2016 election and rightful winner - can the Marks vs Stinson ruling be applied

[iluvtennis]

Link to tweet

-----
Marks versus Stinson was an elections tampering case that removed the illegitimate office holder and replaced them with the lawful winner - http://www.leagle.com/decision/199489219F3d873_1759/MARKS%20v.%20STINSON

[Jonny Appleseed]

1. Trump's approval rating would need to be under 5 to avoid civil war in that case

Remember that republicans still irrationally hate Hillary Clinton.

[Jim Lane]

2. No, it can't. Clearly distinguishable.

The general principle -- for choosing a Pennsylvania state legislator or for choosing Presidential electors -- is that the office goes to the person who got the most votes. In Marks v. Stinson, the ruling was that the candidate who had initially been certified as the winner had not actually gotten the most votes. In the states Trump carried, resulting in the election of 306 electors who supported him, those electors actually did get the most votes, AFAIK. Marks v. Stinson would apply only if there were clear evidence to undercut that conclusion, such as proof that voting machines were hacked or, as in that case, that fraudulent absentee ballots were cast.

[iluvtennis]

3. Thank you for the info.

[Warren DeMontague]

4. There are only two clear ways Hillary Clinton could become the President.

One, if she runs and wins in 2020, or two, if she runs for the House of Representatives in 2018, we win the majority and she is installed as Speaker, and Trump or Pence or whover is impeached along with the respective VP.

Neither is terribly likely, I think. Time to move on.

[Jim Lane]

5. Minor correction: The Speaker doesn't need to be a House member

Of course, with or without her running for the House, the whole scenario is indeed wildly unlikely. As you say, time to move on -- for Hillary's admirers and for her detractors.