No merit to the theory that a quick RBG replacement is needed for election day court battles. Here's why. (1/x)

First, and perhaps most definitively, is that with RGB's passing, the court sits at a 5/3 ideological split, in favor of the right. This is starkly different than Scalia's death, which caused a 4/4 split. (2/x)

But also very important is that the whole idea that the country is bound to face any pivotal post-election court battles is pretty farcical, and seems to mostly stem from the FALSE idea that the judiciary exists to hear and settle general complaints and whines. (3/x)

The pivotal legal issues surrounding this election are pre-election day questions that are being heard now. Whether to mail ballots now, whether to stay post office reductions, etc. These likely won't reach SCOTUS at all, because of time constraints. (4/x)

But, if they do reach SCOTUS, it will due to emergency allowances to get them there NOW. As in, before this month ends. Because SCOTUS doesn't have a time machine. Theoretically, SCOTUS can order mail machines reinstalled/removed. But they can't order mail unsorted. (5/x)

With very minor exception, elections are state matters, not federal. States conduct elections, states set the laws that govern their elections. Any disputes about RESULTS will be questions of STATE laws, and that's where the battles will take place. (6/x)

Right now, you're thinking "But Bush v Gore!" And that actually demonstrates the above point. Bush v Gore was mainly an equal protection case where they found FL could *not* use different sets of rules for different counties, which was decided 7/2, btw. (7/x)

Also needs to be remembered, Bush v. Gore dealt with RECOUNTS. A recount is a tangible, actionable, thing. And much of the controversy surrounded the notorious "hanging chads" and how to interpret them. Again, fully tangible things and ACTUAL controversies. (8/x)

Courts don't exist to give people a forum because they have a sad. Sure, if POTUS loses, he can try to go into state courts and beg they summarily indulge his crocodile tears. But they'll promptly laugh him out. It will be DOA. (9/x)

To try challenging the results POST election, the campaign would need to present an actual controversy, and demand actionable relief. "Pick me, pick me!" doesn't cut it in court. Not even close. (10/x)

Courts don't give one single care what you, or anyone else, thinks is a fair result. They only care about fair procedures. So once an election has occurred, there's next to nothing that can be brought into courts, other than request recounts, and that can't change history (11/x)

To drive this all home, look at a recent example: Georgia's 2018 Gubernatorial election. The controversial aspects all occurred BEFORE election day, with then Secretary of State Kemp's office *accidentally* purging over 300k voter registrations. (12/x)

Once the election happened, there was nothing that could be done to undo the alleged injury. Same will be true if POTUS loses in Nov. So ignore all the media sensationalism about court battles and refusing to accept the results of the election. His consent is not required. (13/x)

If he loses, the worst he could do stage a personal sit-in of the Oval Office. Which would be absolutely terrible for America's dignity. But the offense would be promptly removed come 12:01 pm. (/end)