There’s a lot of noise on social media about litigation over the stolen election. But only a few of those cases actually matter. And they’re not the ones getting the most traction on social media.

And by “matter”, I mean can actually matter in court.

There’s basically two strands of litigation here.

One is intended for conservatives in order to influence Republican legislators at the electoral college level. This isn’t intended to win in a oourt of law, but it’s getting the most attention.

The other is actually a court strategy. It’s getting less attention, but it has better odds. 

The two strands of litigation can also be roughly broken down as challenging the illegalities in how the election was conducted and challenging the illegalities of fraud in the election. The fraud has also gotten the most attention, but is the most difficult to prove as a matter of scale. We’ve seen plenty of evidence that there was fraud, but fraud on a large scale is easy to spot, but its scope makes it very hard to nail down. The illegalities in how the election was conducted, particularly relating to unilateral changes, particularly involving mail-in ballots, were much more blatant and easier to litigate. And one of the bigger cases is coming up.

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., ordered Pennsylvania officials to respond to Rep. Mike Kelly’s election challenge a day earlier than previously scheduled, which will be on the same day known as the safe harbor deadline. 

Kelly, a Republican, is seeking to have the court toss all the state’s mail-in ballots on the grounds that universal, no-excuses mail-in voting is unconstitutional and needs a constitutional amendment to authorize its provisions.

Alito, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, had previously ordered that the state’s lawyers respond to Kelly’s suit by Dec. 9, a day after the safe harbor date, which would mean that Congress cannot challenge any electors already named in accordance with state law. The law frees up states from challenges as long as it settles legal issues and certifies results prior to the Electoral College meeting.

This is still very much an uphill battle. 

The Democrats took the Obamacare and DACA strategy of taking an illegal action and betting that the courts wouldn’t stop them. And once it was implemented, betting again that the courts wouldn’t intervene because the fallout would be too catastrophic.

Governor Wolf in Pennsylvania and other Democrat officials basically said, “Stop us, if you dare.”

Republican litigation before the election was turned back. Now after the election, contemplating throwing out a huge number of mail-in ballots and reversing the results of a presidential election would scare most judges.

And yet this is the central question in this election, which has been obscured by social media noise and media lies.

The Democrats illegally carried out this election. They bet that the courts wouldn’t stop them. Are they going to be proven right? And if so, what does that make America?