I've been thinking about the SC ruling and why the case was not taken. My take on it is that the SC usually rules on things that are unclear in the law. In the election case, the law is clear. It just needs to be applied properly. The precedent already exists that says that an election cannot be won by fraud. Where fraud exists and the candidate can be tied to it, that candidate must be eliminated from the running.

The other consideration may be that they want us to bring a better case.

There seems to be a schism in the internet today. In addition to being slow, there are a couple of sites I tried to view that I KNOW are good, but they were inaccessible today.