Am I reading this right: The SC Is Laying Groundwork to Pre-Rig the 2024 Election

[Luce]

Of course it's real.

 

[Luce]

That's what they are planning, huh? Miss Cleo help you with this bit of clairvoyance?

Nobody needs a psychic to know what the GOP will do with this.

 

[Rawley]

Nobody needs a psychic to know what the GOP will do with this.

Do with what?

 

[Luce]

Do with what?

Are you experiencing difficulty in keeping up, or are you sealioning?

 

[Rawley]

Are you experiencing difficulty in keeping up, or are you sealioning?

I have no idea WTF you guys are jabbering about. The only legislatures that have told their voters that they will toss out their majority vote in favor of their own opinion are the ones that have signed up to this cockamamie Popular Vote nonsense.

No Republican legislatures have proposed any such scheme.

 

[watsup]

I have no idea WTF you guys are jabbering about. The only legislatures that have told their voters that they will toss out their majority vote in favor of their own opinion are the ones that have signed up to this cockamamie Popular Vote nonsense.

No Republican legislatures have proposed any such scheme.

Did you even read the OP?

 

[Rawley]

Did you even read the OP?

Yep. Utterly devoid of fact- just BS, unfounded, unsupported accusations.

"Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate [in 2024].""

Again, the only legislatures that are committed to such a scheme are the National Popular Vote jokers.

 

[watsup]

Yep. Utterly devoid of fact- just BS, unfounded, unsupported accusations.

The normal psychological projection from you.

 

[Rawley]

The normal psychological projection from you.

Not even going to try to support the BS in this loony toon piece, huh? Smart man, for once.

 

[Napoleon]

Have you read the application and response for this case: Moore v. Harper?

Yeah, have you read Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution?

 

[Noodlegawd]

"Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate [in 2024]."

This can't be right. Somebody tell me the SC isn't this slimy that they would turn the selection of electors over to state legislatures who could overturn the ones selected by the voters in favor of their own electors just like Trump tried to do in 2020.

The Washington Post:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats."

The Republicans point out that the Constitution says that it's up to the states—"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"—to decide which presidential candidate gets their Electoral College votes.

Judge J. Michael Luttig recently wrote:

"Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine … and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency."

Is this real? Could the SC make a decision on Moore v Harper next year which could set the stage for Republican legislatures having the power the throw out legitimate slates of electors in favor of their own hand-picked electors who would then choose Donald Trump?????? Such a thing is inconceivable in the US. At least it WAS inconceivable until the SC overturned Roe. Everybody should read the short editorial below. It is hair-raising, and ominous.

Opinion | Beware: The Supreme Court Is Laying Groundwork to Pre-Rig the 2024 Election

"Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate."

www.commondreams.org

There they go again, actually reading the Constitution. The bastages!!!

 

[BlueTex]

Yeah, have you read Article 1 Section 4 Clause 1 of the Constitution?

Was the supreme court wrong in Rucho v. Common Cause when it said that state courts should be used to settle these disputes?

 

[JasperL]

Just more crazy progressive fear mongering. State Legislatures do have sole authority to decide how electors are chosen per the plain text of the Constitution and that is how it has been done since day 1.

OK, then explain what the issue is before the court.... Should be interesting.

 

[Acadia]

The only groundwork being laid out is that the Left, in service of the DNC, is going to say the elections were rigged, when they lose. Just as they did when Trump won, and Hillary Clinton released the phony Russia Collusion hoax, aided and abetted by the media and alphabet agencies.
The Democrats WILL attempt to overturn and delegitimize the midterm elections, and then 2024, if they lose.

 

[JasperL]

There is no such case. What this case deals with is what we saw in the last election - courts all over the country usurping the sole Constitutional authority of the State Legislatures to make the rules, ignoring the law, and creating their own rules.

I see, so for elections, the state legislature is unbound by laws, the constitution or the decisions of the courts!

Should make it easy for Republicans to forever seize control. After all, if there are no courts then there cannot be a redistricting plan rejected, which means a red state can put all the Democrats in one district and then the rest of the state is "safe." And if they have a bare majority in the legislature, they can bypass the voters entirely, whenever they feel like it, and just appoint who they want as electors, since nothing they can do is illegal or even unconstitutional, since they have "sole" authority, and sole means just that - no other body has a role! So you see, it's how things have always been!

 

[Napoleon]

I see, so for elections, the state legislature is unbound by laws, the constitution or the decisions of the courts!

Should make it easy for Republicans to forever seize control. After all, if there are no courts then there cannot be a redistricting plan rejected, which means a red state can put all the Democrats in one district and then the rest of the state is "safe." And if they have a bare majority in the legislature, they can bypass the voters entirely, whenever they feel like it, and just appoint who they want as electors, since nothing they can do is illegal or even unconstitutional, since they have "sole" authority, and sole means just that - no other body has a role! So you see, it's how things have always been!

Gerrymandering is hardly unique to Republicans and I don’t see you get this frenzied when Democrats do it.

 

[JasperL]

Somehow that is democracy in action - disenfranchising the voters in the entire state. Hoo Doggies.

Yes, because it's not democracy if the person with the most votes in an election wins that election!!! That's......... well something but it's not democracy!!

 

[JasperL]

Gerrymandering is hardly unique to Republicans and I don’t see you get this frenzied when Democrats do it.

Well, obviously you ignored a bunch of other implications of this theory. But even taking this small part, for starters, legislatures have forever operated under the wise assumption that the gerrymandered districts must meet some kind of rational test, call it a "smell" test if you want, or else they're liable to be struck down, which has happened many times. So the state and/or federal court's ability to restrain the legislature in that duty affects redistricting behavior from the outset of a legislature starting the map drawing process. Remove that entirely, as is proposed, since "sole" means "sole", then the entire game changes. And that's just for starters.

But, sure, substitute "Democrat" for "Republican" anywhere you want and it changes nothing about what I said. All you need is a majority in the state legislature and literally ANYTHING is on the table. If it's Democrats, and Trump wins a state, no worries. The state legislature just votes and awards that state's EC voters to the Democrat, and nothing anyone can do to stop them, since "sole" means "sole." See the problem? It's an incredibly radical viewpoint of the way this country should work. Where else does one body, in this case the legislature, operate unchecked by the other two - here the judiciary and the executive branches?

 

[reflechissez]

Well, obviously you ignored a bunch of other implications of this theory. But even taking this small part, for starters, legislatures have forever operated under the wise assumption that the gerrymandered districts must meet some kind of rational test, call it a "smell" test if you want, or else they're liable to be struck down, which has happened many times. So the state and/or federal court's ability to restrain the legislature in that duty affects redistricting behavior from the outset of a legislature starting the map drawing process. Remove that entirely, as is proposed, since "sole" means "sole", then the entire game changes. And that's just for starters.

Which was intentional.

 

[Rawley]

Yes, because it's not democracy if the person with the most votes in an election wins that election!!! That's......... well something but it's not democracy!!

LOL Nothing says democracy like throwing the person with the most votes in our state to the curb because people in other states voted for someone else.

 

[Fishking]

"Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate [in 2024]."

This can't be right. Somebody tell me the SC isn't this slimy that they would turn the selection of electors over to state legislatures who could overturn the ones selected by the voters in favor of their own electors just like Trump tried to do in 2020.

The Washington Post:

"The Supreme Court on Thursday said it will consider what would be a radical change in the way federal elections are conducted, giving state legislatures sole authority to set the rules for contests even if their actions violated state constitutions and resulted in extreme partisan gerrymandering for congressional seats."

The Republicans point out that the Constitution says that it's up to the states—"in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct"—to decide which presidential candidate gets their Electoral College votes.

Judge J. Michael Luttig recently wrote:

"Trump and the Republicans can only be stopped from stealing the 2024 election at this point if the Supreme Court rejects the independent state legislature doctrine … and Congress amends the Electoral Count Act to constrain Congress' own power to reject state electoral votes and decide the presidency."

Is this real? Could the SC make a decision on Moore v Harper next year which could set the stage for Republican legislatures having the power the throw out legitimate slates of electors in favor of their own hand-picked electors who would then choose Donald Trump?????? Such a thing is inconceivable in the US. At least it WAS inconceivable until the SC overturned Roe. Everybody should read the short editorial below. It is hair-raising, and ominous.

Opinion | Beware: The Supreme Court Is Laying Groundwork to Pre-Rig the 2024 Election

"Republican strategists are gaming out which states have Republican legislatures willing to override the votes of their people to win the White House for the Republican candidate."

www.commondreams.org

I mean, Pennsylvania set up their rules for 2020 in violation of their state constitution so this isn't something that hasn't happened already. That said, I usually ignore things people are freaking out about. Most of the time it's made up.

 

[JasperL]

I mean, Pennsylvania set up their rules for 2020 in violation of their state constitution so this isn't something that hasn't happened already. That said, I usually ignore things people are freaking out about. Most of the time it's made up.

Right, the GOP controlled legislature decided that laws it passed with GOP support were unconstitutional...

 

[Callen]

Right, the GOP controlled legislature decided that laws it passed with GOP support were unconstitutional...

Only when it didn't work out well for them.

 

[Rawley]

Right, the GOP controlled legislature decided that laws it passed with GOP support were unconstitutional...

Actually a court determined the law violated the state constitution.

 

[Napoleon]

Well, obviously you ignored a bunch of other implications of this theory. But even taking this small part, for starters, legislatures have forever operated under the wise assumption that the gerrymandered districts must meet some kind of rational test, call it a "smell" test if you want, or else they're liable to be struck down, which has happened many times. So the state and/or federal court's ability to restrain the legislature in that duty affects redistricting behavior from the outset of a legislature starting the map drawing process. Remove that entirely, as is proposed, since "sole" means "sole", then the entire game changes. And that's just for starters.

But, sure, substitute "Democrat" for "Republican" anywhere you want and it changes nothing about what I said. All you need is a majority in the state legislature and literally ANYTHING is on the table. If it's Democrats, and Trump wins a state, no worries. The state legislature just votes and awards that state's EC voters to the Democrat, and nothing anyone can do to stop them, since "sole" means "sole." See the problem? It's an incredibly radical viewpoint of the way this country should work. Where else does one body, in this case the legislature, operate unchecked by the other two - here the judiciary and the executive branches?

State Legislatures chose the delegates without any popular vote at all until after the civil war. What is “radical” about it?