[Road Warrior ‘04]

👍

[Eleutheria5]

Hypothetical fake problem. Who had standing to bring the suit?

[Red Badger]

unanimous decision.........9-0..................Left freaks out, in 5, 4, 3..................

[jmaroneps37]

Even the commies were afraid to go there. It would negate even having elections.

[Rurudyne]

Next we need them to forbid States demanding their electors ignore locally cast votes in favor of the national popular vote.

[bigbob]

Huge win!

[KrisKrinkle]

How does that work?

How does an elector prove faithlessness?

If electors prove faithlessness by their vote when the Electoral College votes, must there be a redo of the Electoral College vote and if so, how does that work?

If the Electors have to vote in line with the vote of their State, what’s the point of the Electoral college?

“(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...”

I didn’t see any more.

[montag813]

It costs MILLIONS, sometimes TENS Of MILLIONS to get cases to the level of a SCOTUS ruling.

Who funded this attempt at legalized treason?

[kabar]

So how does this affect the National Popular Vote movement that binds the casting of a state's electoral vote to the results of the national popular vote using state compacts?

[jazusamo]

.

Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!

Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a new monthly donor!

KAGA!

[cmj328]

Agree on the Washington case (fining), but disagree with the the Colorado case (removal).

[stylin19a]

did this just kill the compact ?

[AU72]

The Constitution gives States exclusive powers on how electoral votes are handled. Remember in 2000 the Florida Legislature was prepared to allocate their electoral votes to George Bush if necessary.

[a fool in paradise]

So electors can’t vote for other candidates but they can deny their party an electoral vote?

[Pilgrim's Progress]

>>>The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.<<<

This seems to say to me that if a state is run by democrats, it can choose NOT to prohibit their E.C. reps from disregarding voters.

I’m not sure this is the win that some are claiming.

It seems to leave it up entirely to the states, not the Constitution.

[Seaplaner]

I like the ruling.

Recalling that Dems/Marxists/progressives just HATE free and fair elections.

As I understand it, the ruling will keep Dems from going full-Stalinist rogue in the EC.

[null and void]

Tom Cruise 2020

[nathanbedford]

We simply do not know what we are talking about until we see the opinion.

If the thrust of the opinion as to the effect that the Constitution awards the states unfettered prerogative to control their electors, this could be a very very dangerous opinion for us. A growing number of states will simply require electors to vote the national consensus, and the geography of the electoral college will give Democrats the advantage.

If the opinion is limited in that it acknowledges a constitutional power in the states to only control faithless electors, the opinion is benign.

[campaignPete R-CT]

Washington state electors. I’m surprised it’s unanimous.

Baca of Col. was also announced

https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf&usg=AFQjCNExVJ3lSysZ6mvtZptafabpde6olA

Look for Chiafalo pdf

[cmj328]

While I agree with punishing faithless electors, I don't agree that states can remove an elector for having voted faithlessly. The vote having happened, in the past tense, means that the vote has happened. ("The electors...shall vote") The list-making function, and the signing and certification, are not vetoes on the vote: the vote is not a corporate vote, it is an individual vote. ("...and of the number of votes for each...")