Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Trump’s Georgia Lawyer Letter Demands Audit of up to 45,000 Ballot Signatures
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Hank77" data-source="post: 75559920" data-attributes="member: 378311"><p>The SCOTUS ruled on 'faithless voter' laws. I suggest reading the whole article. The vote was unanimous. This was in June/July 2020. NOTE: GA law wouldn't stop faithless electors.</p><p></p><p><em>Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan, in a decision peppered with references to the Broadway show Hamilton and the TV show Veep, said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing" the statewide popular vote. That, she said, "accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of the Nation that here, We the People rule."</em></p><p><em>...</em></p><p><em>Nothing in the Constitution prevents the states from "taking away presidential electors' voting discretion," she said. For centuries, almost all electors have considered themselves bound to vote for the winner of the state popular vote. If the framers of the Constitution had a different idea, she said, they never committed it to the printed page.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p> <em></em></p><p><em>Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch, agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to explain his different reasoning.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p> <em></em></p><p><em>Rather than interpret the Constitution's sparse language about the Electoral College as authorizing states to impose conditions on electors, Thomas argued that power is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment.</em></p><p><em>...</em></p><p><em>Justice Samuel Alito observed that if the popular vote is close, the possibility of "changing just a few votes" in the Electoral College would rationally "prompt the losing party ... to launch a massive campaign to try to influence electors, and there would be a long period of uncertainty about who the next president was going to be."</em></p><p><em></em></p><p> <em></em></p><p><em>Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh alluded to what he called "the chaos principle of judging, which suggests that if it's a close call ... we shouldn't facilitate or create chaos."</em></p><p><em>...</em></p><p><a href="https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/07/06/supreme-court-rules-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional" target="_blank">Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Hank77, post: 75559920, member: 378311"] The SCOTUS ruled on 'faithless voter' laws. I suggest reading the whole article. The vote was unanimous. This was in June/July 2020. NOTE: GA law wouldn't stop faithless electors. [I]Writing for the court, Justice Elena Kagan, in a decision peppered with references to the Broadway show Hamilton and the TV show Veep, said Electoral College delegates have "no ground for reversing" the statewide popular vote. That, she said, "accords with the Constitution — as well as with the trust of the Nation that here, We the People rule." ... Nothing in the Constitution prevents the states from "taking away presidential electors' voting discretion," she said. For centuries, almost all electors have considered themselves bound to vote for the winner of the state popular vote. If the framers of the Constitution had a different idea, she said, they never committed it to the printed page. Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in part by Justice Neil Gorsuch, agreed with the outcome but wrote separately to explain his different reasoning. Rather than interpret the Constitution's sparse language about the Electoral College as authorizing states to impose conditions on electors, Thomas argued that power is reserved to the states by the 10th Amendment. ... Justice Samuel Alito observed that if the popular vote is close, the possibility of "changing just a few votes" in the Electoral College would rationally "prompt the losing party ... to launch a massive campaign to try to influence electors, and there would be a long period of uncertainty about who the next president was going to be." Similarly, Justice Brett Kavanaugh alluded to what he called "the chaos principle of judging, which suggests that if it's a close call ... we shouldn't facilitate or create chaos." ...[/I] [URL='https://www.gpb.org/news/2020/07/06/supreme-court-rules-state-faithless-elector-laws-constitutional']Supreme Court Rules State 'Faithless Elector' Laws Constitutional[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Politics
American Politics
Trump’s Georgia Lawyer Letter Demands Audit of up to 45,000 Ballot Signatures
Top
Bottom