state legislature. Pennsylvania's Supreme Court is elected and the decision to override state law was decided along a party line vote. There decision left the court open to a federal challenge because the plaintiffs alleged that the PA Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court ultimately declined to rule on that lawsuit on the basis that it was moot - the election was over and the Court's decision was not made until April.

Plaintiffs that bring lawsuits to challenge election results cannot ask a state court to rule on violations of voters' constitutional rights. In some cases, plaintiffs have to establish that they have exhausted options to have state courts address their grievances before a federal court will accept the case. It is clear that the U.S. Supreme Court believed that the state legislatures should have been the driving force behind appealing election results. The Pennsylvania case, in particular, seemed very strong but the USSC's decision to delay a decision on whether to accept the case until it was too late to matter demonstrated its reluctance to decide the election.

In other words, the alleged violations of election law and constitutional rights drive plaintiffs' decisions about where to file lawsuits - not the preference of the plaintiffs for one jurisdiction over another. Federal courts are not going to hear cases alleging violations of state law.

LOL, typing at the same time. ^^

My comment apparently flew right over your heads.

So your statement declaring your lack of understanding of the matter at hand, causes you to sort of stay out of it. Yet you align yourself with vector (whose on-line persona to date, would have required him to have had a brain transplant to have written the surprisingly lucid post in the first place).

But in your professed shortfall and inexplicable agreement with vector, we are to feel put upon intellectually as if we are the ones who don't get it? Let me think about that one for a few minutes.

Nevermind guys, I apologize if it came off as an intellectual cut.  That wasn't really my intent, well not this time anyway.

My response was not intended as a cut either, at least not one directed at you. I took some time to articulate why, when you stand with vector, you are putting yourself on slippery footing. Trump did nothing that any other candidate of either party would have done, had they been convinced that the election had been rigged and stolen from them. Those who agree that the election was stolen numbers in the tens of millions, so to dismiss all of us as kooks without taking time to understand the issues that Trump and his allies raised is very short sighted, IMO.

To simply repeat that no court ever found the evidence presented convincing, when nearly all of the cases were decided on the basis of a lack of standing, as vector and his two sidekicks have done for months, is very disingenuous. As courts have examined the evidence presented, as has they have done in Michigan, Georgia, and New Hampshire, they have found enough issues to allow lawsuits and audits to proceed. In response, Democrats have attempted to discredit the limited forensic audits that have been done by disparaging the character of the auditors.