SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States)

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Here's a great case coming before the SCOTUS.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1107648753/supreme-court-north-carolina-redistricting-independent-state-legislature-theory

It's over for America.

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.  

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 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.  

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 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

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 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. 

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Here's a great case coming before the SCOTUS.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1107648753/supreme-court-north-carolina-redistricting-independent-state-legislature-theory

It's over for America.

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.

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 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.

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

OnWis97 said:

Here's a great case coming before the SCOTUS.

https://www.npr.org/2022/06/30/1107648753/supreme-court-north-carolina-redistricting-independent-state-legislature-theory

It's over for America.

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.  

Lerxst1992

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.

Cropduster-80

Lerxst1992 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 

Lerxst1992

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 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.

Gern Blansten

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1542569323390189568

Cropduster-80

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 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 

Lerxst1992

Gern Blansten said:

https://twitter.com/politico/status/1542569323390189568

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.

Lerxst1992

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 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?

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 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. 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. 

OnWis97

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 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.

mrussel1

OnWis97 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

Cropduster-80 said:

Lerxst1992 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. 

CM189191

https://twitter.com/TheRealHoarse/status/1410608035014213632?s=19

Halifax2TheMax

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 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

mrussel1

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Halifax2TheMax said:

mrussel1 said:

Lerxst1992 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.