Options

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1181921232444

Comments

  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,970
    tbergs said:
    Democracy is almost finished here. Come next June, I'm sure SCOTUS will give the GOP full ability to gerrymander and rig elections in their state.


    There is no “common” good in the US anymore. Good luck.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,334
    I think there will those who may seek their demise,  in whatever way is most expeditious.....
    _____________________________________SIGNATURE________________________________________________

    Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
    you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
    memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
    another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
  • Options
    Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    tbergs said:
    Democracy is almost finished here. Come next June, I'm sure SCOTUS will give the GOP full ability to gerrymander and rig elections in their state.


    Remain in Mexico is basically that.

    one president has the authority to make a new rule, then 4 justices say the next president doesn’t have the authority to change the rule back to where it was 
    before 

    you nearly have a majority of the court saying democratically elected democratic presidents have less authority than democratically elected Republican presidents 
  • Options
    tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 39,368
    mickeyrat said:
    So if they can take away the EPA's power can they take away my taxes too?  I'd be alright with that...

    no no no. YOUR taxes are used to pay for the rich fucks cuts.....
    How do you know he’s not a rich fuck?
    I'm just a Fuck, TYVM.  Asshole preferably though.
  • Options
    OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,839
    1995 Milwaukee     1998 Alpine, Alpine     2003 Albany, Boston, Boston, Boston     2004 Boston, Boston     2006 Hartford, St. Paul (Petty), St. Paul (Petty)     2011 Alpine, Alpine     
    2013 Wrigley     2014 St. Paul     2016 Fenway, Fenway, Wrigley, Wrigley     2018 Missoula, Wrigley, Wrigley     2021 Asbury Park     2022 St Louis     2023 Austin, Austin
  • Options
    tbergstbergs Posts: 9,318
    OnWis97 said:
    Yeah, that's the WaPo story I posted about with pretty much the same sentiment. One party system here we come. Maybe if records are kept, people can point to this time as the beginning of the end.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224

    Another day, another dollar from the draconian court. Anyone thinking this is like any other June with these unbelievable decisions, please reconsider, as they continue to redefine existing law and the immateriality of stare decisis. This is an out of control court legislating and executing from the bench, taking over all three branches of government 

    ..

    Justice Elena Kagan, who was joined by Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer in her dissent, called the decision “frightening.” “Whatever else this Court may know about, it does not have a clue about how to address climate change,” Kagan wrote. “And let’s say the obvious: The stakes here are high. Yet the Court today prevents congressionally authorized agency action to curb power plants’ carbon dioxide emissions. The Court appoints itself—instead of Congress or the expert agency—the decisionmaker on climate policy. I cannot think of many things more frightening.”
    I think it’s to cost Brandon the elections. “Stay in Mexico” ruling drives indies to repubs and the EPA ruling drives indies to third party, green or to stay home. Dig baby dig and open borders. Yay!

    mrussel1 said:


    Weird how the site superimposed Hal’s comment as I tried to quote it below, but I think his diabolical interpretation is on target.



  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224
    edited June 2022
    Holy crap it just got so worse. They agreed to hear the fringe extremist independent legislature theory case.

    they pull a 6-3 on that and freedom from tyranny of the minority is over. Extremists come up with a theory about electoral colleges and it gets taken by this court

    this continues to be a June unlike any other (sorry Jim Nance). Zero good news from this court, not even that Mexico ruling.


    https://www.politico.com/news/2022/06/30/supreme-court-gop-independent-legislature-theory-reshape-elections-00043471

    Edit,
    oh sorry, I see it was brought up above under a NC tag.
    Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224
    edited June 2022
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.



    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    Depending on how broadly the Supreme Court rules in the North Carolina redistricting case, Amar says support for the theory by the court could affect the 2024 presidential election. States with Republican-controlled legislatures could see it as an invitation to set new election rules that take power away from voters when picking electors for the Electoral College or to make state lawmakers, not courts, the judges in disputes after the election.


    Post edited by Lerxst1992 on
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,970
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
    That’s what everyone thought about RvW. Red states stay forever red, purple states eventually turn red and blue states eat shit for 50 or more years. Your normal brain is leading you to believe that the six or any number of them are independent jurists. They’re not. They’re partisan hacks bought and paid for. Throw a bone once in a while like Remain in Mexico, sure, but the decisions that really matter and make long term impacts for the future of con “values?” GTFO, done deal. Bookmark this page. And if you don’t think weighing or leaning on that first paragraph about states deciding on time, place, method of elections, and that being absolute, with no remedy, then you haven’t been paying attention to the long lines in dem districts and easy peasy voting in con districts and how everything else flows from that.

    Enjoy living in a banana republic.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
    That's an extrapolation based on the extreme example of the plenary legislature.  Gerrymandering without the benefit of judicial oversight IF not in the state constitution, would be the clear risk.  You are assuming, based on this article, that alternate electors that disenfranchise the actual voters of the states, would be the next step.  However, most (I didn't do a survey) state constitutions require the sec'y of state to certify electors based on the popular winner of the state.  If a state constitution has such a provision, no legislature can simply step in and circumvent the constitution. 
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
    That’s what everyone thought about RvW. Red states stay forever red, purple states eventually turn red and blue states eat shit for 50 or more years. Your normal brain is leading you to believe that the six or any number of them are independent jurists. They’re not. They’re partisan hacks bought and paid for. Throw a bone once in a while like Remain in Mexico, sure, but the decisions that really matter and make long term impacts for the future of con “values?” GTFO, done deal. Bookmark this page. And if you don’t think weighing or leaning on that first paragraph about states deciding on time, place, method of elections, and that being absolute, with no remedy, then you haven’t been paying attention to the long lines in dem districts and easy peasy voting in con districts and how everything else flows from that.

    Enjoy living in a banana republic.
    I don't even know what you're saying here.  Tehre was never any question that Roe could be overturned.  And that would make it a state issue absent a federal law.  That continues to be the case.  Nothing is different other than what was a reasonable outcome occurred.  Shocker.  It's a state issue now unless the federal gov't makes a law.  That is clearly defined in teh 10th Amendment.  
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,970
    mrussel1 said:
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
    That's an extrapolation based on the extreme example of the plenary legislature.  Gerrymandering without the benefit of judicial oversight IF not in the state constitution, would be the clear risk.  You are assuming, based on this article, that alternate electors that disenfranchise the actual voters of the states, would be the next step.  However, most (I didn't do a survey) state constitutions require the sec'y of state to certify electors based on the popular winner of the state.  If a state constitution has such a provision, no legislature can simply step in and circumvent the constitution. 
    Red state state legislatures are passing laws to take the power to confirm electors away from the Secretary of State and popular vote and having it reside in the legislature. Because states rights.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,970
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
    That’s what everyone thought about RvW. Red states stay forever red, purple states eventually turn red and blue states eat shit for 50 or more years. Your normal brain is leading you to believe that the six or any number of them are independent jurists. They’re not. They’re partisan hacks bought and paid for. Throw a bone once in a while like Remain in Mexico, sure, but the decisions that really matter and make long term impacts for the future of con “values?” GTFO, done deal. Bookmark this page. And if you don’t think weighing or leaning on that first paragraph about states deciding on time, place, method of elections, and that being absolute, with no remedy, then you haven’t been paying attention to the long lines in dem districts and easy peasy voting in con districts and how everything else flows from that.

    Enjoy living in a banana republic.
    I don't even know what you're saying here.  Tehre was never any question that Roe could be overturned.  And that would make it a state issue absent a federal law.  That continues to be the case.  Nothing is different other than what was a reasonable outcome occurred.  Shocker.  It's a state issue now unless the federal gov't makes a law.  That is clearly defined in teh 10th Amendment.  
    Were POOTWH’s nominees lying then? Do you think Senator Collins was misled? Something “settled” 50 years ago is overturned and there was never a doubt it would be? What are you saying by that? Precedent, stasis or decises cisise or whatever it is, I’m tired, is out the window? How often does this happen? RvW was supposedly “settled” 50 years ago. And here we are.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 40,936
    In case anyone thought it couldn't get worse (which I suspect is very few if any of us here):

    US supreme court rules against EPA and hobbles government power to limit harmful emissions

    Court sides with Republican states as ruling represents landmark moment in rightwing effort to dismantle ‘regulatory state’

    The US supreme court has sided with Republican-led states to in effect hobble the federal government’s ability to tackle the climate crisis, in a ruling that will have profound implications for the government’s overall regulatory power.

    In a 6-3 decision that will seriously hinder America’s ability to stave off disastrous global heating, the supreme court, which became dominated by rightwing justices under the Trump administration, has opted to support a case brought by West Virginia that demands the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) be limited in how it regulates planet-heating gases from the energy sector.


    More at link




    “The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
    Variously credited to Mark Twain or Edward Abbey.













  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
    That’s what everyone thought about RvW. Red states stay forever red, purple states eventually turn red and blue states eat shit for 50 or more years. Your normal brain is leading you to believe that the six or any number of them are independent jurists. They’re not. They’re partisan hacks bought and paid for. Throw a bone once in a while like Remain in Mexico, sure, but the decisions that really matter and make long term impacts for the future of con “values?” GTFO, done deal. Bookmark this page. And if you don’t think weighing or leaning on that first paragraph about states deciding on time, place, method of elections, and that being absolute, with no remedy, then you haven’t been paying attention to the long lines in dem districts and easy peasy voting in con districts and how everything else flows from that.

    Enjoy living in a banana republic.
    I don't even know what you're saying here.  Tehre was never any question that Roe could be overturned.  And that would make it a state issue absent a federal law.  That continues to be the case.  Nothing is different other than what was a reasonable outcome occurred.  Shocker.  It's a state issue now unless the federal gov't makes a law.  That is clearly defined in teh 10th Amendment.  
    Were POOTWH’s nominees lying then? Do you think Senator Collins was misled? Something “settled” 50 years ago is overturned and there was never a doubt it would be? What are you saying by that? Precedent, stasis or decises cisise or whatever it is, I’m tired, is out the window? How often does this happen? RvW was supposedly “settled” 50 years ago. And here we are.
    How could one ever argue that something is settled forever when we have Brown, Plessy and other cases that overrode previous precedent?  That's naive.  
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    mrussel1 said:
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
    That's an extrapolation based on the extreme example of the plenary legislature.  Gerrymandering without the benefit of judicial oversight IF not in the state constitution, would be the clear risk.  You are assuming, based on this article, that alternate electors that disenfranchise the actual voters of the states, would be the next step.  However, most (I didn't do a survey) state constitutions require the sec'y of state to certify electors based on the popular winner of the state.  If a state constitution has such a provision, no legislature can simply step in and circumvent the constitution. 
    Red state state legislatures are passing laws to take the power to confirm electors away from the Secretary of State and popular vote and having it reside in the legislature. Because states rights.
    Who has passed the law?  I'm not saying it didn't happen, but I'd like to read it.  
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224
    edited June 2022
    mrussel1 said:
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
    That's an extrapolation based on the extreme example of the plenary legislature.  Gerrymandering without the benefit of judicial oversight IF not in the state constitution, would be the clear risk.  You are assuming, based on this article, that alternate electors that disenfranchise the actual voters of the states, would be the next step.  However, most (I didn't do a survey) state constitutions require the sec'y of state to certify electors based on the popular winner of the state.  If a state constitution has such a provision, no legislature can simply step in and circumvent the constitution. 


    I’d first contend that one topic the conservative justices have always agreed with conservative plaintiffs are election related cases. The only case I recall them not siding with the conservative argument in a voting rights type case is in fact the NC gerrymander case from a few years ago.

    That is the essential point. This case is the NC republicans response to that loss, trying to circumvent that ruling, which basically said the court will not get involved in state court rulings on state level political voting cases. So why even listen to some cheap attempt to relitigate a case they just decided?? Six three, that’s why

    So if the state courts are being circumvented, how is the state constitution stepping in? Further, I am fairly certain this case will argue that Secretary of State certificates are unconstitutional, as the US constitution clearly places that power with state legislatures, which of course are heavily gerrymandered and out of reach of Dems in at least four SWING states. This is the ultimate power grab, and could make the electoral college out of reach to Dems for decades
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    mrussel1 said:
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
    That's an extrapolation based on the extreme example of the plenary legislature.  Gerrymandering without the benefit of judicial oversight IF not in the state constitution, would be the clear risk.  You are assuming, based on this article, that alternate electors that disenfranchise the actual voters of the states, would be the next step.  However, most (I didn't do a survey) state constitutions require the sec'y of state to certify electors based on the popular winner of the state.  If a state constitution has such a provision, no legislature can simply step in and circumvent the constitution. 


    I’d first contend that one topic the conservative justices have always agreed with conservative plaintiffs are election related cases. The only case I recall them not siding with the conservative argument in a voting rights type case is in fact the NC gerrymander case from a few years ago.

    That is the essential point. This case is the NC republicans response to that loss, trying to circumvent that ruling, which basically said the court will not get involved in state court rulings on state level political voting cases. So why even listen to some cheap attempt to relitigate a case they just decided?? Six three, that’s why

    So if the state courts are being circumvented, how is the state constitution stepping in? Further, I am fairly certain this case will argue that Secretary of State certificates are unconstitutional, as the US constitution clearly places that power with state legislatures, which of course are heavily gerrymandered and out of reach of Dems in at least four SWING states. This is the ultimate power grab, and could make the electoral college out of reach to Dems for decades
    State Constitutions supersede everything but federal law and the US Constitution.  I don't think there is anything that argues that a state legislature can violate a state constitution.  It's literally the organizing document of a state. 
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,970
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
    That’s what everyone thought about RvW. Red states stay forever red, purple states eventually turn red and blue states eat shit for 50 or more years. Your normal brain is leading you to believe that the six or any number of them are independent jurists. They’re not. They’re partisan hacks bought and paid for. Throw a bone once in a while like Remain in Mexico, sure, but the decisions that really matter and make long term impacts for the future of con “values?” GTFO, done deal. Bookmark this page. And if you don’t think weighing or leaning on that first paragraph about states deciding on time, place, method of elections, and that being absolute, with no remedy, then you haven’t been paying attention to the long lines in dem districts and easy peasy voting in con districts and how everything else flows from that.

    Enjoy living in a banana republic.
    I don't even know what you're saying here.  Tehre was never any question that Roe could be overturned.  And that would make it a state issue absent a federal law.  That continues to be the case.  Nothing is different other than what was a reasonable outcome occurred.  Shocker.  It's a state issue now unless the federal gov't makes a law.  That is clearly defined in teh 10th Amendment.  
    Were POOTWH’s nominees lying then? Do you think Senator Collins was misled? Something “settled” 50 years ago is overturned and there was never a doubt it would be? What are you saying by that? Precedent, stasis or decises cisise or whatever it is, I’m tired, is out the window? How often does this happen? RvW was supposedly “settled” 50 years ago. And here we are.
    How could one ever argue that something is settled forever when we have Brown, Plessy and other cases that overrode previous precedent?  That's naive.  
    You said, “no question it would eventually be overruled.” And it had been settled and enjoys overwhelming majority support amongst the public. Not the same in the two cases you mentioned.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,970
    mrussel1 said:
    The problem is this is multiplying the power of gerrymandering with alternate electors. The issue is not blue or red states, it’s the swing states that Dems need going forward to remain competitive in presidential elections. 

    Think NC AZ GA WI just as a start. They are roughly 50 50 swing states, becoming slightly blue. But on a state level, gerrymandering creates state legislatures that are nearly impossible for Dems to control in the current era.

    Now multiply that power of state politics and congressional redistricting, with the power to determine close elections and appoint electors. These four states could easily swing the electoral college in just those four states.

    six three y’all. 
    That's an extrapolation based on the extreme example of the plenary legislature.  Gerrymandering without the benefit of judicial oversight IF not in the state constitution, would be the clear risk.  You are assuming, based on this article, that alternate electors that disenfranchise the actual voters of the states, would be the next step.  However, most (I didn't do a survey) state constitutions require the sec'y of state to certify electors based on the popular winner of the state.  If a state constitution has such a provision, no legislature can simply step in and circumvent the constitution. 


    I’d first contend that one topic the conservative justices have always agreed with conservative plaintiffs are election related cases. The only case I recall them not siding with the conservative argument in a voting rights type case is in fact the NC gerrymander case from a few years ago.

    That is the essential point. This case is the NC republicans response to that loss, trying to circumvent that ruling, which basically said the court will not get involved in state court rulings on state level political voting cases. So why even listen to some cheap attempt to relitigate a case they just decided?? Six three, that’s why

    So if the state courts are being circumvented, how is the state constitution stepping in? Further, I am fairly certain this case will argue that Secretary of State certificates are unconstitutional, as the US constitution clearly places that power with state legislatures, which of course are heavily gerrymandered and out of reach of Dems in at least four SWING states. This is the ultimate power grab, and could make the electoral college out of reach to Dems for decades
    He’s not getting it. Let’s bookmark this and put it in our calendars to revisit in five years.
    09/15/1998 & 09/16/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/27/2008, Hartford; 06/28/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield; 08/18/2009, O2, London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL; 07/01/2018, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/03/2018, Krakow, Poland; 07/05/2018, Berlin, Germany; 09/02/2018 & 09/04/2018, Boston, MA; 09/08/2022, Toronto, Ont; 09/11/2022, New York, NY; 09/14/2022, Camden, NJ; 09/02/2023, St. Paul, MN; 05/04/2024 & 05/06/2024, Vancouver, BC; 05/10/2024, Portland, OR;

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,801
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    I think you're being a little dramatic here.  It wasn't over for America when legislatures selected senators.  It wasn't over for America when party apparatuses were the ones that selected candidates for president.  

    For this particular law, the theory seems far fetched.  The elections clause simply says:  
    • The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

    However, the state constitutions are what creates the Legislature, so it's hard to see how they viewed as independent of the constitution.  Ironically, this is pointing to the Supremacy Clause.  


    But your point is even more dramatic. In the good old 5-4 days, this theory would be a joke. Your citation of the constitution demonstrates that this theory should never see the light of day, as it’s clear there is no mention of how electors are chosen in your excerpt. Why waste time to hear, debate and decide on something so fringe and extreme?

    six three, that’s why.




    edit,
    gerrymandering in this case is bad enough, but here is the drama from onwis’ article

    You can't say that how Robert or Kavanaugh would vote in a situation like this.  And why couldn't blue states do the exact same thing?  Justices often want to hear unique Constitutional cases.  I'm not sure how I'm being more dramatic than claiming it's over for America based on a case that hasn't even been heard yet.  And even if it were decided for the NC GOP, a state law through the legislature could blunt it in any state. 
    That’s what everyone thought about RvW. Red states stay forever red, purple states eventually turn red and blue states eat shit for 50 or more years. Your normal brain is leading you to believe that the six or any number of them are independent jurists. They’re not. They’re partisan hacks bought and paid for. Throw a bone once in a while like Remain in Mexico, sure, but the decisions that really matter and make long term impacts for the future of con “values?” GTFO, done deal. Bookmark this page. And if you don’t think weighing or leaning on that first paragraph about states deciding on time, place, method of elections, and that being absolute, with no remedy, then you haven’t been paying attention to the long lines in dem districts and easy peasy voting in con districts and how everything else flows from that.

    Enjoy living in a banana republic.
    I don't even know what you're saying here.  Tehre was never any question that Roe could be overturned.  And that would make it a state issue absent a federal law.  That continues to be the case.  Nothing is different other than what was a reasonable outcome occurred.  Shocker.  It's a state issue now unless the federal gov't makes a law.  That is clearly defined in teh 10th Amendment.  
    Were POOTWH’s nominees lying then? Do you think Senator Collins was misled? Something “settled” 50 years ago is overturned and there was never a doubt it would be? What are you saying by that? Precedent, stasis or decises cisise or whatever it is, I’m tired, is out the window? How often does this happen? RvW was supposedly “settled” 50 years ago. And here we are.
    How could one ever argue that something is settled forever when we have Brown, Plessy and other cases that overrode previous precedent?  That's naive.  
    You said, “no question it would eventually be overruled.” And it had been settled and enjoys overwhelming majority support amongst the public. Not the same in the two cases you mentioned.
    I said "could", not would.  

    I don't think majority support should ever be a consideration.  When Loving v Virginia was ruled in favor of Loving (legalizing interracial marriage), polling indicated overwhelming support for such illegalization. Didn't make it right.  
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224
    I think this is their ultimate goal,

    the Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”



    if they interpret that in the exact language it is written, it is possible to rule Secretary of State certifications as unconstitutional, and the GOP controls naming of electors in swing states. In normal times I’d agree it’s far fetched, but this week has changed the meaning of a six three world.
  • Options
    Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    I think this is their ultimate goal,

    the Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”



    if they interpret that in the exact language it is written, it is possible to rule Secretary of State certifications as unconstitutional, and the GOP controls naming of electors in swing states. In normal times I’d agree it’s far fetched, but this week has changed the meaning of a six three world.
    Ironic that the intent of the electoral college was to prevent an unqualified populist form becoming president in the first place.  These people were supposed to be the adults in the room, taking the popular vote into account. Not bound by it 
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,224
    I think this is their ultimate goal,

    the Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause, which reads, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legis­lature thereof may direct, a Number of Elect­ors.”



    if they interpret that in the exact language it is written, it is possible to rule Secretary of State certifications as unconstitutional, and the GOP controls naming of electors in swing states. In normal times I’d agree it’s far fetched, but this week has changed the meaning of a six three world.
    Ironic that the intent of the electoral college was to prevent an unqualified populist form becoming president in the first place.  These people were supposed to be the adults in the room, taking the popular vote into account. Not bound by it 

    Yes but they were also worried that the people weren’t qualified to make good choices, so the electoral college was born. But that leaves us with the what if someone unqualified like trump wins. So in the wake of trump, we have folks like DeSantis and the NC GOP trying to do things unimaginable five years ago. If there are no provisions for a Secretary of State, whose to say gerrymandered state legislatures will be left to decide presidential elections? In a six three world, anything’s possible.
Sign In or Register to comment.