Replies

I hate to say it but I think the judge has a point. This is a so-called "political question." The idea behind that doctrine is that some issues are so completely given over to other branches of government that the courts can't rightly rule on them. In our Constitutional order federal elections are handed over entirely to the several states.

So, if there is fraud or some other problem with a state's election then the state courts can fashion a remedy, and/or failing that the state legislatures can step in and appoint their own slate of electors to the EC under Constitution Article 2 & 12.

The argument that PA, WI, MI etc. have is that issues relating to fraud in their elections are not and can never be properly before SCOTUS - i.e. that the issue is "non-justiciable." The sole Constitutional remedy and the only one in keeping with the inherent federal nature of our legal order is that any remedy is limited to the state's own court system and legislature, and it's just nobody else's business, including SCOTUS. A sort of "what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas" argument.

The counter-argument that TX et al can make is that rampant fraud obviously dilutes the power of the federal election held in TX and in effect gives TX a president that should not have been elected had PA, WI, MI et al not engaged in gross violations of their own rules. It therefore directly effects TX and so the remedy doesn't "stay in Vegas", so to speak. I think that's a colorable argument, but I think it is weak given two factors. First, SCOTUS doesn't want this case. They want to punt, and given my considerable experience with judges (I'm a lawyer) they'll use whatever doctrine at hand to do so. Second, I find the "political question" argument compelling. TX and the rest of us signed onto a compact wherein we trust each other to run substantially fair elections. If MI, for example, breaks that faith (which they clearly did) then the remedy isn't to run to SCOTUS complaining about it. That is superficial - it doesn't go to the core of the problem, which is that the national compact has broken down due to MI's permitting gross and in-your-face election theft.

No, the remedy is, by the very nature of our federal system based on a high degree of trust among the several States, to question the Union itself. The remedy is to first be sought in a Constitutional Convention and, failing that, by Articles of Secession.

We are conservatives. By definition, our default position is that we have a precious birthright and we will endure almost anything in order to keep the inherited estate together. But we must now admit, in my opinion, that the compact has broken down. There is no trust of urban America. They've broken faith with us. And the GOP legislatures have proved themselves once again to be the RINO cowards that they always were.

Even if SCOTUS decides to intervene, the fact remains that SCOTUS was never supposed to be placed in this position by our Constitutional order. It's just a question of time before we'll have to face the issue again.

Constitutional Convention or Articles of Secession. That's the only manly choice I see.

I don’t recognize your ID, so if the CCP judge has a point take your screed to Daily Kos

Thanks. I appreciate your sound insight. Do you foresee any potential for victory for Trump at this point.

This is a so-called "political question."

"The idea behind that doctrine is that some issues are so completely given over to other branches of government that the courts can't rightly rule on them. In our Constitutional order federal elections are handed over entirely to the several states."

What??? 'The idea behind...'??? Bwahahahahaha!

There IS NO IDEA BEHIND IT! It is THE LAW, the duty and responsibility to right wrongs, to right the ship that has become corrupted! The SCOTUS is the final remedial body and arbiter of constitutional challenges, usurpation, conflicts and review against the mischief of the depraved. And that goes for the unlawful conduct of state officials that would alter a national outcome by defrauding lawful votes cast within their states in order to overcome the majority will and replace it with the minority will. This in-turn defrauds other states out of THEIR lawfully appointed EC delegate votes by having the corrupt states illegitimate/fraud delegate slates certified and counted that would change the outcome of who will be our next POTUS from a legitimate election to an unconstitutional illegitimate one!

Not at all in the constitution there is a hand-off to the several states when there is a clear usurpation of supreme law by state official underlings(without such authority) behaving as legislative surrogates/proxies in changing the the time, place and manner in which and how EC delegates get appointed. That authority is given SOLELY to the state legislatures by the constitution. That is not doctrine, an idea or confusing! These corrupt state officials have deliberately and collectively coordinated to interfere in the election process by making last-minute changes to election law to facilitate election/vote fraud in order to steal the EC delegates from being assigned to Trump which ultimately impacted the outcome of the POTUS election giving Biden the 270 delegate votes he would need on Jan 6, 2021.

There IS NO 'political question. There is only THE LAW that must be followed and the SCOTUS must intervene!

“The sole Constitutional remedy and the only one in keeping with the inherent federal nature of our legal order is that any remedy is limited to the state’s own court system and legislature, and it’s just nobody else’s business, including SCOTUS.”

LOL, are you serious? You are saying that no matter what a State official or officials do to cheat, steal or otherwise game an election it can ONLY be remedied by the State? They investigate (or not) themselves, declare all ok and proceed with the theft, evidence to the contrary such as no post marked ballots and other violations of the laws the State already had on the books be damned?

Show me in the Constitution where it say the States can make the rules for elections and then violate them at will without getting the Legislature involved?

First off - IANAL, merely a reasonably well-informed citizen so bear with me on any errors on law or precedent. I particularly note you make no comment as to how Bush v. Gore in 2000 bears on this where SCOTUS did intervene in a state-level political question.

I next take note that the doors you leave open in your closing are effectively non-optimal when viewed towards potential success. So it’s just bend over & kiss it all goodbye???

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.

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!

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.