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

[watsup]

Why do you care how our President is chosen?

What a truly silly question.

 

[JasperL]

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

They were directed by both, actually... Look it up. For example, the big mail in voting changes were passed by the GOP-controlled legislature. How that happened in the pandemic was partially decided on by the courts. The mail in voting that was declared unconstitutional was the legislative changes, a compromise between Democrats and Republicans in that legislature.

But what the theory describes is a role where the legislature can act unbound by the courts, the constitution, or laws. Just the legislature, no role for the executive branch. So it's not clear how the courts can even declare a mail in voting requirement unconstitutional, since the courts have no role in this theory.

 

[Callen]

What a truly silly question.

Yes, silly...nice word.... but so easily answered.

ETA. I welcome informed discussion and opinions about Canadian politics and issues. However, it is so often uninformed or misinformed. A
I have my opinions on American politics and I admit they are strong and some may not agree but at least damnit they are informed.

 

[BlueTex]

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

LMAO... Until the state supreme court weighs in, it is not... wipe your tears and go whine somewhere else

 

[JasperL]

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

I don't know why you guys do this. You quoted me telling you what's "radical" then ignore every word to re-ask the question without engaging any point in that comment. Or you misstate what I claimed was "radical" which was 1) having an election, then 2) using the legislature to overturn the will of those voters and just award the votes based on raw power. That WAS the Eastman/Trump plan, and it relied on this theory, that the legislature had unbound discretion to just declare the vote invalid based on no finding of any court, and substitute their own preference for the outcome.

As to your point, yes, the state can if it wants do away with the popular vote entirely, and award it based on a vote of the legislature. But they don't have a popular vote, THEN get to decide whether or not the results are to their liking. Again, this was the core of the Eastman plan.

But I think you know all this....

 

[Mithrae]

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.

As described in the articles provided the apparent US trajectory is one in which voters have no effective say, one in which gerrymandering predetermines all legislature outcomes going forward and legislatures predetermine all presidential outcomes. It's exactly the opposite of democracy, and almost exactly comparable to the one-party rule of the Chinese Communist Party.

That is obviously not the case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (quite the opposite, it emphasizes voters' choice) and obviously not the case for parliamentary democracies (in which formation of government and appointment of a prime minister is crudely comparable to a more nuanced, more balanced version of the current Electoral College, notably with all members of government/cabinet themselves being elected representatives).

In the name of waving a flag for their team, the right-wing folk here are trying to say that day is the same as night, that eliminating voters' voice in elections is the same thing as emphasizing voters' say either in gestalt (NPVIC) or in detail (parliament)... which pretty much tells us all we need to know about why this is being pushed through the Republican party and why its 'voters' will cheer even as their civil rights and eventually fundamental human rights are stripped away from them.

 

[Fishking]

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

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?

They do, but they literally went against what was in the state Constitution.

 

[JasperL]

They do, but they literally went against what was in the state Constitution.

Of course if those pushing the independent state legislature doctrine get their way, it doesn't matter what the state constitution says - the legislature can do what it wants unbound by the courts....

 

[Captain Adverse]

That is obviously not the case for the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (quite the opposite, it emphasizes voters' choice) and obviously not the case for parliamentary democracies (in which formation of government and appointment of a prime minister is crudely comparable to a more nuanced, more balanced version of the current Electoral College, notably with all members of government/cabinet themselves being elected representatives).

Wrongly viewed IMO.

What this does is disenfranchise a possible majority of each signatory's population by giving all the States electoral votes to the "national popular vote recipient" even if a majority of said State's population voted for the OTHER candidate.

It also goes against the idea for which the electoral college was created. For the State's to elect the President, NOT the population.

I've already argued why, and for some reason (partisan power seeking?) the opposition refuses to see that this nation was never designed to be a tyranny of the majority.

Your side rags on the prior Administration.

Yet look at how that vindictive vote to "change" worked out with the current Administration.

A doddering old man, clearly a puppet of whomever makes up the cabal of progressive fearmongers and swampy power-brokers who pull his strings.

In the name of waving a flag for their team, the right-wing folk here are trying to say that day is the same as night, that eliminating voters' voice in elections is the same thing as emphasizing voters' say either in gestalt (NPVIC) or in detail (parliament)... which pretty much tells us all we need to know about why this is being pushed through the Republican party and why its 'voters' will cheer even as their civil rights and eventually fundamental human rights are stripped away from them.

Once again this is NOT a Democracy! It is and has always been designed as a Republic so that compromises must be reached in order to obtain a reasonable consensus.

One-Party Rule, which IMO is all this NPV push is for (along with open borders, massive welfare, etc.) will turn this nation into the same cesspit every other nation with such a government amply demonstrate.

 

[JasperL]

Wrongly viewed IMO.

What this does is disenfranchise a possible majority of each signatory's population by giving all the States electoral votes to the "national popular vote recipient" even if a majority of said State's population voted for the OTHER candidate.

It also goes against the idea for which the electoral college was created. For the State's to elect the President, NOT the population.

I've already argued why, and for some reason (partisan power seeking?) the opposition refuses to see that this nation was never designed to be a tyranny of the majority.

Why is a tyranny of the minority preferable? Do the minority have some right to rule?

Your side rags on the prior Administration.

Yet look at how that vindictive vote to "change" worked out with the current Administration.

A doddering old man, clearly a puppet of whomever makes up the cabal of progressive fearmongers and swampy power-brokers who pull his strings.


Once again this is NOT a Democracy! It is and has always been designed as a Republic so that compromises must be reached in order to obtain a reasonable consensus.

One-Party Rule, which IMO is all this NPV push is for (along with open borders, massive welfare, etc.) will turn this nation into the same cesspit every other nation with such a government amply demonstrate.

It's only "one party rule" if one party consistently gets the most votes.

 

[Craig234]

I welcome informed discussion and opinions about Canadian politics and issues

On behalf of Americans, some questions.

1. Is Canada real

2. What is the difference between Canada and a state

3. Your dollar is worth less than ours LOL USA USA USA sorry no question here

 

[BlueTex]

They do, but they literally went against what was in the state Constitution.

LMAO.... Are you suggesting the legislature is now responsible for interpreting their state constitution? In this upside down world, what exactly is the role of the courts?

 

[Fishking]

LMAO.... Are you suggesting the legislature is now responsible for interpreting their state constitution? In this upside down world, what exactly is the role of the courts?

Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not even suggesting anything. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to read things.

 

[BlueTex]

Nope, that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm not even suggesting anything. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to read things.

So, please tell us what Moore v. Harper is asking?

 

[HangLow]

I don't know why you guys do this. You quoted me telling you what's "radical" then ignore every word to re-ask the question without engaging any point in that comment. Or you misstate what I claimed was "radical" which was 1) having an election, then 2) using the legislature to overturn the will of those voters and just award the votes based on raw power. That WAS the Eastman/Trump plan, and it relied on this theory, that the legislature had unbound discretion to just declare the vote invalid based on no finding of any court, and substitute their own preference for the outcome.

As to your point, yes, the state can if it wants do away with the popular vote entirely, and award it based on a vote of the legislature. But they don't have a popular vote, THEN get to decide whether or not the results are to their liking. Again, this was the core of the Eastman plan.

But I think you know all this....

​

 

[Craig234]

LMAO.... Are you suggesting the legislature is now responsible for interpreting their state constitution? In this upside down world, what exactly is the role of the courts?

Traffic tickets, and certifying anything Republicans want.

 

[Rawley]

LMAO... Until the state supreme court weighs in, it is not... wipe your tears and go whine somewhere else

Brilliant response I don't know how you do it.

 

[BlueTex]

Brilliant response I don't know how you do it.

Are they still doing no excuse mail in voting in PA today?

 

[Rawley]

Are they still doing no excuse mail in voting in PA today?

PA SC extended the date for the lower court's decision to kick in. Which part are you having problems with?

 

[BlueTex]

PA SC extended the date for the lower court's decision to kick in. Which part are you having problems with?

UNTIL THEY RULE... Good lord... LMAO...

 

[Rawley]

UNTIL THEY RULE... Good lord... LMAO...

Yep. Trial court's ruling that the law is unconstitutional has not been disturbed. Why is that so difficult for you to admit? It's like you have some skin in that game.

 

[BlueTex]

Yep. Trial court's ruling that the law is unconstitutional has not been disturbed. Why is that so difficult for you to admit? It's like you have some skin in that game.

LOL... Why did the GOP pass an unconstitutional law?

Pennsylvania's mail-in voting law has its day in Supreme Court – Pennsylvania Capital-Star

Though they're challenging it, GOP lawmakers who voted for the law were were ignorant of the law’s 'constitutional infirmity,' an attorney argued.

www.penncapital-star.com

 

[Rawley]

LOL... Why did the GOP pass an unconstitutional law?

Pennsylvania's mail-in voting law has its day in Supreme Court – Pennsylvania Capital-Star

Though they're challenging it, GOP lawmakers who voted for the law were were ignorant of the law’s 'constitutional infirmity,' an attorney argued.

www.penncapital-star.com

Because they are weak knee'd ******s