First, this is NOT a Huffington Post Staff Article....this is the section where the HP allows outside writers post their blogs or opinion pieces that they wrote.
Second, he does not say the court can simply do this, he is saying if somewhere down the road, there is PROOF the Russians or anyone, HACKED the VOTES, then there is somewhat of a precedence, that a court could 'install' the other candidate as the winner, or rather uninstall the winner.
HOWEVER the article goes on to say, that this case in Pennsylvania, where the court made this ruling, did NOT have electors involved and a constitutional presidential process for the "what ifs".....and a Presidential election does have means to handle these situations without the courts making the decision.... IT'S JUST A BLOG, don't panic!
Patton Oswalt Reacts To Russian Hacking Revelation With No-Holds-Barred Post | The Huffington Post
The high court’s decision to not interfere with the lower court’s ruling indicates at least some federal legal precedent that high courts may rule the outcome of an election invalid due to fraud or interference. Which is to say, that if after Donald Trump assumes office it is shown that Russian hacking (or any fraud, for that matter) robbed Hillary Clinton of the presidency, there is some legal authority on point that implies courts could seat Clinton instead.
