"I am waiting for the pilot dropping out of the sky to convince people that Trump lies."

No need. Those that will not admit Trump lies would not see "the pilot" in front of their face.

In the Presidential race, here is the latest: Electoral College voting is underway today (Monday, Dec. 14). The Wisconsin Supreme Court this morning rejected the Republican challenge to the outcome there - albeit only 4-3. The U.S. Supreme Court's rejection of the case presented by the Texas Attorney General was based on the State's lack of standing. We know from a 2000 case named Bush v. Gore that Presidential candidates have standing. So, Trump and Pence could yet file their own case - although the voting in the Electoral College is making the real steal by Trump and Pence less likely. But anyone who tells you IT IS OVER, sadly, is incorrect.

Gary,

Didn't the Bush v. Gore decision state within it that it was a one time act? I am about to use a non-primary source called Wikipedia seen here (Web Link But it does contain direct resources regarding the footnotes indicated with a [XX]

Limitation to present circumstances

Some critics of the decision argue that the majority seemed to seek refuge from their own logic[57][58] in the following sentence in the majority opinion: "Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities."[59] The Court's defenders argued that this was a reasonable precaution against the possibility that the decision might be read over-broadly,[60] arguing that in the short time available it would not be appropriate to attempt to craft language spelling out in greater detail how to apply the holding to other cases. Critics, however, interpreted the sentence as stating that the case did not set precedent in any way and could not be used to justify any future court decision, and some suggested that this was evidence the majority realized its holding was untenable.[61] Regardless of whether the majority intended the decision to be precedential, it has been cited by several federal courts in election cases,[62][63][64][65][66] as well as by a lawyer for a Republican congressional candidate during legal arguments coincident with the 2020 United States Presidential Election.[67]"

Granted he may file another lawsuit, but it would appear that it would be a waste of time and money just to avoid recognition of his LOSS of a fight?

The Coffin door is closed and is lowering into the ground, right?

This president has done significant PERMENANT damage to our country and the constitution, it will take years to fix.

This whining is like the Trump supporters who keep creating law suits despite the inevitable. For Trump as well as those people who are against Measure C, simply take the hint, you lost. Tough pill to swallow but time to suck it up and move on.

I only stated that the Presidential candidates have standing - unlike the State of Texas. That much is clear from Bush v. Gore. A California attorney representing Trump filed a petition to intervene in the Texas case, but when the Texas case was rejected for lack of standing, all of the other petitions in the case became - and were denied as - moot. The attorney could have filed a petition creating a separate case - and still could file a separate case. There are 6 Republicans on the 9-member U.S. Supreme Court. Trump's lawyer(s) will probably go back to that court. The vote of the Electoral College has reduced Trump's chance of stealing another term. But there is still time for plenty of monkey-business.

Gary,

Am I right in understanding that "standing" alone cannot warrant action?

In order to have a proper lawsuit, you also must have a "cause of action"?

This has been the failure of every action so far regarding Trump, he has no "cause of action" for the courts to proceed, thus his cases get dismissed.

But let him continue to live in his world of "grievances" and making his LOSS excusable because he "DIDN'T" lose, right?