PropertyValue
?:author
?:datePublished
  • 2017-02-24 (xsd:date)
?:headline
  • Is the Supreme Court Deciding Whether to Nullify the 2016 Election? (en)
?:inLanguage
?:itemReviewed
?:mentions
?:reviewBody
  • Well into the latter part of 2017, social media users continued to circulate an image touting a petition seeking to overturn the results of the 2016 U.S. presidential election due to purported Russian interference, even though the information it referenced was long outdated. The advancement of a motion before the U.S. Supreme Court to nullify the presidential 2016 election was covered in an Occupy Democrats article of 23 February 2017: The Occupy Democrats item noted that the referenced court action was a longshot and later indicated that the petition has a 1% chance of even being heard by the court, let alone of being decided favorably for the petitioners. However, news of that petition was mistakenly spread by readers and others in the form of claims holding that the U.S. Supreme Court would definitely soon be considering an action to nullify the results of the 2016 presidential election. Versions of the rumor typically linked to a weighty-sounding 6 January 2017 Writ of Mandamus filed by the three petitioners, who sought relief including enjoinment of the 20 January 2017 inauguration of President Trump. Another widely shared piece of evidence was one hosted on SupremeCourt.gov (16-907) which suggested that the petition was to be distributed for conference on 17 March 2017. That designator was widely interpreted as a tacit indication that the Court had decided the claim had merit and ought to be discussed, but consultancy firm Counsel Press noted in a 2012 blog post that distributed for conference is no specific barometer of a petition's likelihood of being heard: We contacted Counsel Press for further clarification and spoke to Liebman, who reiterated that under 20 percent of distributed petitions even rated discussion during the conferences. Liebman added that the Chief Justice directed the Court to take note of cases they believed merited discussion, and the vast majority of distributed cases didn't rate. He opined that the individuals who filed this petition had a better chance of winning a Powerball lottery than of seeing their petition move forward. Indeed, on 20 March 2017 the petition was listed as having been DENIED by the court. Previous claims about election audits, faithless electors, and similar legal longshots proved popular on social media, but all such efforts died on the vine. (en)
?:reviewRating
rdf:type
?:url