Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
Doesn't that refer to the fact that it can take it back for future elections? If it did so for historical elections, it would fall foul of the Constitutional ban against post hoc law making.
The Republicans trying to claim that the media have instigated some sort of novel practice in projecting the winner of elections is one of the weirder claims going on right now. Not to mention the fact that there isn't a single member of the House or Senate who stood in the November elections who's current status post January is based on anything other than the media calls at which they are expressing such outrage/
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."
...presumably only by legislating, and not retrospectively.
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."
...presumably only by legislating, and not retrospectively.
Yes. MrEd has completely misunderstood the ruling.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
The law says the must do it, but does that mean they actually must do it, or they are punished if they dont?
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
What, however, if they somehow manufacture an argument that the delegation of the decision to the state's electors hasn't been satisfied - due to "fraud" or some other reason for casting doubt on the accuracy of the count?
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."
...presumably only by legislating, and not retrospectively.
Precisely. MrEd is quite correct that the states are not bound to delegate their appointment of electors to the people, and can rescind such delegation at any time, but they still have to follow due legislative process to so and they cannot do that retrospectively. The Republican-controlled legislatures could have legislated at any point before last Tuesday to say that the legislature could ignore the popular vote for whatever reason, but none chose to do so.
On topic. It’s only a few days ago the narrative was he was fighting like a ferret to keep out of jail? Who knows what sort of crimes will start to come to light now which may undermine his platform? As well as the knowns! Like tax. The peculiar defence of Putin’s Russia some conservative commentators called treason. Maybe much of the Republican Party won’t want him as their candidate, will leap on his misdemeanours more so than the democrats. The Lincoln Project put up their own candidate splitting the vote?
Also on topic, surely the soundest betting advice one of the two Dems on current ticket is the Dem candidate 2024? Other suggestions merely exciting longer odd options?
And sort of on topic, we are moving to crossover in the AZ Ga counts? You may tell me that can’t happen, but everyday every hour it moves this way?
Team Trump were right all along about premature calling of AZ.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
You are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
Actually they don't. But please copy in the appropriate quote from your side. I'm sure you have it to hand.
The statement is very clear: "‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ At any time.
And, for the "internet-assembled knowledge", I do chuckle. I'll put it another way, I'm very confident of my sources.
Now go to bed and put your suppositories in. You clearly have a bad case of the piles.
@MrEd is valuable, he gives a good deal of insight into the sort of shitbaggery the GOP PA legislature is considering.
Except that the Republican senate majority leader in PA already said that the Pennsylvania election code is clear that the people chose the Presidential electors and that he will not back any attempt to change that. Not to mention that the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania would veto any such legislation in a hot second, and neither house of the PA legislature has a veto-proof super-majority.
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
Actually they don't. But please copy in the appropriate quote from your side. I'm sure you have it to hand.
The statement is very clear: "‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ At any time.
And, for the "internet-assembled knowledge", I do chuckle. I'll put it another way, I'm very confident of my sources.
Now go to bed and put your suppositories in. You clearly have a bad case of the piles.
Despite controlling the majority of the districting, and being in government in the majority of states. And with a sitting president.
What is wrong with these people ?
Surely there must be at least a few more senior Republicans who must be getting worried about polls like this? Because polling of this scale allowed to become baked in and not challenged robustly before it's too late can only result in bad outcomes for them.
Either it fundamentally destroys US democracy and leads to widespread violence and even potential civil war. Or it so undermines belief in the fairness of the electoral process amongst their own supporters that they won't bother to vote in future and this leaves them hugely vulnerable to a highly motivated Democrat party that will.
I don't think there is any realistic chance of some of these wild speculations happening. However, there is a chance that they get far more advanced than they should be allowed to because many GOP politicians are too scared of putting a stop to it out of fear of what it will do to their electoral base. They are all trying to keep quiet or humour Trump in the hope that it fizzles out naturally. And if it does get more and more advanced there suddenly become the risks of accidents happening due to unrest or violence on the streets etc.
The problem is that this approach means that Trump is getting all his 'advice' from the made triumvirate of Rudi Guiliani, Donald Trump jnr and Eric trump. Who will push Trump himself over the edge unless their is some pushback from somewhere. It could get pretty dangerous.
Time for Romney to call together whatever sane heads he can find in the GOP and make a collective statement for democracy.
Ivanka is a very key person for Donald Trump. If she has it might well mean he will do that, soon. She also has an ear for the media probably better than all the rest of his clan, and currently employed yes-men.
I appreciate what you are saying whisper, but what evidence you have she is key person in his life? the narrative now is transactional marriage soon to come to an end, trophy wife, and if he did have affairs when she was pregnant not someone he even respects or cares for, is this someone he listens to? Alternately, by the prominent role his elder sons have taken this week, maybe their thoughts are closer to his.
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
What, however, if they somehow manufacture an argument that the delegation of the decision to the state's electors hasn't been satisfied - due to "fraud" or some other reason for casting doubt on the accuracy of the count?
If a state didn't certify a slate of electors according to the process they themselves had laid down, they could be (and presumably would be) successfully sued to require them to do so.
Again, I make two key points. Firstly, a GOP state legislature in a state carried by Biden has no realistic prospect of getting away with it in the courts because they all have laws that set out the process pretty clearly and don't say "but if you just reckon, without going to court to have votes thrown out, that it's fishy and you aren't going to bother following this law, then that's fine too". Secondly, all state legislators have SOME sane Republicans, perhaps particularly in purple states where they need to win Democrat votes. They just aren't, in numbers, going to commit suicide by pulling a stunt that is doomed to catastrophic failure.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
You are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Jesus. The Supreme Court ruled this year on the matter.
Here is some Internet-based knowledge that you may care to read.
Here are some quotes for you from Kagan, cited in the article:
Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”
“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”
On topic. It’s only a few days ago the narrative was he was fighting like a ferret to keep out of jail? Who knows what sort of crimes will start to come to light now which may undermine his platform? As well as the knowns! Like tax. The peculiar defence of Putin’s Russia some conservative commentators called treason. Maybe much of the Republican Party won’t want him as their candidate, will leap on his misdemeanours more so than the democrats. The Lincoln Project put up their own candidate splitting the vote?
Also on topic, surely the soundest betting advice one of the two Dems on current ticket is the Dem candidate 2024? Other suggestions merely exciting longer odd options?
And sort of on topic, we are moving to crossover in the AZ Ga counts? You may tell me that can’t happen, but everyday every hour it moves this way?
Team Trump were right all along about premature calling of AZ.
No its moving further away. In AZ Trump isn't hitting the percentage he needs to reach crossover before running out of ballots to be counted. In GA he's going the wrong way.
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
"The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors."
...presumably only by legislating, and not retrospectively.
Yes. MrEd has completely misunderstood the ruling.
In turn, I do fear the legal experts are misunderstanding how power transfers in a coup. Plenty of courts throughout the world have helped leaders maintain power through incorrect interpretations that can still be sold to their audience. The 70% of Republicans who believe the election is stolen, wont have any problem believing Mr Eds version, right or wrong, especially if backed by the supreme court.
I still havent heard anything to suggest this isnt settled in the SC - where I do very much expect Trump to lose, but he has a non zero chance of success.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
You are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Jesus. The Supreme Court ruled this year on the matter.
Here is some Internet-based knowledge that you may care to read.
Here are some quotes for you from Kagan, cited in the article:
Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”
“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”
That the constitution is "barebones" about the issue merely states that legislatures have wide discretion to determine the method of selection. Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is whether, having legislated explicity to determine the method of selection, they then have the power to act in defiance of (or reverse) that legislation retrospectively.
I think i'm correct in saying that the discussions about 'faithless' electors are whether electors, once selected, are obliged to cast their vote in accordance with the states/voters wishes. To avoid all doubt, most states have legislated further on this point as additional precaution, but not all have.
@MrEd is valuable, he gives a good deal of insight into the sort of shitbaggery the GOP PA legislature is considering.
Except that the Republican senate majority leader in PA already said that the Pennsylvania election code is clear that the people chose the Presidential electors and that he will not back any attempt to change that. Not to mention that the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania would veto any such legislation in a hot second, and neither house of the PA legislature has a veto-proof super-majority.
Actually, I would think there is more chance of something happening in Michigan than PA. The state Senate leader in PA has not been as black and white about this though as it may seem/
On topic. It’s only a few days ago the narrative was he was fighting like a ferret to keep out of jail? Who knows what sort of crimes will start to come to light now which may undermine his platform? As well as the knowns! Like tax. The peculiar defence of Putin’s Russia some conservative commentators called treason. Maybe much of the Republican Party won’t want him as their candidate, will leap on his misdemeanours more so than the democrats. The Lincoln Project put up their own candidate splitting the vote?
Also on topic, surely the soundest betting advice one of the two Dems on current ticket is the Dem candidate 2024? Other suggestions merely exciting longer odd options?
And sort of on topic, we are moving to crossover in the AZ Ga counts? You may tell me that can’t happen, but everyday every hour it moves this way?
Team Trump were right all along about premature calling of AZ.
No its moving further away. In AZ Trump isn't hitting the percentage he needs to reach crossover before running out of ballots to be counted. In GA he's going the wrong way.
I'm critical of people who use a defence of 'It cannot be fraud or they'd have done a better job of it' because sometimes people do fraud badly (there are far better defences of why the fraud stuff is meritless), but that has limits, and even people who get their states confused should pause to consider if people rigging an election would make public date showing millions more voted than existed.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
You are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Jesus. The Supreme Court ruled this year on the matter.
Here is some Internet-based knowledge that you may care to read.
Here are some quotes for you from Kagan, cited in the article:
Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”
“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”
That the constitution is "barebones" about the issue merely states that legislatures have wide discretion to determine the method of selection. Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is whether, having legislated explicity to determine the method of selection, they then have the power to act in defiance of (or reverse) that legislation retrospectively.
I think i'm correct in saying that the discussions about 'faithless' electors are whether electors, once selected, are obliged to cast their vote in accordance with the states/voters wishes. To avoid all doubt, most states have legislated further on this point as additional precaution, but not all have.
Someone needs to show where it specifically says, 'But this cannot be done retrospectively.'
On topic. It’s only a few days ago the narrative was he was fighting like a ferret to keep out of jail? Who knows what sort of crimes will start to come to light now which may undermine his platform? As well as the knowns! Like tax. The peculiar defence of Putin’s Russia some conservative commentators called treason. Maybe much of the Republican Party won’t want him as their candidate, will leap on his misdemeanours more so than the democrats. The Lincoln Project put up their own candidate splitting the vote?
Also on topic, surely the soundest betting advice one of the two Dems on current ticket is the Dem candidate 2024? Other suggestions merely exciting longer odd options?
And sort of on topic, we are moving to crossover in the AZ Ga counts? You may tell me that can’t happen, but everyday every hour it moves this way?
Team Trump were right all along about premature calling of AZ.
No its moving further away. In AZ Trump isn't hitting the percentage he needs to reach crossover before running out of ballots to be counted. In GA he's going the wrong way.
AZ is potentially moving into recount territory though?
Yes its in play, if Kavanaugh, Barrett and Gorsuch are on board its the end of American democracy. 3 people from a successful coup.
It's a Supreme Court of nine Justices.
They are all financially well off (and indeed, could have chosen to have earned many millions a year in private practice). Being a Supreme Court member is a triumph of ego over bank balance.
Every Justice (but particularly Roberts) will have their eyes firmly on the history books.
Do they want to go down as patsies for Trump and potentially incite civil war in the US by overturning a democratic election?
Or do they want to be seen as saviours of the Republic?
Well indeed, although similar reasoning (albeit with less riding on individual shoulders) should really have convinced more Republican officials not to go into bat quite so hard for Trump on this.
@MrEd is valuable, he gives a good deal of insight into the sort of shitbaggery the GOP PA legislature is considering.
Except that the Republican senate majority leader in PA already said that the Pennsylvania election code is clear that the people chose the Presidential electors and that he will not back any attempt to change that. Not to mention that the Democratic governor of Pennsylvania would veto any such legislation in a hot second, and neither house of the PA legislature has a veto-proof super-majority.
Should also be pointed out that Both Houses in Pa. were elected on a minority vote. The lesson since 2010, and arguably 2000 is that the GOP does not need to win the vote to govern. This is the system they have grown accustomed to. If this is attempted there will be trouble.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
You are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Jesus. The Supreme Court ruled this year on the matter.
Here is some Internet-based knowledge that you may care to read.
Here are some quotes for you from Kagan, cited in the article:
Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”
“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”
And here’s another, from a conservative Justice: ...powers related to electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power. Thus, to invalidate a state law, there must be ‘something in the Federal Constitution that deprives the [States of] the power to enact such a measure.’” Which, of course, there is, should the legislature attempt to legislate retrospectively.
Just because the constitution is ‘barebones’ about electors does not mean the rest of it can be ripped up or ignored.
As Alex_ notes, it's one of the sillier, albeit not stupidest, of the complaints. Even a novice of politics knows the media 'calls' things, so they cannot even believe their own complaints there. And when something is so obviously insincere it really robs people of dignity.
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
Actually they don't. But please copy in the appropriate quote from your side. I'm sure you have it to hand.
The statement is very clear: "‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ At any time.
And, for the "internet-assembled knowledge", I do chuckle. I'll put it another way, I'm very confident of my sources.
Now go to bed and put your suppositories in. You clearly have a bad case of the piles.
"The right to vote is protected in more than the initial allocation of the franchise. Equal protection applies as well to the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another"
"There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate"
There could be nothing more "arbitrary and disparate" than disregarding the votes of all Democrat voters in favour of all Republican ones, both having followed the process set out in law by the state legislature itself. That is EXACTLY the point the Supreme Court was making. All you have done is noted the fact that for future elections a state legislature could change the rules, but that misses the entire point the Supreme Court was making for the particular election going on at that time (Bush v Gore).
You display your fundamental legal ignorance, as you do with startling regularity, being one of the most ludicrously pompous, willfully ignorant people on here... and you have some competition. And with that the prosecution rests. Good night!
Anyone on here who gives the slightest credence to the idea there is a realistic court route for Trump or even the glimmer of a chance for him "coz Supreme Court" knows sod all about the law and sod all about lawyers, and simply shouldn't be taken seriously ever again.
I admit I dont know about American constitutional law. I think its a fair question to ask - when the President, VP, AG and Senate leader are on board with a plan to overturn an election - what processes actually stop them "before" it reaches the SC.
They don't select the President, the Electoral College does. The Electoral College is appointed by the states, ALL of which have established legislation for that basis requiring this to be in line with the popular vote in the state (contrary to all this nonsense about legislatures refusing to certify or sending their own electors contrary to the popular vote in the state). They can't change those laws retrospectively now the election is done.
Even if there was a serious move by Republican legislatures of state governments in a state that had voted for Biden to do something else, the existing laws are easily enforceable through state and potentially federal courts. And it's madness to think there would be a serious move as those states have just voted for Biden for goodness sake, and you are never going to get the majority of elected Republicans to commit suicide for the sake of something utterly doomed in the courts.
And it would need to happen in multiple states! It's completely bonkers to think there's the tiniest chance of it happening, and all the people entertaining it for a moment are blustering halfwits who have no idea what they are talking about.
No, they are not. The SC have recognised the right of state legislatures to take back the right to appoint electors from voters. It was stated in 2000 in the whole Florida debacle.
That is the absolute opposite of correct and I suggest you read Bush v Gore again (or, in reality, for the first time). The point of the case is (in summary) that the constitution doesn't prescribe the means of selection of electors but, once the state legislature has set down a process that must be followed and not subverted after the event by the state courts or anyone else.
The point here is that ALL states HAVE set down processes for appointing electors and must follow them. Georgia, or anywhere else, can change that for 2024 and indeed can go from popular vote to appointment by the legislature, or by lottery, or just have the 16 fattest people in the state or whatever. But they cannot alter it for 2020 and that was the whole flipping point of the case!
No need for insults and, being blunt, you're wrong. Here is the wording of the 2000 ruling - read the bottom sentence.
"The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U. S. 1, 35 (1892), that the state legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by state legislatures in several States for many years after the framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28–33. History has now favored the voter, and in each of the several States the citizens themselves vote for Presidential electors. When the state legislature vests the right to vote for President in its people, the right to vote as the legislature has prescribed is fundamental; and one source of its fundamental nature lies in the equal weight accorded to each vote and the equal dignity owed to each voter. The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“ ‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ ”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1874)).
If you read the rest of the case, that's clearly explained as being for future elections - they are absolutely not saying they can retrospectively change the system of selecting electors which has been set down and followed because they don't like the result. Indeed, they are saying the exact opposite of that.
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
Actually they don't. But please copy in the appropriate quote from your side. I'm sure you have it to hand.
The statement is very clear: "‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ At any time.
And, for the "internet-assembled knowledge", I do chuckle. I'll put it another way, I'm very confident of my sources.
Now go to bed and put your suppositories in. You clearly have a bad case of the piles.
The 'at any time' does seem pretty unqualified.
No, it clearly means that the legislature can change the rules whenever it wants. But given that the rules allowing the delegation of the appointing power to the people will have been made by statute (they will have to have been so that the state's regular election laws apply to the election of the electors too), the legislature has to legislate to do so, and that cannot be retrospective.
Now, what might be a possibility is if any of the legislatures in question had enacted when they devolved the power to the people language to the effect of "but if anything looks really dodgy, we reserve the right to appoint the electors for that election ourselves." I've yet to hear anyone claiming any of the legislatures did do so back in the day, and I think that we'd be hearing that by now if they had.
On topic. It’s only a few days ago the narrative was he was fighting like a ferret to keep out of jail? Who knows what sort of crimes will start to come to light now which may undermine his platform? As well as the knowns! Like tax. The peculiar defence of Putin’s Russia some conservative commentators called treason. Maybe much of the Republican Party won’t want him as their candidate, will leap on his misdemeanours more so than the democrats. The Lincoln Project put up their own candidate splitting the vote?
Also on topic, surely the soundest betting advice one of the two Dems on current ticket is the Dem candidate 2024? Other suggestions merely exciting longer odd options?
And sort of on topic, we are moving to crossover in the AZ Ga counts? You may tell me that can’t happen, but everyday every hour it moves this way?
Team Trump were right all along about premature calling of AZ.
No its moving further away. In AZ Trump isn't hitting the percentage he needs to reach crossover before running out of ballots to be counted. In GA he's going the wrong way.
AZ is potentially moving into recount territory though?
Lead in AZ down to 15.4k after a good latest tranche for trump.
'Earn that call'? I like him normally, but that's just pathetic. No one is in any doubt that the US President is the most important political figure in the world, certainly for democratic nations anyway, but the deep respect that comes with that, and need for good relations, does not need to mean abasing yourself by worrying about whether they picked up the phone to you quickly enough and other crap. He's not an Emperor, we don't need to live in fear of his capricious whims for petty details.
Well not with that attitude there won't be, but we're working on it.
Though if memory serves the Secret Service have very little sense of humour when it comes to threats to the president, to the point of interviewing comedians who write joke articles about harming them, so plenty of people should start to be a bit more careful about what they say about the President-Elect, when that is officially confirmed.
A wise country and establishment would listen to him far more than we do.
His dishonesty is one of the reasons we got to the point where we chose to leave. He vies with May and Heath for the title of worst Tory leader in history.
Regarding faithless electors, is it the case that if the Georgia follows its own rules (and providing the recount and any fraud checking leaves the Dems ahead) the State legislature will have to select a Democratic slate of 16 electors? That is 16 Dems put forward by the party.
Those electors are not going to be faithless, are they.
You can't be - explicit Supreme Court case on this but the legislatures pick them
You are wrong on both counts.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Jesus. The Supreme Court ruled this year on the matter.
Here is some Internet-based knowledge that you may care to read.
Here are some quotes for you from Kagan, cited in the article:
Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”
“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”
That the constitution is "barebones" about the issue merely states that legislatures have wide discretion to determine the method of selection. Nobody is disagreeing with that. The issue is whether, having legislated explicity to determine the method of selection, they then have the power to act in defiance of (or reverse) that legislation retrospectively.
I think i'm correct in saying that the discussions about 'faithless' electors are whether electors, once selected, are obliged to cast their vote in accordance with the states/voters wishes. To avoid all doubt, most states have legislated further on this point as additional precaution, but not all have.
Someone needs to show where it specifically says, 'But this cannot be done retrospectively.'
I already did. Article I, section 10. "No State shall [...] pass any [...] ex post facto Law"
A wise country and establishment would listen to him far more than we do.
I think most people are pretty clear we are a top ranked second power and most are content to be so. Imperial nostalgists can be so loud as to appear disproportionate, but like many things the complaints about those people sometimes exceeds the number of those people. I generally see more people rebutting the idea we are a top ranked power than people claiming we are one to be rebutted in the first place.
It's why speeches like that have less of an impact than people think it should, because most people are already on board with it so find being lectured about it as though it is a revelation unnecessary, and the ones who are not won't listen to anythign anyway.
A wise country and establishment would listen to him far more than we do.
His dishonesty is one of the reasons we got to the point where we chose to leave. He vies with May and Heath for the title of worst Tory leader in history.
I see we have got to the point in the evening where Brexit is all the fault of Remainers.
A wise country and establishment would listen to him far more than we do.
I think most people are pretty clear we are a top ranked second power and most are content to be so. Imperial nostalgists can be so loud as to appear disproportionate, but like many things the complaints about those people sometimes exceeds the number of those people. I generally see more people rebutting the idea we are a top ranked power than people claiming we are one to be rebutted in the first place.
It's why speeches like that have less of an impact than people think it should, because most people are already on board with it so find being lectured about it as though it is a revelation unnecessary, and the ones who are not won't listen to anythign anyway.
Worth remembering that Major was so ignorant of the workings of the EU that he signed a treaty and then moaned that the EU interpreted it in a different way to what he had intended. He wrote them a letter whining about it but was voted out of office before they bothered to reply.
In his situation, faced with the national claims, his options if he were to play along would be to admit either complicity with corruption, or stupidity.
It would appear he has sufficient professional pride to admit neither, and just do his job instead and let that outcome be what it will be whichever way it goes.
A wise country and establishment would listen to him far more than we do.
His dishonesty is one of the reasons we got to the point where we chose to leave. He vies with May and Heath for the title of worst Tory leader in history.
I see we have got to the point in the evening where Brexit is all the fault of Remainers.
Only the stupid Remainers like Major who were too dumb to understand what they were signing us up for.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
The Toddler is a Useful Idiot. If the Coup succeeds it will be an evangelical fascism.
Despite controlling the majority of the districting, and being in government in the majority of states. And with a sitting president.
What is wrong with these people ?
Of course, that means 30% do.
In other words, more than 20 million Republicans believe the result is fair.
Yes (unless there's a bunch of don't knows, which I'd have thought there must be). The attempt by the two Republican candidates for the special elections in Georgia to unseat the Republican Secretary of State is weird, though. In no election that I've ever seen do candidates go out of their way to assail their own side.
"shine. When this verb is intransitive, it means “to give or make light”; the past tense is shone {the stars shone dimly}. When it is transitive, it means “to cause to shine”; the past tense is shined {the caterer shined the silver}."
Exactly. So it should have been "...has shone a light..."
Americans and Brits, a common people only separated by language.
Don't the Americans have "shone" but pronounce it "shown"? I have a vague memory it came up in Buffy the Vampire Slayer 20 years or so back.
Craig...Colin...buoy....they can't pronounce any of those properly.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
I think that such talk fundamentally misunderstands the character of most normal Americans including the vast majority of those who vote for Trump. They will fight tooth and nail to get their candidate elected but, barring a few lunatics who are sadly present in every society, practically every one of them will accept the result and get behind the President even if they don't particularly like the man wearing the suit. Talks of coups are fanciful and idiotic.
Worth remembering that Major was so ignorant of the workings of the EU that he signed a treaty and then moaned that the EU interpreted it in a different way to what he had intended. He wrote them a letter whining about it but was voted out of office before they bothered to reply.
Pah! That's nothing. Boris was so ignorant that he signed a treaty which he hailed as a fantastic deal, and then discovered that even without any interpretation it said the opposite of what he thought.
Didn't see that coming. Quite statesmanlike on the face of it. I don't know enough about the dispute to take sides, but that's a lot better than the first-to-the-last-man stuff.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
The Toddler is a Useful Idiot. If the Coup succeeds it will be an evangelical fascism.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
I think that such talk fundamentally misunderstands the character of most normal Americans including the vast majority of those who vote for Trump. They will fight tooth and nail to get their candidate elected but, barring a few lunatics who are sadly present in every society, practically every one of them will accept the result and get behind the President even if they don't particularly like the man wearing the suit. Talks of coups are fanciful and idiotic.
I agree, but nonetheless it is a fact that a disturbing number of Republicans are refusing to accept the result of a perfectly fair election. Never in my lifetime have I seen anything like that.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
I think that such talk fundamentally misunderstands the character of most normal Americans including the vast majority of those who vote for Trump. They will fight tooth and nail to get their candidate elected but, barring a few lunatics who are sadly present in every society, practically every one of them will accept the result and get behind the President even if they don't particularly like the man wearing the suit. Talks of coups are fanciful and idiotic.
Yet 70% currently think the election was stolen from them. If the SC rules their way why on earth would any change their mind?
Would be big news if true. It seems to be pretty rare for territorial disputes to actually be resolved through the gun thesedays, instead it's just endless cold wars and disputed claims even if one side has no hope of every exercising control over the territory it claims.
Worth remembering that Major was so ignorant of the workings of the EU that he signed a treaty and then moaned that the EU interpreted it in a different way to what he had intended. He wrote them a letter whining about it but was voted out of office before they bothered to reply.
Pah! That's nothing. Boris was so ignorant that he signed a treaty which he hailed as a fantastic deal, and then discovered that even without any interpretation it said the opposite of what he thought.
Boris was being a duplicitous politician. He planned to renege right from the start. It is his whole character to be dishonest which is why I would never vote for him.
Major was genuinely stupid enough not to realise what he was signing and then wrote a whine to the EU Commission about how unhappy he was. The man shouldn't have been in charge of the municipal loos let alone a whole country.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
I think that such talk fundamentally misunderstands the character of most normal Americans including the vast majority of those who vote for Trump. They will fight tooth and nail to get their candidate elected but, barring a few lunatics who are sadly present in every society, practically every one of them will accept the result and get behind the President even if they don't particularly like the man wearing the suit. Talks of coups are fanciful and idiotic.
I agree, but nonetheless it is a fact that a disturbing number of Republicans are refusing to accept the result of a perfectly fair election. Never in my lifetime have I seen anything like that.
Why go through all this if you're NOT going to coup at the end of it. Strategically the GOP is likely creating a whole bunch of "Never going to vote again" voters with these tactics. It's either a coup or a blunder.
A wise country and establishment would listen to him far more than we do.
His dishonesty is one of the reasons we got to the point where we chose to leave. He vies with May and Heath for the title of worst Tory leader in history.
Rubbish. Sir John's reputation is soaring; it is the reputations of those who orchestrated Brexit that are in terminal decline.
What's the largest anti-Govt majority ever in the House of Lords? He's really going to need to scrape the barrel to find enough people to pack the Lords to overturn that one.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
I think that such talk fundamentally misunderstands the character of most normal Americans including the vast majority of those who vote for Trump. They will fight tooth and nail to get their candidate elected but, barring a few lunatics who are sadly present in every society, practically every one of them will accept the result and get behind the President even if they don't particularly like the man wearing the suit. Talks of coups are fanciful and idiotic.
I agree, but nonetheless it is a fact that a disturbing number of Republicans are refusing to accept the result of a perfectly fair election. Never in my lifetime have I seen anything like that.
Why go through all this if you're NOT going to coup at the end of it. Strategically the GOP is likely creating a whole bunch of "Never going to vote again" voters with these tactics. It's either a coup or a blunder.
Trump doesn't give a toss about the GOP. The GOP are craven and can't see the damage they are doing to themselves. Or can see it and have left it too late to escape.
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
That PB is discussing it makes it no more likely to happen: the chances being precisely nil before PB discussed it and precisely nil now.
And yes, 2020 has been more than a bit rubbish, but it is ending with a Biden victory and a vaccine, so has a very positive twist in the tail.
How did the American government get so bad that they make Fox look reasonable?
Yep. When it is a choice between the winner of an election by more than 4 million votes and a coup d'etat, even Fox can walk the middle way to being "fair and balanced."
2020 is shaping up to be an interesting year, isn't it? And not in a good way. The most astonishing in a series of most astonishing things is that we are discussing, quite seriously, the possibility of a coup d'état in the United States. Just step back and think about that.
I think that such talk fundamentally misunderstands the character of most normal Americans including the vast majority of those who vote for Trump. They will fight tooth and nail to get their candidate elected but, barring a few lunatics who are sadly present in every society, practically every one of them will accept the result and get behind the President even if they don't particularly like the man wearing the suit. Talks of coups are fanciful and idiotic.
I agree, but nonetheless it is a fact that a disturbing number of Republicans are refusing to accept the result of a perfectly fair election. Never in my lifetime have I seen anything like that.
Why go through all this if you're NOT going to coup at the end of it. Strategically the GOP is likely creating a whole bunch of "Never going to vote again" voters with these tactics. It's either a coup or a blunder.
I don't think there's much of a strategy at all, except to keep ramping up the rhetoric. If somehow it ends up in some sort of ridiculous "coup" attempt it will because they've boxed themselves into it being the only remaining course of action.
Didn't see that coming. Quite statesmanlike on the face of it. I don't know enough about the dispute to take sides, but that's a lot better than the first-to-the-last-man stuff.
I presume describing people on his own side as 'killers' is a mis-translation.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-54873800
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoZ0K0NymRo
the special context of Article II, can take back the power
to appoint electors."
...presumably only by legislating, and not retrospectively.
https://twitter.com/ragipsoylu/status/1325920677787013122?s=19
What you have is an idiotic, pompously expressed, internet-assembled "knowledge" of a subject you clearly, in reality, know sod all about. And I won't apologise for the insult, because your drivel is a waste of everyone's time.
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/11/09/republicans-free-fair-elections-435488
Despite controlling the majority of the districting, and being in government in the majority of states. And with a sitting president.
What is wrong with these people ?
Also on topic, surely the soundest betting advice one of the two Dems on current ticket is the Dem candidate 2024? Other suggestions merely exciting longer odd options?
And sort of on topic, we are moving to crossover in the AZ Ga counts? You may tell me that can’t happen, but everyday every hour it moves this way?
Team Trump were right all along about premature calling of AZ.
Firstly, no legislatures don't pick them in the sense that they have all laid down, in advance, rules for their appointment which they must follow for the election.
Secondly, they can be faithless to the extent state law allows it, but states can have laws that sanction or them for being faithless (although not all do because in reality the state GOP or Democrat parties aren't going to choose people who are at all likely to defect).
Let's hope they remain fiction only.
The statement is very clear: "‘[T]here is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated’ At any time.
And, for the "internet-assembled knowledge", I do chuckle. I'll put it another way, I'm very confident of my sources.
Now go to bed and put your suppositories in. You clearly have a bad case of the piles.
I am sure this one will rumble on for a few days yet.
Either it fundamentally destroys US democracy and leads to widespread violence and even potential civil war. Or it so undermines belief in the fairness of the electoral process amongst their own supporters that they won't bother to vote in future and this leaves them hugely vulnerable to a highly motivated Democrat party that will.
Again, I make two key points. Firstly, a GOP state legislature in a state carried by Biden has no realistic prospect of getting away with it in the courts because they all have laws that set out the process pretty clearly and don't say "but if you just reckon, without going to court to have votes thrown out, that it's fishy and you aren't going to bother following this law, then that's fine too". Secondly, all state legislators have SOME sane Republicans, perhaps particularly in purple states where they need to win Democrat votes. They just aren't, in numbers, going to commit suicide by pulling a stunt that is doomed to catastrophic failure.
And this needs to happen in multiple states.
Here is some Internet-based knowledge that you may care to read.
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/07/14/supreme-courts-faithless-electors-decision-validates-case-for-the-national-popular-vote-interstate-compact/
Here are some quotes for you from Kagan, cited in the article:
Article II, section 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As [the Constitution says], each State may appoint electors ‘in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.’ … This Court has described that clause as ‘conveying the broadest power of determination’ over who becomes an elector.”
“The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, [its presidential electors]. The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. … That is all.”
Thank God for a sane Republican.
In other words, more than 20 million Republicans believe the result is fair.
I still havent heard anything to suggest this isnt settled in the SC - where I do very much expect Trump to lose, but he has a non zero chance of success.
So Trump held Beaver.
The sort of result he likes to boast about.
I think i'm correct in saying that the discussions about 'faithless' electors are whether electors, once selected, are obliged to cast their vote in accordance with the states/voters wishes. To avoid all doubt, most states have legislated further on this point as additional precaution, but not all have.
FFS.
This is the system they have grown accustomed to.
If this is attempted there will be trouble.
...powers related to electors reside with States to the extent that the Constitution does not remove or restrict that power. Thus, to invalidate a state law, there must be ‘something in the Federal Constitution that deprives the [States of] the power to enact such a measure.’”
Which, of course, there is, should the legislature attempt to legislate retrospectively.
Just because the constitution is ‘barebones’ about electors does not mean the rest of it can be ripped up or ignored.
the manner of its exercise. Having once granted the right to vote on equal terms, the State may not, by later arbitrary and disparate treatment, value one person's vote over that of another"
"There is no difference between the two sides of the present controversy on these basic propositions. Respondents say that the very purpose of vindicating the right to vote justifies the recount procedures now at issue. The question before us, however, is whether the recount procedures the Florida Supreme Court has adopted are consistent with its obligation to avoid arbitrary and disparate treatment of the members of its electorate"
There could be nothing more "arbitrary and disparate" than disregarding the votes of all Democrat voters in favour of all Republican ones, both having followed the process set out in law by the state legislature itself. That is EXACTLY the point the Supreme Court was making. All you have done is noted the fact that for future elections a state legislature could change the rules, but that misses the entire point the Supreme Court was making for the particular election going on at that time (Bush v Gore).
You display your fundamental legal ignorance, as you do with startling regularity, being one of the most ludicrously pompous, willfully ignorant people on here... and you have some competition. And with that the prosecution rests. Good night!
Now, what might be a possibility is if any of the legislatures in question had enacted when they devolved the power to the people language to the effect of "but if anything looks really dodgy, we reserve the right to appoint the electors for that election ourselves." I've yet to hear anyone claiming any of the legislatures did do so back in the day, and I think that we'd be hearing that by now if they had.
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325877703267000325?s=20
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325882587550769153?s=20
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325883977920557058?s=20
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325888728380944384?s=20
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325889583679229952?s=20
https://twitter.com/antoguerrera/status/1325890343376662529?s=20
A new batch of 3,437 votes was declared 18 mins ago - Trump won it 69.5% to 30.5%.
https://alex.github.io/nyt-2020-election-scraper/battleground-state-changes.html
Far too late now though. The time for courage for such convictions is long gone.
Though if memory serves the Secret Service have very little sense of humour when it comes to threats to the president, to the point of interviewing comedians who write joke articles about harming them, so plenty of people should start to be a bit more careful about what they say about the President-Elect, when that is officially confirmed.
It's why speeches like that have less of an impact than people think it should, because most people are already on board with it so find being lectured about it as though it is a revelation unnecessary, and the ones who are not won't listen to anythign anyway.
https://twitter.com/AliBunkallSKY/status/1325922246045667328
It would appear he has sufficient professional pride to admit neither, and just do his job instead and let that outcome be what it will be whichever way it goes.
Major was genuinely stupid enough not to realise what he was signing and then wrote a whine to the EU Commission about how unhappy he was. The man shouldn't have been in charge of the municipal loos let alone a whole country.
I may run a back test once everything gnus counted to see whether my approach would have worked.
It's either a coup or a blunder.
https://twitter.com/sundersays/status/1325750156487237633?s=20
And yes, 2020 has been more than a bit rubbish, but it is ending with a Biden victory and a vaccine, so has a very positive twist in the tail.
I'd be happy to volunteer.