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.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.
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 BidenHe 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.
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.
I feel like all this might work and trump will succeed in stealing the election.
Why was the risk fine in 2016?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.
And 2016 was expected to be a runaway for... oops!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
You believe trump can challenge the entire election even though he lost both the popular and EC vote and get away with it?I feel like all this might work and trump will succeed in stealing the election.
What does that have to do with Trump?Why was the risk fine in 2016?
Trump will challenge the results no matter how badly he loses, count on it.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
What does that have to do with Trump?
Not it wasn't. It was always expected to be close.And 2016 was expected to be a runaway for... oops!
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.Trump will challenge the results no matter how badly he loses, count on it.
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.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
Did you support the Dem senate not filling seats in the 2000's?Did you support the GOP senate not filling the seat in 2016?
But the 2016 was a no contest election. Hillary hadn't even prepared a concession speech. There was no way that Trump could win.Considering that there were only eight in 2016, your position is flawed.
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.Why was the risk fine in 2016?
Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald TrumpNot it wasn't. It was always expected to be close.
Hillary was expected to win, but no one was expecting a landslide.Survey finds Hillary Clinton has ‘more than 99% chance’ of winning election over Donald Trump
On the supreme court? Care to share when that happened?Did you support the Dem senate not filling seats in the 2000's?
Not really. however it could have been an issue with the clinton not accepting the election results.Considering that there were only eight in 2016, your position is flawed.
Why does that matter? Did you support it or not?On the supreme court? Care to share when that happened?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?