• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

[W: #1427] Seven states join Texas

One huge issue for SCOTUS here is what's the remedy they CAN order? Let's say they conclude that X law is "unconstitutional." Well, if that's the case, and the remedy is nothing, because the remedy requested is to disenfranchise 10s of millions of votes LEGALLY cast under the state law that existed during the election, what is the SCOTUS's role? To say that and then do nothing or do you really think the court will throw out 10s of millions of votes for a violation of law that could have been challenged in 2019 or months BEFORE the election but was not?

The closest analogy I can think of would be a rule change for NCAA football. The teams play the national championship game under the rules in place at that time. Weeks later, the loser files a lawsuit alleging the NCAA didn't follow the right procedure to change the rule, and that rule which arguably or clearly advantaged the winning team should be thrown out. Well, what's the remedy? Should the courts order a new game be played months later, or just reverse the results and award the losing team the national championship?

Or do nothing, since if the loser didn't like how the rule was changed, the time to do it was BEFORE THE GAME WAS PLAYED, not after they lost.... I'll go with that option.

The solution is rather simple - force the offending states to remove any unconstitutional election law changes. As to what (if anything) that means for past elections I have no answer. While I agree that a law should be able to be challenged (on constitutional grounds) before it has taken effect, the SCOTUS does not see it that way and requires that someone have standing (has actually been harmed as a direct result of that law).
 
I gotcha .

So what we need to do is throw out all of the Senators and Representatives for every state that changed their laws.

The POTUS election is fine since it is not included in this.

I think that is a great plan

Oh, and why are only 4 states being sued since far more than just 4 did what those 4 did?

That is covered by Article 2, 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
 
Well we'll see what happens here, but the SCOTUS already refused to hear the case against PA, and this new one by TX is pretty much the same argument as the already dismissed case. So I don't see it as making any headway.

What I will say is that NOW any State that does not have a mail-in system needs to adopt Colorado's voting system before the next election cycle. Just get it flushed out and ready to go so we don't have to go through this BS again.
 
While I agree that a law should be able to be challenged (on constitutional grounds) before it has taken effect, the SCOTUS does not see it that way and requires that someone have standing (has actually been harmed as a direct result of that law).

But the state laws do not require this, so the laws could have been challenged at the state level, but they were not

Hell, Pa wrote in to the law the process to challenge it
 
That is covered by Article 2, Section 1:
Thanks for revealing your own BS. Nothing in that section or any other section gives any state, or a group of any number of states, power to change the vote in another state. In fact, the part you emphasized specifically shows that each state has the sole power to determine how its election is run. I thought you people knew what federalism means. You're always throwing it around when it suits your need.
 
Last edited:
But the state laws do not require this, so the laws could have been challenged at the state level, but they were not

Hell, Pa wrote in to the law the process to challenge it

Yep, but the PA Supreme Court changed it by other means. The basis for the SCOTUS making the call is that the dispute comes from another state - not from folks within PA.
 
and this is taking place in all 50 states right now.

how the election is ran and how the Electors are appointed are two separate issues

Nope, since which electors are appointed directly depends on that state’s POTUS election results.
 
Not in this case. They are representing pretty much their own will, claiming it is of the people of their state. At what point did they take any sort of consideration for the will of the people on their stance here?
The will of the people in their state is for Trump to be president.
 

Because they are speaking for themselves and not the people.

The people were not asked if the AG should approve of the suit.

Even the Govs in some states have stated the AGs are speaking only for themselves
 
I'm straight up laughing in your face right now. I know you, I know, you can't see me, but I just put ramen soup through my nose in laughter, thinking about you typing that in seriousness and hitting Reply.

The best part of this is that, even if you somehow manage to put your entire election process into a dumpster and set it on fire by somehow managing to keep Trump in office, you still lose. The rest of the world will look at you as an untrustworthy failed stated, headed by a tinpot dictator that they've already rejected as a worthless dumbass.

Or, if, as everything in the land of reality would suggest, the piece of shit gets evicted, well, you'll be bitter all the rest of your days over it, won't you. :)

Don't you see? Either way I win, and either way you lose. That's why I don't have to care, while you reek of desperation.

Happy Thursday! :)
You're woefully unread. My condolences.
 
Because they are speaking for themselves and not the people.

The people were not asked if the AG should approve of the suit.

Even the Govs in some states have stated the AGs are speaking only for themselves
The people voted Republican and want Trump. Sorry logic is not your strong suit.
 
You're woefully unread. My condolences.

Funny, when SCOTUS throws out this case, we will be using those very same words as you move on to your civil war that you claimed was next

I am looking forward to see how you implement the civil war
 
Trump would settle for PoS of the Confederate States.
Here we go again with the Goebbelsian lie. Mind telling me what his full comment was about "There are good people on both sides."?
 
Back
Top Bottom