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

[pocket aces]

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.

Why not? Trumper ****s think it is totally OK to do something like that.

 

[noonereal]

"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

This is going to happen.

 

[Callen]

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

There you have it! Wake up America the right to vote by citizens is in serious jeopardy. After all it is not enumerated in the Constitution. This is very serious stuff given this SC

 

[Napoleon]

There you have it! Wake up America voting by citizens is in serious jeopardy.

Why do you care how our President is chosen?

 

[HangLow]

"You'll have health care like you've never seen."

What he was really saying was, "You'll never see health care again."

You are spot-on two A Tee...
-Peace

 

[Callen]

Why do you care how our President is chosen?

Because as much as I wish it wasn't true, it impacts me, my family, my security, my finances, my country and the world! I also own a home in FL and believe it or not while it is citizens who elect a President, that choice impacts every single person legally residing in the States....next question?

 

[Athanasius68]

Why do you care how our President is chosen?

she is from a country where over the past 20 years 5 out of the last 8 governments formed were minority governments ie the majority of the country wanted somebody else as prime minister.

 

[BlueTex]

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.

How did THEIR supreme court rule on those rules in 2020? This is PRECISELY the issue in this case... Do the STATE courts interpret the laws and constitution of the state or does the legislature?

 

[Athanasius68]

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

the changes in the pennsylvania election laws were directed by the state courts, not legislature.

 

[BlueTex]

Actually a court determined the law violated the state constitution.

Which court and which case?

 

[Callen]

she is from a country where over the past 20 years 5 out of the last 8 governments formed were minority governments ie the majority of the country wanted somebody else as prime minister.

That's not exactly true but have at it. Hint we don't vote for our PM and we have more than two parties.

 

[Athanasius68]

No, what it does is protect the legislators from any judicial oversight on any election decision they may make. It removes the third branch entirely.

the courts aren't all powerful-- their job isn't to review and clear all laws for constitutionality.

This whole thing is about what the constitution actually says-- that the state legislatures have the authority to control how its electors are cast. Can the judiciary change that?

And as somebody has already pointed out, the only people who are actually talking about the state legislature overturning the vote of the residents of their state (and many states have already voted to do exactly that) are those folks who defend the National Voter Compact.

 

[BlueTex]

the courts aren't all powerful-- their job isn't to review and clear all laws for constitutionality.

This whole thing is about what the constitution actually says-- that the state legislatures have the authority to control how its electors are cast. Can the judiciary change that?

And as somebody has already pointed out, the only people who are actually talking about the state legislature overturning the vote of the residents of their state (and many states have already voted to do exactly that) are those folks who defend the National Voter Compact.

How the electors are cast are determined by state constitution and state laws. In THIS case, the NC GOP is asking to be allowed of IGNORE their own supreme court.

 

[Athanasius68]

That's not exactly true but have at it. Hint we don't vote for our PM and we have more than two parties.

that is true.
i get it that in Canada, the canadian who gets to vote the pm are the constituents who reside in that person's riding.
not only does the public does not vote for the head of government, it also does not vote for the head of state.

 

[Callen]

that is true.
i get it that in Canada, the canadian who gets to vote the pm are the constituents who reside in that person's riding.
not only does the public does not vote for the head of government, it also does not vote for the head of state.

Wrong again in your understanding. The people only get to vote for their representative nobody votes for the PM.

 

[Athanasius68]

How the electors are cast are determined by state constitution and state laws. In THIS case, the NC GOP is asking to be allowed of IGNORE their own supreme court.

federal law trumps state law.
federal constitution trumps federal law.

 

[I'm Immemorial]

"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

You are not at all wrong and rightfully worried, as are the majority of us. Mute the trolls.

 

[Athanasius68]

Wrong again in your understanding. The people only get to vote for their representative nobody votes for the PM.

you keep making the point-- nobody votes for the PM-- except fpr Parliament.

so why are you fretting about what the USA might do, when Canada already does it and has done it for years.

 

[Rawley]

Which court and which case?

Your Google broken?

Pennsylvania court declares state's no-excuse absentee voting law unconstitutional

A Pennsylvania appellate court on Friday struck down a law that allows no-excuse absentee voting, saying it violates the state constitution.

www.cnn.com

 

[Captain Adverse]

"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

Well, the Constitution supports this understanding.

"The Supreme Court has said that the Twelfth Amendment “both acknowledg[ed] and facilitat[ed] the Electoral College's emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting.” 4 Accordingly, the Court has concluded that the Twelfth Amendment generally does not prevent states from enacting laws intended to ensure that electors vote for the parties' nominees.5

Twelfth Amendment: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

That was decided in CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON 193 Wash. 2d 380, 441 P. 3d 807, affirmed.

CHIAFALO v. WASHINGTON

www.law.cornell.edu

Based on Article II Section 1 "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress..."

Article II

www.law.cornell.edu

Just consider how the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" being proposed does that same kind of thing:

Article II

www.law.cornell.edu

Seems like the Left has no problem disenfranchising voters when it comes to that Compact proposal.

 

[BlueTex]

federal law trumps state law.
federal constitution trumps federal law.

So federal courts can intervene in these cases?

 

[Callen]

you keep making the point-- nobody votes for the PM-- except fpr Parliament.

Again you are wrong. Parliament does not vote for the PM.

so why are you fretting about what the USA might do, when Canada already does it and has done it for years.

No idea what you are talking about, nor clearly do you, neither Provincial legislators nor Federal legislators chose the PM.

Breathlessly waiting for you to move the yardstick.

 

[BlueTex]

Your Google broken?

Pennsylvania court declares state's no-excuse absentee voting law unconstitutional

A Pennsylvania appellate court on Friday struck down a law that allows no-excuse absentee voting, saying it violates the state constitution.

www.cnn.com

Then slapped down by the PA supreme court..

Pennsylvania Supreme Court says mail-in voting law will stay in place, at least for now

Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law is remaining in place, at least for the near future, despite a state judge’s order that would have made it expire in two weeks.

www.wesa.fm

 

[BlueTex]

Well, the Constitution supports this understanding.

"The Supreme Court has said that the Twelfth Amendment “both acknowledg[ed] and facilitat[ed] the Electoral College's emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting.” 4 Accordingly, the Court has concluded that the Twelfth Amendment generally does not prevent states from enacting laws intended to ensure that electors vote for the parties' nominees.5

Twelfth Amendment: Overview

www.law.cornell.edu

Which has NOTHING to do with this case before the supreme court... This case is not about electors voting...

 

[Rawley]

Then slapped down by the PA supreme court..

Pennsylvania Supreme Court says mail-in voting law will stay in place, at least for now

Pennsylvania’s mail-in voting law is remaining in place, at least for the near future, despite a state judge’s order that would have made it expire in two weeks.

www.wesa.fm

Sorry - it's still ruled unconstitutional. They extended her order for when the law will expire.