You are following Trump's pipe dream. Read below to understand better what happens in this case if it even does go to the Supreme Court. It is more of the same. Nothing.
The 21-page ruling by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was a complete repudiation of Mr. Trump’s effort to halt Pennsylvania’s certification process and a full-throated affirmation of a decision last Saturday by Judge Matthew W. Brann of Federal District Court in Williamsport, Penn., who dealt the Trump campaign its initial defeat in the case.
“Free, fair elections are the lifeblood of our democracy,” Judge Stephanos Bibas, a Trump appointee, wrote on behalf of the appeals court. “Charges of unfairness are serious. But calling an election unfair does not make it so. Charges require specific allegations and then proof. We have neither here.”
Moments after the three-judge panel from the Third Circuit ruled, Jenna Ellis, one of Mr. Trump’s lawyers, wrote on Twitter that she and Rudolph W. Giuliani, who is leading the postelection legal effort, planned to appeal to the United States Supreme Court. In her Twitter post, Ms. Ellis accused “the activist judicial machinery in Pennsylvania” of covering up “allegations of massive fraud” despite the fact that all three judges on the panel were appointed by Republicans.But given the narrow way the Trump campaign structured its appeal, it would not get much even if the U.S. Supreme Court granted its proposed request to reverse the Third Circuit. Mr. Trump’s lawyers had asked the appellate court only for permission to submit a revised version of its original complaint to Judge Brann. If the Supreme Court abided by the strict terms of the appeals, it could do no more than return the case to Judge Brann’s court for further action.
In a letter to the Third Circuit filed earlier this week, lawyers for the Trump campaign had suggested that the appeals court could, on its own, reverse the certification of Pennsylvania’s vote — though they stopped short of formally requesting such a move.
But the appeals court shot down that suggestion too, saying the campaign’s arguments for effectively undoing Pennsylvania’s election had “no merit” and would be “drastic and unprecedented.”