If Supreme Court Ties?

20 Sept 2020

[TBP]

I thought a SC tie means the lower court ruling stands.

Yes, it does. What if there are contradictory rulings?

Nightmare scenario: Democrats flood the zone, calling several states into question. The House votes, but each party controls 25 state delegations, so they keep tying. Multiple lawsuits ensue. They have contradictory results. It's appealed to the Supreme Court, which is a justice short, and it ties 4-4.

[scrabblehack]

There’s a bit of confusion here.

1st case is that no candidate gets a majority of the electoral vote. Then it goes to the House, with each delegation getting one vote.

2nd case is a candidate gets a majority of those voting but one or more states does not vote. The 1864 precedent of Lincoln winning supports the candidate with the majority, even if that majority is less than 270.

3rd case is that electoral votes are claimed to be invalid. Both Houses have to agree to not count them.
If one votes to not count and the other votes to count then the governor breaks the tie.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title3-section15&num=0&edition=prelim

Hmmm....I can’t actually see a state turning in more than one set of electoral votes though...they did in 1876 but I can’t see it happening nowadays.

[TBP]

In 1876, a few states sent more than one set of electoral votes.

Remember, the ruling in Bush v. Gore was, first, that using different standards for counting votes in different counties was unconstitutional, by a 7-2 vote; and then, that there was no time to fix the process before the Electoral College voted, so Florida would have to certify the results it had as of that point. (You might recall that the Democrat-controlled Florida Supreme Court had kept extending the deadline and extending the deadline.) That ruling was 5-4, and it gave Florida (and thus the presidency) to George W. Bush by 537 votes.

[TBP]

There may well be a Trump landslide.

[TBP]

One thing I like about Barrett is that she's openly willing to discard precedent if it violates the proper interpretation of the Constitution.

If they ask about upholding precedent, the nominee should ask them if they favored overturning Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Political Junkie Too]

Read my post #46.

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

That ruling was 5-4, and it gave Florida (and thus the presidency) to George W. Bush by 537 votes.

Read my #46.

It was the circuit court Judge N. Saul Sanders who gave Florida to Bush. The Supreme Court only stopped the unconstitutional partial recount.

-PJ

[Vermont Lt]

Jeez...can we stop with the drama queen vanities?

“We” are not going to do anything. Pelosi not going to be President.

I know there is not much going on in people’s lives, but for goodness sake, we should spend more time thinking about actually doing some research and reading before posting shit like this.

[Political Junkie Too]

Let me add also that the Constitution refers to "appointment" for the Governor to fill vacancies in the Senate.

So there is plenty of precedent in the Constitution on the meaning of "appointment."

It is the named person to fill a role. The same would naturally be true of Electors to the Electoral College.

-PJ

[LS]

PJ, you apparently have little experience with DemoKKKrats in election situations :)

It is the definition of “is”.

[LS]

For the record, Andy McCarthy in his piece agrees with you.

If you and I are debating this, I hope you can see that this is nothing compared to what slick DemoKKKrat lawyers will do.

[Political Junkie Too]

For the record, Andy McCarthy in his piece agrees with you.

I wish you had linked it, because I can't find it.

For the record, you told me to "stop feeling defensive." Now I'm telling you, "Nut up."

Don't fall for the "it all depends on the definition of 'appointed' crap."

You have the media platform. You go out there and tell them what the definition of "appointed" is. Stop cowering because a cadre of lawyers can twist it to suit their own purposes.

Start twisting it to suit OUR purposes!

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

Nice article.

The Slow Roll, by Larry Schweikart.

Thanks.

-PJ

[Revolutionary]

We have the legislatures in a lot of the key states. The legislatures pick the slate of electors if there is a mess in their state.

If it somehow got to the Congress to decide, then the Senate picks the VP and the House picks the President. And we are talking about the post election version of the Congress. Even as it exists right now we win in the House because each state only gets one vote. The House members of each state vote to see who their one vote will support. We have a distinct advantage in that regard. A simple majority is required in the Senate to pick the VP. The real problem arises if the Congressional seats are in doubt as well. That is why we need the SC to prevent their shenanigans.