Options

SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

1192022242543

Comments

  • Options
    Gern BlanstenGern Blansten Your Mom's Posts: 18,044
    Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)

    1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
    2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
    2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
    2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
    2020: Oakland, Oakland:  2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
    2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
    2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
  • Options
    Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2022
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184

    It keeps getting better. They should call a vote to impeach him, just to raise this as an election issue. So they can attack any and every swing state Republican running in Nov voting to support him as being anti science anti health.
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,723
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it. I

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    The case isn't about electors. 

    Yes the Constitution says what was quoted,  but that authority,  through law or state constitution,  has been generally delegated to the SOS, based on popular voting.  So yes,  a legislature could take that power back,  but only through an amendment or other means.  Not by fiat or a theory of plenary powers. 
  • Options
    OnWis97OnWis97 St. Paul, MN Posts: 4,832
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    Inflation.
    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
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,723
    edited June 2022
    OnWis97 said:
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    Inflation.
    We're moderates because we don't overreact to media cycle.  This thread is an excellent example. Zero to do with inflation.  I can walk and chew gum. 
  • Options
    CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via Chicago Posts: 6,798
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16 IL 08/18/18 IL 08/20/18 IT 07/05/2020 AT 07/07/2020
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,737
    mrussel1 said:
    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.  
    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
    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: 28,723
    mrussel1 said:
    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.  
    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
    Quick glance and I don't see any that say the legislature can override the popular vote.  
  • Options
    Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2022
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    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.  
    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
    Quick glance and I don't see any that say the legislature can override the popular vote.  
    This stuff always creates a provision for them to be referee in case of a dispute.

    a dispute will always happen and a margin doesn’t even have to be that close.  Brian kemp won by 70 points . MAGA claimed fraud and what happens when it gets thrown back to a MAGA legislature to decide? State election … but same idea 




    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,737
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    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.  
    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-may-2021
    Quick glance and I don't see any that say the legislature can override the popular vote.  
    https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/voting-laws-roundup-february-2022

    Believe what you want to believe. Legislatures are prepping and are going to pass bills that take the routine ceremonial function of certifying electors based on the popular vote away from SoSs and give that decision making and process to do so,  inclusive of triggers, to the legislature. It’s brazen, it’s unheard of and it’s going to happen.


    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
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    Inflation.
    We're moderates because we don't overreact to media cycle.  This thread is an excellent example. Zero to do with inflation.  I can walk and chew gum. 


    You stated the case isn’t about electors, but when I read their independent legislatures theory they list two clauses as unconstitutional, one of which being the electors clause. Let’s say you are right, and in this case they are only interested in the other, the times place and manner clause.  Its easier for them to go after the manner clause, win that case, and then just assume that means legislatures control everything about overseeing an election, including recounts, determining electors, etc.

    Then liberals are forced to sue to stop, and win to overturn with six conservatives, in a court that almost always votes with the GOP in election related cases. And nobody cares, because gum is plentiful. How many election related cases have they ever ruled against the GOP?
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,723
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    Inflation.
    We're moderates because we don't overreact to media cycle.  This thread is an excellent example. Zero to do with inflation.  I can walk and chew gum. 


    You stated the case isn’t about electors, but when I read their independent legislatures theory they list two clauses as unconstitutional, one of which being the electors clause. Let’s say you are right, and in this case they are only interested in the other, the times place and manner clause.  Its easier for them to go after the manner clause, win that case, and then just assume that means legislatures control everything about overseeing an election, including recounts, determining electors, etc.

    Then liberals are forced to sue to stop, and win to overturn with six conservatives, in a court that almost always votes with the GOP in election related cases. And nobody cares, because gum is plentiful. How many election related cases have they ever ruled against the GOP?
    How do you declare that a clause in the Constitution is unconstitutional?  Am I misunderstanding that statement?

    What they are arguing is that the legislature cannot delegate its authority to other parts of the state gov't.  The opposing view would be that the legislature delegated it permanently to the sec'y of state through the state constitutions.  Let's say the GOP wins it.  Then what?  Then you fundamentally have the state legislatures in each state choosing the electors for the presidential election.  It would be like true representative federalism.  Would that be the end of the world?  Not really.  It means the state races are basically the most important races in which to vote.  It would be a painful transition maybe in a few places, but if you really think about it, it's not the end of the union.  
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,723
    There's some real irony happening here, where people are simultaneously complaining about the power of the supreme court judges, while also now wringing their hands about a theory that the state justices cannot supersede the legislatures.  
  • Options
    Cropduster-80Cropduster-80 Posts: 2,034
    edited June 2022
    mrussel1 said:
    There's some real irony happening here, where people are simultaneously complaining about the power of the supreme court judges, while also now wringing their hands about a theory that the state justices cannot supersede the legislatures.  
    I think it’s more that it’s trying to change laws or process to get the result you want. 

    A legislature trying to determine an election is a change. In that case im more comfortable with a secretary or state or a state Supreme Court as it’s a legal or process challenge.  Conservatives wouldn’t be changing it if they didn’t think it gave them more of an advantage 
    Post edited by Cropduster-80 on
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    Inflation.
    We're moderates because we don't overreact to media cycle.  This thread is an excellent example. Zero to do with inflation.  I can walk and chew gum. 


    You stated the case isn’t about electors, but when I read their independent legislatures theory they list two clauses as unconstitutional, one of which being the electors clause. Let’s say you are right, and in this case they are only interested in the other, the times place and manner clause.  Its easier for them to go after the manner clause, win that case, and then just assume that means legislatures control everything about overseeing an election, including recounts, determining electors, etc.

    Then liberals are forced to sue to stop, and win to overturn with six conservatives, in a court that almost always votes with the GOP in election related cases. And nobody cares, because gum is plentiful. How many election related cases have they ever ruled against the GOP?
    How do you declare that a clause in the Constitution is unconstitutional?  Am I misunderstanding that statement?

    What they are arguing is that the legislature cannot delegate its authority to other parts of the state gov't.  The opposing view would be that the legislature delegated it permanently to the sec'y of state through the state constitutions.  Let's say the GOP wins it.  Then what?  Then you fundamentally have the state legislatures in each state choosing the electors for the presidential election.  It would be like true representative federalism.  Would that be the end of the world?  Not really.  It means the state races are basically the most important races in which to vote.  It would be a painful transition maybe in a few places, but if you really think about it, it's not the end of the union.  

    Bad English on my part. They are arguing the intent of the manner clause has been misinterpreted by state executives and courts.

    They are arguing the time, place and manner clause means that state legislatures control all elections. There is no reference to a SOS in the manner clause, but there is a reference to state legislatures, so they believe legislatures should fully control the time place and manner of all elections, and if they win, will try to control the manner of how disputed elections are settled. Not a SOS. Not a governor, but the state legislature, as the words indicate in the manner clause.

     State legislatures are gerrymandered. Dems have a very low probability of controlling state legislatures in several key swing states such as AZ GA WI NC (the competitive and close states they need most in the electoral college). It may not be the end of the union, but they see six v three, and they are going for it.
  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,723
    mrussel1 said:
    mrussel1 said:
    OnWis97 said:
    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.
    All I’m saying is not using the electoral college as intended is the best argument for getting rid of it.

    straight popular vote won’t happen for obvious reasons  but keeping the electoral college and not using it as intended makes no sense 

    a straight popular vote eliminates the entire concept of swing states with 5000 vote margins 


    If I understand the nuance, they won’t just throw out a states popular vote count. But if they ultimately get the court to redefine the  Pres­id­en­tial Elect­ors Clause based on a literal interpretation of its language, at a minimum, they are hoping to hand the power to decide close elections, recounts, throwing out ballots, etc in the state legislatures hands. 

    This is an attempt to give swing states more power, not less.

    This is the republicans attempt to legitimize the steps trump took to claim the election was rigged. If this clause is redefined, at a minimum it gives the next trump more power to overturn an election on the state level. So the next January sixth May not even happen, because they could manage or even override the state certification process. How this is not a five alarm fire to moderates, is stunning to me.

    If the naysayers are right, why even hear this case?
    Inflation.
    We're moderates because we don't overreact to media cycle.  This thread is an excellent example. Zero to do with inflation.  I can walk and chew gum. 


    You stated the case isn’t about electors, but when I read their independent legislatures theory they list two clauses as unconstitutional, one of which being the electors clause. Let’s say you are right, and in this case they are only interested in the other, the times place and manner clause.  Its easier for them to go after the manner clause, win that case, and then just assume that means legislatures control everything about overseeing an election, including recounts, determining electors, etc.

    Then liberals are forced to sue to stop, and win to overturn with six conservatives, in a court that almost always votes with the GOP in election related cases. And nobody cares, because gum is plentiful. How many election related cases have they ever ruled against the GOP?
    How do you declare that a clause in the Constitution is unconstitutional?  Am I misunderstanding that statement?

    What they are arguing is that the legislature cannot delegate its authority to other parts of the state gov't.  The opposing view would be that the legislature delegated it permanently to the sec'y of state through the state constitutions.  Let's say the GOP wins it.  Then what?  Then you fundamentally have the state legislatures in each state choosing the electors for the presidential election.  It would be like true representative federalism.  Would that be the end of the world?  Not really.  It means the state races are basically the most important races in which to vote.  It would be a painful transition maybe in a few places, but if you really think about it, it's not the end of the union.  

    Bad English on my part. They are arguing the intent of the manner clause has been misinterpreted by state executives and courts.

    They are arguing the time, place and manner clause means that state legislatures control all elections. There is no reference to a SOS in the manner clause, but there is a reference to state legislatures, so they believe legislatures should fully control the time place and manner of all elections, and if they win, will try to control the manner of how disputed elections are settled. Not a SOS. Not a governor, but the state legislature, as the words indicate in the manner clause.

     State legislatures are gerrymandered. Dems have a very low probability of controlling state legislatures in several key swing states such as AZ GA WI NC (the competitive and close states they need most in the electoral college). It may not be the end of the union, but they see six v three, and they are going for it.
    We had structural changes like this throughout the 19th century.  We also had state level migratory patterns.  All that could be in play again over the next 25 years if we return to a more federal system of gov't.  I'm not so sure the republicans don't win the battle and lose the war. 
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184
    mrussel1 said:
    There's some real irony happening here, where people are simultaneously complaining about the power of the supreme court judges, while also now wringing their hands about a theory that the state justices cannot supersede the legislatures.  


    It’s not ironic. It’s been a troubling ten or so years since Citizens United, when Roberts overrode the VRA where the constitution literally says congress may pass regulations regarding state elections (every election is a state election). So the end of the time place and manner clause giving congress power on this issue was nullified ten years ago.

    According to that Brennan article posted earlier, the independent legislatures theory began with Rhenquist in Bush v Gore and championed  by Trump in the month leading up to his armed assault of congress.

    Given these facts, add in extreme gerrymandering in key swing states Dems need to win, not sure why there is any pause whatsoever on what republicans are trying to accomplish here. They want gerrymandered state legislatures controlling elections. That danger should be self evident.
  • Options
    gimmesometruth27gimmesometruth27 St. Fuckin Louis Posts: 22,196

    It keeps getting better. They should call a vote to impeach him, just to raise this as an election issue. So they can attack any and every swing state Republican running in Nov voting to support him as being anti science anti health.
    for republicans, being anti science and anti health is seen as a virtue, as long as they say they are for freedumb.
    There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self.- Hemingway

    "Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
  • Options
    Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 36,737
    cutz said:
    Persuasively swayed. By oral arguments. No biggie.
    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
    dankinddankind I am not your foot. Posts: 20,827

    I SAW PEARL JAM
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184
    Be very careful speaking about the six in public like that. They are our lords and leaders. They control all three branches of the govt, and much of the economy.  There are zero checks and balances against the six, and now they are throttling full speed ahead on voting rights. Pretty soon, uniforms and salutes may be required in public.


  • Options
    mrussel1mrussel1 Posts: 28,723
    Be very careful speaking about the six in public like that. They are our lords and leaders. They control all three branches of the govt, and much of the economy.  There are zero checks and balances against the six, and now they are throttling full speed ahead on voting rights. Pretty soon, uniforms and salutes may be required in public.


    Your anger should be directed at Marbury v Madison.  
  • Options
    Lerxst1992Lerxst1992 Posts: 6,184
    mrussel1 said:
    Be very careful speaking about the six in public like that. They are our lords and leaders. They control all three branches of the govt, and much of the economy.  There are zero checks and balances against the six, and now they are throttling full speed ahead on voting rights. Pretty soon, uniforms and salutes may be required in public.


    Your anger should be directed at Marbury v Madison.  


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison

    Sometimes your posts are perfectly timed, as I was reading this right before switching back here. Spent some time this morning also on the scotus Reddit, usually a place for detailed legalese. However, today, the overriding commentary is the sky is falling.

    We want this power, we shall take it. But the difference now is politics has taken over the framework of how justices think, from early adulthood. It’s no longer about legal balance (as is so prevalent in many landmark cases in US history). It’s about finding political loopholes to add or delete laws from the bench. The fact there are six extremists ruling us now, that’s what is new.
  • Options
    mickeyratmickeyrat up my ass, like Chadwick was up his Posts: 36,065

    _____________________________________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
    Hi!Hi! Posts: 3,095

    Detroit 2000, Detroit 2003 1-2, Grand Rapids VFC 2004, Philly 2005, Grand Rapids 2006, Detroit 2006, Cleveland 2006, Lollapalooza 2007, Detroit Eddie Solo 2011, Detroit 2014, Chicago 2016 1-2, Chicago 2018 1-2, Ohana Encore 2021 1-2, Chicago Eddie/Earthlings 2022 1-2, Nashville 2022, St. Louis 2022

Sign In or Register to comment.