The last step challenge for the presidency

[Tanj]

How Trump’s Hill allies could take one last shot to overturn the election

Off the bat, you guys have a seriously tortuous path on this stuff.

Anyway, tl;dr, basically if 1 senator and 1 congresscritter get together they can challenge a slate of electors (or all of them, 1 at a time) and then both houses get to discuss and vote and then if they still disagree then governor of the state gets to decide except maybe if SCOTUS decided to remove some federal statutes which means the state legislatures do the job, or maybe something else because basically this part of the US code contains the words "here there be dragons"
How to Resolve a Contested Election, Part 2: How Congress Counts the Electoral Votes

In recent memory the democrats had a half hearted jab at this for Trump and both Bushs.
House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trump’s Electoral College win

Interestingly in the latter case it was Biden that tried to get rid of the challenges and move the certification along.

Anyway, one possible path that I can see in this maze is that, for each and every state, and one state at a time
1. A dispute is called (just needs 1 house and 1 senate member to agree)
2. They spend 2 constitutionally mandated hours discussing
3. The two groups vote

if they disagree then the 1st time:
The country spends 3 months going through every court in the land trying to work out who gets final say

the next 49 times:
It's just the mandatory 2 hour thing...unless the 1st ruling was at the state level, in which case let's tack on another 49 months.

Of special note is that no recess is allowed after 5 days have passed, so both houses of congress would be in chamber 24/7 until the courts made their decision.

Are you allowed to eat and drink whilst in session? Go to the toilet?

There's just not enough popcorn on the planet.

And then rinse and repeat every 4 years from then, except in those years where one party holds both houses, in which case the presidency just goes to them, because this whole people voting thing is overrated.

 

[disciple Clint]

How Trump’s Hill allies could take one last shot to overturn the election

Off the bat, you guys have a seriously tortuous path on this stuff.

Anyway, tl;dr, basically if 1 senator and 1 congresscritter get together they can challenge a slate of electors (or all of them, 1 at a time) and then both houses get to discuss and vote and then if they still disagree then governor of the state gets to decide except maybe if SCOTUS decided to remove some federal statutes which means the state legislatures do the job, or maybe something else because basically this part of the US code contains the words "here there be dragons"
How to Resolve a Contested Election, Part 2: How Congress Counts the Electoral Votes

In recent memory the democrats had a half hearted jab at this for Trump and both Bushs.
House Democrats fail to muster support to challenge Trump’s Electoral College win

Interestingly in the latter case it was Biden that tried to get rid of the challenges and move the certification along.

Anyway, one possible path that I can see in this maze is that, for each and every state, and one state at a time
1. A dispute is called (just needs 1 house and 1 senate member to agree)
2. They spend 2 constitutionally mandated hours discussing
3. The two groups vote

if they disagree then the 1st time:
The country spends 3 months going through every court in the land trying to work out who gets final say

the next 49 times:
It's just the mandatory 2 hour thing...unless the 1st ruling was at the state level, in which case let's tack on another 49 months.

Of special note is that no recess is allowed after 5 days have passed, so both houses of congress would be in chamber 24/7 until the courts made their decision.

Are you allowed to eat and drink whilst in session? Go to the toilet?

There's just not enough popcorn on the planet.

And then rinse and repeat every 4 years from then, except in those years where one party holds both houses, in which case the presidency just goes to them, because this whole people voting thing is overrated.

I would expect but not endorse Trump taking every legal step to avoid defeat. We need to be concerned about what will happen in the streets if we do not have an orderly transition.

 

[Tanj]

I would expect but not endorse Trump taking every legal step to avoid defeat. We need to be concerned about what will happen in the streets if we do not have an orderly transition.

Do you think that "we" extends to the President? Not that he "should be" concerned, but there's any way shape or form he actually would be?

 

[muichimotsu]

I would expect but not endorse Trump taking every legal step to avoid defeat. We need to be concerned about what will happen in the streets if we do not have an orderly transition.

Yet Trump talks about law and order, but doesn't apply it to himself: not shocking that he cares more about his win than actually what's good for the country, but he's a fascist nationalist, so the "country" is a means to an end for his own advancement

 

[disciple Clint]

Yet Trump talks about law and order, but doesn't apply it to himself: not shocking that he cares more about his win than actually what's good for the country, but he's a fascist nationalist, so the "country" is a means to an end for his own advancement

but he's a fascist nationalist

Isnt that what they call hate speech???

 

[Kentonio]

Isnt that what they call hate speech???

Not unless fascist nationalists are a protected group now.

 

[disciple Clint]

Not unless fascist nationalists are a protected group now.

Well if they are not they would be the only exception.

 

[Kentonio]

Well if they are not they would be the only exception.

I think its a lot harder to commit hate crimes than you're making it sound. Sometimes I can go whole weeks without committing any.

 

[Triumvirate]

Isnt that what they call hate speech???

No. Hope this helps.

 

[Triumvirate]

Well if they are not they would be the only exception.

And so what? Are you saying they deserve to be shielded from hate speech?

 

[disciple Clint]

And so what? Are you saying they deserve to be shielded from hate speech?

No what I am saying is that hate speech is anything that anyone disagrees with.

 

[Triumvirate]

No what I am saying is that hate speech is anything that anyone disagrees with.

Not actually correct, but thanks for playing. As the correction earlier noted, it applies to specific protected demographics, and fascists do not count as one - and I would hope we can all agree this is a good thing, and yet here we are arguing correcting a semantic point about hate speech instead. Which is...curious.

 

[Danthemailman]

No what I am saying is that hate speech is anything that anyone disagrees with.

Hate speech in America is a double standard.

 

[disciple Clint]

Not actually correct, but thanks for playing. As the correction earlier noted, it applies to specific protected demographics, and fascists do not count as one - and I would hope we can all agree this is a good thing, and yet here we are arguing correcting a semantic point about hate speech instead. Which is...curious.

What is truly curious is the laws in your country. "Proposals to prosecute individuals for hate crimes based on what they discuss in their own homes need to be more widely debated, free speech organisations have said." At what point will you wake up to the fact that you have lost your free speech rights? UK lawyers uneasy about plan to prosecute hate speech at home

 

[disciple Clint]

Hate speech in America is a double standard.

Seems many things associated with liberal values end up being double standards.

 

[KCfromNC]

Seems many things associated with liberal values end up being double standards.

Let me guess, this is the complaint that calling out intolerance is itself intolerant and shouldn't be allowed ... and from the very same sources which complain about "cancel culture".

 

[hedrick]

Hate speech in America is a double standard.

Hate speech in the US doesn't really exist legally. There is a concept of a hate crime. But in order to be a hate crime it has to be a crime. If you murder someone because of their race it can be classified as a hate crime. That increases the punishment. But hating someone without committing a crime is only punishable by God.

 

[Arc F1]

Yet Trump talks about law and order, but doesn't apply it to himself: not shocking that he cares more about his win than actually what's good for the country, but he's a fascist nationalist, so the "country" is a means to an end for his own advancement

If he cares about what's good for the country he will fight for the win. Since you brought up fascist can you please explain the new updated definition to me? It's hard to keep up with all these new definitions.

 

[hedrick]

On the actual topic of this thread: If a state chooses its electors before Dec 8, it can't be challenged. The governor's certificate must document "any final determination in a State in the manner provided for by law of a controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State," I'm not a lawyer, and courts often don't agree with obvious interpretation. But I believe if the state's supreme court has decided issues, and the governor has filed the certificate, there's no legal basis for Congress challenging them. A few legislators claiming that it is unresolved doesn't mean it actually is.

I don't know what happens if Congress claims there's a conflict in a state that met the safe harbor requirement, but I'd expect the Supreme Court to enforce the law.

Remember that the governors will have already signed off on the electors, so if they make the decision, you can expect that they will support the official electors.

The scene from Jan 2017 in that video was pretty disgraceful. I'm glad no senator would participate.

 

[hedrick]

One thing I should point out to non-US people: In the end, having a vote isn't enough. There needs to be some process to certify the results. Ours is unnecessarily complex, for historical reasons. But governors, courts, and state secretaries of state have all done their jobs, regardless of their parties. While I expect some individuals to object in the joint session, there is no reason to think that the US Senate will fail to do their duty.