- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 14,607
- Reaction score
- 9,303
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections.
All else being equal, an elected state legislature has more democratic legitimacy to decide something than does a committee of nine appointed government officials with lifetime tenure.It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
Both sides have been abusive of the voting process. Neither is willing to follow the letter or the intent of the law. They get their hands on power and they want to make legal changes which aid their side in winning.It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
State constitutions may come into play here.It's interesting. 99% of the time, the radical right on the court is ruling corruptly, following a radical ideology designed to overturn the constitution for the benefit of plutocrats.
But on presidential elections, they might be on stronger ground. Here's what the constitution says:
"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..."
In such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct. That means they can let citizens vote to decide. Or they can decide themselves. Or they can throw darts. In such manner as the Legislature may direct. And that language is the basis, I suspect, of the argument that the state constitutions and court have no say - it says right there, the LEGISLATURE may direct, so who can second guess them on state grounds?
We take things for granted, but that doesn't mean they're required. Before JFK, political parties picked nominees in 'smoke filled backrooms' and conventions. JFK saw that he'd lose that, and took advantage of rules allowing him to run in primaries across the country. In his private plane, he and Ted Sorensen flew to all 50 states before the primaries, and he won that way. Ever since, we take primary elections for granted.
There don't need to even be primary elections; that's a party choice. And the constitution says right there, while you get to vote on your state legislature, you don't get to vote on president unless that state legislature says you do. How many Americans know that? Republican lawyers sure do. And they have a plan.
I could be in error, but seems to me these so-called "Militia Groups" might need to turn their thoughts on what really counts in this society,
That's what's to be ruled on. The Federal Constitution overrules the State Constitution, and it says 'as the legislature may direct', so on what grounds can the state constitution overrule the federal constitution saying 'as the legislature may direct'.State constitutions may come into play here.
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.All else being equal, an elected state legislature has more democratic legitimacy to decide something than does a committee of nine appointed government officials with lifetime tenure.
That said, unless a state’s constitution explicitly forbade its court system from ruling on that state’s election laws, I fail to see how a state court could avoid interpreting state law.
YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
Except that's not what the constitution says is required, for the presidency.YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
And yet this court just handed the abortion issue and the scope of EPA authority back to the voting public and their legislators.YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
Is there some case before the Supremes that I haven't heard of? One that concerns "Federal and state wide elections"? Maybe you can provide a link to the case?It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
It seems that the SCOTUS is on the verge of ending democracy when it comes to Federal and state wide elections. If they allow states to make rules without allowing their courts to interfere, some of the state legislators are on the verge of deciding for themselves the winners of state wide elections. This would mean that voters do not count, only the gerrymandered, allowed by SCOTUS, state legislators would do the deciding. It means moving toward autocratic rule. I would actually be surprised if this SCOTUS/GOP did not agree with the state legislators. So should SCOTUS allow state legislators decide on election winners?
1. it is, because the electors are chosen by the voters, not the legislators.Except that's not what the constitution says is required, for the presidency.
1. it is, because the electors are chosen by the voters, not the legislators.
2. they are talking about far more than just the presidential election.
Ever notice how 99% of his posts lead with a straw-man?It's interesting. 99% of the time, the radical right on the court is ruling corruptly, following a radical ideology designed to overturn the constitution for the benefit of plutocrats.
I was responding to comments about the electoral system.What other than the POTUS election, using the EC system, depends on “electors”?
I was responding to comments about the electoral system.
Not anymore, its about a small handful of right wing democracy hating clowns that get to decide that Republicans will win 100% of the time. The people have lost their voice.YOu guys keep forgetting about the people. The voting public. The citizens of the states. They are the ones who are supposed to decide elections.
1. it is, because the electors are chosen by the voters, not the legislators.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?