|
|
| Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? (1748731) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
|
| (1748733) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 6 12:35:33 2020, in response to Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 6 12:31:33 2020. Oh no; the libs here only crow when Roberts votes with them. They cheer when he acts like the new Anthony Kennedy. |
|
|
| (1748752) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Mon Jul 6 12:53:42 2020, in response to Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 6 12:31:33 2020. This is retroactive? Becasue I like the fact that Hilarity Clinton had a record for having the most faithless electors. |
|
|
| (1748754) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 12:55:33 2020, in response to Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 6 12:31:33 2020. How is this an anti-liberal decision? If anything, it further shows the uselessness of the electrical college. |
|
|
| (1748758) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 6 12:57:29 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Orange Blossom Special on Mon Jul 6 12:53:42 2020. That's fascinating indeed. |
|
|
| (1748761) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by JayZeeBMT on Mon Jul 6 12:58:50 2020, in response to Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 6 12:31:33 2020. The decision exposes the inherent flaws of the EC. Why is that bad news for liberals? |
|
|
| (1748770) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 13:07:16 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Olog-hai on Mon Jul 6 12:57:29 2020. It's hardly fascinating. Faithless electors have historically been more likely to be pledged to the loser, at least since 1836. |
|
|
| (1748788) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 13:28:08 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 12:55:33 2020. How is this an anti-liberal decision? If anything, it further shows the uselessness of the electrical college.In 4 of 5 presidential elections it was the Democratic candidate that won the popular vote but lost the election in the electrical college. The two most resent were Al Gore to George W. Bush in 2000 and Hillary Clinton to Donald Trump in 2016. It renders the creation of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact null and void. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1748790) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 13:29:38 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 13:28:08 2020. Huh? The NPVIC has not yet taken effect. How is it relevant? |
|
|
| (1748793) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 13:47:07 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 13:29:38 2020. Huh? The NPVIC has not yet taken effect. How is it relevant?.Because both states that asked the court to settle the matter of "faithless electors" are members of that compact. Therefor all electors in that compact would be defined as faithless electors if one or more of the states popular vote winner was different then the national popular vote winner. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1748796) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 13:53:48 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 13:47:07 2020. But the Supreme Court ruled that the state can enforce rules regarding faithless electors, meaning that the NPVIC can work. |
|
|
| (1748798) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 14:02:25 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 13:28:08 2020. It renders the creation of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact null and void.You have it backward. It allows a state to appoint electors who are bound by the NPVIC rules. |
|
|
| (1748814) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 14:54:55 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 14:02:25 2020. You have it backward. It allows a state to appoint electors who are bound by the NPVIC rules.The problem with that interpretation is that it goes against the candidate that won the popular vote in the electors state. John in the sand box of Maryland's eastern shore. |
|
|
| (1748816) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Mon Jul 6 14:59:50 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 14:54:55 2020. My reading of the decision is that it holds that it does not violate the Constitution for a state to mandate that an elector vote in a particular way. Therefore, if a state adopts NPVIC, it can require electors to vote for the candidate receiving the majority of the popular vote nationwide. |
|
|
| (1748817) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 15:00:39 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Sand Box John on Mon Jul 6 14:54:55 2020. The problem with that interpretation is that it goes against the candidate that won the popular vote in the electors state.And? The Supreme Court decision doesn't address that issue. |
|
|
| (1748818) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 15:03:01 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by mtk52983 on Mon Jul 6 14:59:50 2020. Is there even anything (I forget) in the amendments to the Constitution that prevents a legislature from choosing the electors directly like in the good old days? |
|
|
| (1748820) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 15:07:21 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by mtk52983 on Mon Jul 6 14:59:50 2020. And in any event, nothing requires a state to hold a popular election for electors in any event. Electors could just as easily be chosen by the legislature. |
|
|
| (1748821) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 15:07:48 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 15:03:01 2020. No! |
|
|
| (1748824) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 15:13:12 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 15:00:39 2020. On top of that, a state could hold a "beauty contest" for electors for president and vice president, and then have the state legislature choose a slate of electors completely contrary to the voters' choice.This almost happened in 2000: The Florida House voted to award the state's electors to Bush regardless of the outcome of the pending recount. The Florida Senate was scheduled to vote on the matter but ultimately did not as the US Supreme Court's ruling rendered any such action unnecessary. |
|
|
| (1748825) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon Jul 6 15:15:23 2020, in response to Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Train Dude on Mon Jul 6 12:31:33 2020. Something tells me this is TDS fuckery being hatched up. |
|
|
| (1748827) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 15:17:03 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon Jul 6 15:15:23 2020. LOL!If anything, anti-Trump types are the ones who want faithless electors to remain a thing, as they are deluded and think that Trump electors might vote for someone else. |
|
|
| (1748830) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 15:20:57 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon Jul 6 15:15:23 2020. ???9-0 decision. How is your tin foil hat doing? Do you think Clarence Thomas has joined the deep state? |
|
|
| (1748836) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Mon Jul 6 15:27:20 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by AlM on Mon Jul 6 15:20:57 2020. No hat for me! |
|
|
| (1749050) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Jul 6 22:14:06 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Spider-Pig on Mon Jul 6 13:53:48 2020. What would happen if the electoral college resulted in a narrow win for $winner, but a single state decided to send electors opposite to that state's electoral vote, swinging the election the other way? One theory I read was that state's electors would be disqualified, and the election thrown to the House of Representatives due to failure of any one candidate to reach 270. However, the rules aren't that the House elects the President, but rather each state's Reps get together and send one vote for the state. Since 26 states have more Republican Reps than Democrat Reps, this would result in a Trump re-election.I suspect that would be the start of Civil War 2. |
|
|
| (1749090) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 7 00:11:00 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Mon Jul 6 22:14:06 2020. You mean opposite to that state’s popular vote?No, it wouldn’t be thrown to the House. That’s only if there’s a tie, or no candidate has a majority. You are correct about the way in which the House would vote. Now if a state legislature decided to send a slate of electors contrary to the will of its people, and the Congress upheld this, I would support secession from Trump’s Confederacy. |
|
|
| (1749106) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jul 7 01:30:06 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 7 00:11:00 2020. Yes, opposite to the state's popular vote.The dispute over the electors would be tied up in court. One way to proceed would be to ignore that state's electors and proceed with the election without them... which would result in no candidate having a majority, merely a plurality, sending it to the house. I used this article as a basis which shows how Trump could retain control even after losing the electoral vote. The reason I used $candidate was there is no reason the same couldn't occur with a Democrat state legislature gumming things up in favor of Biden. When that inevitably fails there would be much pissing and moaning. Thus Trump would be the ultimate victor regardless of who won, and it could trigger the civil war. |
|
|
| (1749109) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Tue Jul 7 01:58:50 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jul 7 01:30:06 2020. Newsweak, srsly? |
|
|
| (1749187) | |
Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Tue Jul 7 10:44:40 2020, in response to Re: Not a Word About The Supreme Court Today?, posted by Henry R32 #3730 on Tue Jul 7 01:30:06 2020. The dispute over the electors would be tied up in court.Not really. It would be fast-tracked just like Bush v. Gore. One way to proceed would be to ignore that state's electors and proceed with the election without them... which would result in no candidate having a majority, merely a plurality, sending it to the house. Correct. |
|
|