Trump says he thinks 2020 election will end up at Supreme Court

[JacksinPA]

Trump hedges on transferring power, says election will end up at Supreme Court

U.S. President Donald Trump declined on Wednesday to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the Nov. 3 election to Democratic rival Joe Biden and said he expected the election battle to end up before the Supreme Court.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he thinks the 2020 election will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that is why it was important to have nine justices.

Trump, speaking at an event at the White House, said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not even have to hold a hearing for the Supreme Court nominee and that the process would go quickly.

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Trump said when asked if a full complement of justices was needed to handle any challenges to the Nov. 3 election between him and Democrat Joe Biden.
==========================================================
This is why he is in such a rush to put a hyper-conservative justice in Ginsburg's spot. So much for democracy. RIP.

 

[99percenter]

I feel like all this might work and trump will succeed in stealing the election.

 

[BlueTex]

Trump hedges on transferring power, says election will end up at Supreme Court

U.S. President Donald Trump declined on Wednesday to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the Nov. 3 election to Democratic rival Joe Biden and said he expected the election battle to end up before the Supreme Court.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he thinks the 2020 election will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that is why it was important to have nine justices.

Trump, speaking at an event at the White House, said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not even have to hold a hearing for the Supreme Court nominee and that the process would go quickly.

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Trump said when asked if a full complement of justices was needed to handle any challenges to the Nov. 3 election between him and Democrat Joe Biden.
==========================================================
This is why he is in such a rush to put a hyper-conservative justice in Ginsburg's spot. So much for democracy. RIP.

Did anyone ask him to explain why it was okay to have eight justices when he was elected in 2016?

 

[ModernDiogenes]

What Trump actually said is that he would not guarantee the orderly and peaceful transfer of power.

That’s a former giving. If asked the instant answer is, ‘Sure. Yes.’

Trump said he wasn’t sure and put conditions on it that basically stated (paraphrased) ‘If I win it’s not a problem as I’ll be transferring power to myself, but if I lose it’s a rigged system and I can’t promise anything.”

That’s not good.

That only Romney immediately responded with, “That’t not appropriate or acceptable.”, puts Romney in a good light but points to just how much fear of Trump has corroded the Republican brand. It should have been a whiplash of. “Wait a minute, Trump’s our guy and all but none of us stand behind that comment. I’m sure he’ll be retracting that soon.”

That didn’t happen, so not good.

 

[Moderate Right]

Trump hedges on transferring power, says election will end up at Supreme Court

U.S. President Donald Trump declined on Wednesday to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the Nov. 3 election to Democratic rival Joe Biden and said he expected the election battle to end up before the Supreme Court.

www.reuters.com

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he thinks the 2020 election will end up at the U.S. Supreme Court, adding that is why it was important to have nine justices.

Trump, speaking at an event at the White House, said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, would not even have to hold a hearing for the Supreme Court nominee and that the process would go quickly.

“I think this will end up in the Supreme Court and I think it’s very important that we have nine justices,” Trump said when asked if a full complement of justices was needed to handle any challenges to the Nov. 3 election between him and Democrat Joe Biden.
==========================================================
This is why he is in such a rush to put a hyper-conservative justice in Ginsburg's spot. So much for democracy. RIP.

He could be right. With the mail in balloting initiative and all of it's myriad of problems, and Hillary already telling Biden not to concede a close election, it could very well wind up going to the supreme court. If it does, we don't need 8 justices. There are supposed to be 9 for a reason.

 

[99percenter]

He could be right. With the mail in balloting initiative and all of it's myriad of problems, and Hillary already telling Biden not to concede a close election, it could very well wind up going to the supreme court. If it does, we don't need 8 justices. There are supposed to be 9 for a reason.

Why do courts ever need to be involved? They got involved in 2000 but that was a razor close election. 2020 is expected to be a runaway for Biden

 

[Rexedgar]

He could be right. With the mail in balloting initiative and all of it's myriad of problems, and Hillary already telling Biden not to concede a close election, it could very well wind up going to the supreme court. If it does, we don't need 8 justices. There are supposed to be 9 for a reason.

Considering that there were only eight in 2016, your position is flawed.

 

[noonereal]

I feel like all this might work and trump will succeed in stealing the election.

I don't know why it would not work.

Trump will remain president and the average American will think he won the election and that the left are but sore losers.

Truth and facts have neatly been buried alive under Trump.

 

[BlueTex]

He could be right. With the mail in balloting initiative and all of it's myriad of problems, and Hillary already telling Biden not to concede a close election, it could very well wind up going to the supreme court. If it does, we don't need 8 justices. There are supposed to be 9 for a reason.

Why was the risk fine in 2016?

 

[Taylor]

Why do courts ever need to be involved? They got involved in 2000 but that was a razor close election. 2020 is expected to be a runaway for Biden

And 2016 was expected to be a runaway for... oops!

 

[Casper]

I feel like all this might work and trump will succeed in stealing the election.

You believe trump can challenge the entire election even though he lost both the popular and EC vote and get away with it?
Not gonna happen and be allowed to stand in the US, the People would Revolt and nothing could save him from them.

 

[Taylor]

Why was the risk fine in 2016?

What does that have to do with Trump?

 

[Casper]

Why do courts ever need to be involved? They got involved in 2000 but that was a razor close election. 2020 is expected to be a runaway for Biden

Trump will challenge the results no matter how badly he loses, count on it.

 

[BlueTex]

What does that have to do with Trump?

Did you support the GOP senate not filling the seat in 2016?

 

[99percenter]

And 2016 was expected to be a runaway for... oops!

Not it wasn't. It was always expected to be close.

 

[99percenter]

Trump will challenge the results no matter how badly he loses, count on it.

with a strong majority in the SC, he might succeed is stopping votes from being counted. Think 2000 except a few votes prevented from being counted, it will be millions.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why do courts ever need to be involved? They got involved in 2000 but that was a razor close election. 2020 is expected to be a runaway for Biden

If it is such a runaway then why has Hillary told Biden not to concede a close election? But, if you are correct about it being a runaway then with the virus and all the left don't really need to be energized to get out and vote. Stay home and watch the results election night.

 

[Taylor]

Did you support the GOP senate not filling the seat in 2016?

Did you support the Dem senate not filling seats in the 2000's?

 

[Moderate Right]

Considering that there were only eight in 2016, your position is flawed.

But the 2016 was a no contest election. Hillary hadn't even prepared a concession speech. There was no way that Trump could win.

 

[Moderate Right]

Why was the risk fine in 2016?

What risk? Hillary had the election in the bag. There was no way that Trump could win. Hillary didn't even bother writing a concession speech.

 

[Taylor]

Not it wasn't. It was always expected to be close.

Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump

Loading…

www.independent.co.uk

 

[99percenter]

Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump

Loading…

www.independent.co.uk

Hillary was expected to win, but no one was expecting a landslide.

 

[BlueTex]

Did you support the Dem senate not filling seats in the 2000's?

On the supreme court? Care to share when that happened?

 

[ludin]

Considering that there were only eight in 2016, your position is flawed.

Not really. however it could have been an issue with the clinton not accepting the election results.
even to this day she hasn't accepted the election results and is not encouraging joe biden to not accept
the election results.

i bet you are just morally outraged.

 

[Taylor]

On the supreme court? Care to share when that happened?

Why does that matter? Did you support it or not?