Posted on 12/11/2020 10:25:05 AM PST by JewishRighter
If we look at the situation honestly, the most likely outcome if the Supreme Court doesn’t touch the election is . . . nothing.
A constitutional convention requires 75% of the states to agree on a change, unlikely to happen. Also unlikely that a state will actually vote to secede, not that any state has that right in the first place. We will likely just go on with about half of the country thinking the election is not legitimate, perhaps with some sporadic violence here or there.
There is no jurisdiction issue. Its a direct and unequivocal constitutional challenge... period.
I see this as a different issue - rampant cheating by, for example, the Democrat machines in Phlly and Detroit. Not the unfairness of the rules themselves as in Bush v. Gore, but rather a failure of the State legislatures of PA and MI to (ultimately) step in an apply the only Constitutional remedy (appointing a slate of electors to the EC). Since they didn't do that, it's a "political question." And then again, I don't think SCOTUS wants another Bush v. Gore and are looking for a way to punt.
Like I said, I hope I'm wrong.
Can you respond to my claim that according to you any State can cheat at will re elections and then claim it has not and in that way once in power will NEVER have to give up that power?
My question is if they do nothing than does that change the 270 majority if those electoral votes are not in?
I still do not get it!
Constitution lets States pick Electors.
States pass laws to govern and manage the Election.
Bureaucrats and flunkies run the election.
Said bureaucrats and flunkies break all sorts of Laws many times over.
And no one is held to account, no one if fined or goes to jail?
WTH, why have Laws?????
Same with 0bama’s fake birth certificate.
All kind of laws around fake government documents, until you use a fake to justify the office of the President.
Nuts!
I hope I'm wrong.
Maybe, just maybe, people will be so disgusted they'll look for other options. We can't count on the GOP to stand up for us. Rush seems to think we're headed for a breakup.
My personal take is that trust with the people of Philly and Wayne County, to name just two, is utterly broken and that at some point we will have to come to terms with the fact that we cannot long remain in a Union - that is based on the deep trust of people who share similar values of honesty and uprightness - with Democrats who are absolutely opposed to said valued point-for-point.
When in the course of human events . . .
I think it best if we moved now toward that, but you're probably right that we as a people aren't ready to accept the reality that the Union of trust is now broken beyond repair.
Like I said, I think it's a "political question." It's "non-justiciable" in that the issue can never properly be before any court since our constitutional order gives the matter over wholly to some other state body. Here, the issue is the appointment of a states electors to the EC. That is ultimately decided by the state legislatures and so it's not properly before the court.
That's my humble opinion, anyway. Again, I hope I'm wrong.
Corrupt retired nitwit.
gee libtard judge shocker
I am afraid most judges even up to the Supreme Court are essentially worthless as true judges and are just quasi-legislative administrators.
You have taken a well reasoned and informed position. Wish I could articulate something comparable.
My guess is that SCOTUS will split the baby. That is, they will decide there is sufficient evidence that all four states violated the Constitutional provision requiring state legislatures and no one else to set the rules for elections/appointment of electors. This gives their opinion some gravitas and provides the state legislatures the backbone that all Pubs need at every level of our government.
SCOTUS will make it clear that others (governors, attorneys general, janitorial services, etc.) have no role in rule making. They will also make it clear that the judiciary including SCOTUS itself has no such role either (except any of the above may recommend changes for the state legislatures to decide.)
They will also declare that neither the executive or the judiciary including SCOTUS has a role in remedy making. That’s the sole purview of legislatures - right up to the U.S. House.
This outcome by SCOTUS would be essentially a punt and also a spinal implant for state legislatures. SCOTUS will have opined that the legal evidence is there but that the next move, if any, belongs to state legislators. If they’re really serious, SCOTUS could cut governors off at the knees by saying they cannot block legislators from calling themselves into session (special or otherwise) because the governors do not have what is in effect veto power over the legislatures Constitutional role.
I get that the States have sway over their election procedure but it cannot be possible they can pass a law regarding procedure and then at a whim change the law in the middle of an election (such as not requiring a postmark on mail in ballots as 1 State did or changing the sensitivity of signature scans resulting in a rejection rate about 10 times lower than in previous yrs.
States can make their own elections laws? Can they pass a law allowing anyone from out of State to vote in the election if they ever visited the State? If not why not.
The citizens of theses States involved in cheating have in fact disenfranchised millions of their own citizens who in a fair election would have seen their LEGAL vote prevail.
So what is the solution? Can the citizens become so enraged by their own State leaders they will vote them out? But they cannot do that can they? Those in power won’t allow it and will change the laws as they see fit to stay in power won’t they?
Tell me if you can how they will be stopped? It seems an armed uprising is the only thing which will work...unless you have another idea.
I see nothing unsettling or ambiguous in the challenge/suit. The argument is sound and the ability to make judgement is without legal reservation.
I completely disagree with your belief that its ‘kind of question/issue’ that remands back to the state to resolve.
The challenge is not constitutionally dubious... it absolutely has a clear constitutional path of adjudication and is the obligation and duty of SCOTUS to decide pursuant to supreme law, and not punt and treat is like a hot potato.
It wasn't "political question" as I had thought but rather "standing" which strikes me as ridiculous. SCOTUS is saying that TX had no cognizable interest in rampant voter fraud in places like Philly and Detroit that clearly inflicted a false Presidency on the voters of TX. Of course TX had standing. Alito is right about that.
But anyway, SCOTUS punted as expected so we'll never know their opinion about whether this is a non-justiciable "political question."
It's looking grim.
Yup. Thanks. I felt this would happen too.
Only a miracle can happen now. If it be the LORD’s will.
There is no rule of law. Rule 308 will need to prevail.
Perhaps one of the reasons is that all election irregularities - cheating fraud etc has to have a formal complaint filed with the Wisconsin Election Commission. No such complaints were filed not one. So as far as the commission is concerned nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.