In that case, it was a clear frivolous suit. But what if it’s not? They keep promising evidence they claim they have but then when it’s time to present, they’re still gathering it. ??? No choice but to dismiss. Last case, Guliani walks into court and tells the judge, “We don’t have any evidence of fraud, this isn’t about fraud. We just want you to throw out the ballots from Detroit because they shouldn’t count.” No choice but to dismiss.

Again, I want to be hopeful too.

Yeah, Gorsuch ruled against them, but not entirely. He also laid out an avenue that would work. He still has a overly conservative agenda and adheres to an extreme interpretation of the law. He also ruled against civil liberties for primarily LGBTQIA, but that can extend to make pariahs out of anyone. It’s way too vague an opinion laced over too extreme an interpretation of freedom of religion. It’s not going to go well.

That said, if Republicans had better lawyers, things might be different. They’d be undoing every progressive gain of the past 50 years. That is the goal, regardless of who sits in the executive chair. Repaying of nomination will go to party, if not to Trump.

As to your last comment, they would only be held in public derision and scorn by half the population who they already consider beneath contempt. So…? Not sure how that’s going to be much of a deterrent.

I guess time will tell. I hope you’re right, or more right than me.