No, they are challenging the validity of the election and have so far failed. This is an ongoing process. You don't get to declare it a one-and-done just because you don't like that it's happening.
To quote Justice robert Jackson on the nature of the Supreme Court, "We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final."
I agree with you int hat I think people should have a chance to deploy their arguments but you need to bear in mind that there are a lot of people who are willing and able to resort to force in place of argument.
But the challengers have not proven themselves to be honest/trustworthy players so far. They go on camera and claim to have seen "massive fraud" but so far have presented no compelling evidence to the courts, just rambling confused arguments that judges have thrown out...
There are many cases being presented in the courts, by many plaintiffs. I'd be surprised if there weren't some frivolous ones in there. That doesn't mean they all are, and we can't know until they are presented. If your argument is simply "No good case has been made yet, therefore no good case can be made," well, I don't think anyone with sound reasoning skills will agree with that.
No good case has been made yet, out of a hundred cases. To believe that a good case could be made but they simply didn't is to believe in a ridiculously high level of incompetence of the best minds the president could assemble. It's extremely strong evidence that no good case could be made. It's not 100% but nothing is 100%.
No, your argument requires that we ignore the fact that good cases may take time to develop.
Consider the Voter Integrity Fund by Matt Braynard. It's one of the more convincing arguments I've heard to date, and involved making many thousands of phone calls, analyzing the resulting data, generating reports, and collecting sworn testimony. All that didn't happen overnight, and they didn't begin immediately after the election.
>I'd be surprised if there weren't some frivolous ones in there.
But the frivolous ones are being made by a team of "presidential" "lawyers"...
> If your argument is simply "No good case has been made yet, therefore no good case can be made"
That's not my argument, nice effort trying to use your powers of deduction, but I'd take it back to the supplier and tell them it's defective.
> we can't know until they are presented.
So should we give Team Total Landscaping all the time they'd like?
I would bet some money that there was at least 1 fraudulent vote during the whole election. I would bet more money that there weren't that many fraudulent votes that if they were cancelled it would flip the results and give Trump the win. Trump and Giuliani are screaming "massive fraud", which sounds like they have a good case, but they've shown up to the court empty handed. Some have argued "they're just preparing the very good case", geezus christ that's not how that works, and besides, their time is running out.
If a team of astrophycists from a famous university started screaming "Something's happened to the sun, it won't rise tomorrow", we'd pay attention. If we ask them to show us what data they have, but they refuse, and they just continue yelling shit, we'd start wondering if they're still sane. And if the sun rose tomorrow, we'd be more certain that they've lost the plot. Maybe they'd change their claims, still offering no proof, but if the sun still rose the next day...
If a group of homeless people claimed the same thing, we'd probably laugh and continue with our day. Sadly some people are being fooled by a bunch of "homeless" people, probably willingly because they can't admit to themselves that they've been fooled by conmen.
I agree with you int hat I think people should have a chance to deploy their arguments but you need to bear in mind that there are a lot of people who are willing and able to resort to force in place of argument.