SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-just-pointed-absurdity-150048185.html Here’s one nice thing we can now say about the Electoral College: it’s slightly less harmful to our democracy than it was just days ago. In a 9-0 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that states have the right to “bind” their electors, requiring them to support whichever presidential candidate wins the popular vote in their state. Justice Elena Kagan’s opinion was a blow to so-called “faithless electors,” but a win for self-government. “Here,” she wrote, “the People rule.” The Electoral College we have today isn’t the one in the original Constitution. Instead, it’s a product of the 12th Amendment – put in place after the 1800 contest between Jefferson and Burr Edited July 7, 2020 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 So nice it pasted twice. So I guess that kills the national popular vote interstate compact? 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Hmmmm, so basically nothing to see here? Got it. In other news, the Supreme Court said that states have rights and that the electoral college is how we elect presidents, per the constitution. 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: So nice it pasted twice. So I guess that kills the national popular vote interstate compact? That was my first thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whatdrought Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Number of faithless electors Trump benefitted from in ‘16 = number of IQ points on OP’s most recent testing. 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 You know a Supreme Court ruling is bad when the decision is unanimous. 1 3 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Am I being compelled by the OP to join in the #tuneinturnondropout movement against the Electoral College? It seems stonerish to me, and I object. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 24 minutes ago, dubs said: Hmmmm, so basically nothing to see here? Got it. In other news, the Supreme Court said that states have rights and that the electoral college is how we elect presidents, per the constitution. QFT. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the majority and makes reference to Ray at the very beginning of her governing opinion. This decision simply closes the loop from 1952: Three Washington electors, Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors), violated their pledges to support Hillary Clinton in the 2016 presidential election. In response, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had. The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected that claim, and the State Supreme Court affirmed, relying on Ray v. Blair, 343 U. S. 214. In Ray, this Court upheld a pledge requirement—though one without a penalty to back it up. Ray held that pledges were consistent with the Constitution’s text and our Nation’s history, id., at 225–230; but it reserved the question whether a State can enforce that requirement through legal sanctions. Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President. Pp. 8–18. Interestingly, Kagan takes a textual approach to the question. Counsel for the electors argued that the intent of the founders was to allow the Electoral College the discretion needed to choose the best candidate for president. Perhaps, Kagan wrote, but if that’s what they wanted, they should have written it into the constitution: Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors’ voting discretion as Washington does. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors’ voting procedures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution. Contrary to the Electors’ argument, Article II’s use of the term “electors” and the Twelfth Amendment’s requirement that the electors “vote,” and that they do so “by ballot,” do not establish that electors must have discretion. The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors’ votes to reflect their own judgments. But even assuming that outlook was widely shared, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors’ discretion to the printed page. True enough! Now … let’s do abortion and its “emanations” and “penumbras.” This seems like a great opportunity to revisit Roe based on this same explanation, no? Kagan also points out that the decision in Ray showed that Electoral College practice was reliability rather than discretion, even in the earliest days. The only open question was that of punishment for faithlessness. Can states impose punishment for actions taken in the federal environs of the Electoral College? A power to appoint and to proscribe necessarily carries an authority to enforce, Kagan wrote {snip} This should have been an easy call, in other words, but the court made it harder than necessary. Perhaps this is why this opinion didn’t get issued until the end of the term; one might have expected a unanimous outcome to get issued ahead of the final couple of days. Finally, there’s some reason to forgive any coverage that misses the technical distinction of today’s decision in light of Ray v Blair. The faithless elector question might have been settled in 1952, but without punishment, electors continued to try it. In practice, at least, the Supreme Court failed then to fully settle the issue. Now that states can apply disincentives to faithlessness, we can likely expect much less of it in the future. https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2020/07/06/unanimous-scotus-electoral-college-keep-faith-else/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 40 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: So nice it pasted twice. So I guess that kills the national popular vote interstate compact? DOH And to the public in general Why do people focus on a duplicate CopyPaste? Does it take away from the Topic at hand? Or does it make you feel smart? As I interpreted it. The Popular Vote overrules gerrymandered districts So yeah go ahead and attack the poster and not discuss the topic. Edited July 7, 2020 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dubs Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 These “issues” are so stupid I feel bad for those pouring through yahoo news to find the latest talking points. it’s really simple: to change the process for electing a president the constitution will have to be amended. That requires 2/3 house, 2/3 senate, and 3/4 the state. start the process and let’s see what happens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted July 7, 2020 Author Share Posted July 7, 2020 I edited in what I meant to copy in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reality Check Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) The STATES elect the President. Period. That is all there is to it. If Hillary had won, a certain cross section of the population wouldn't even care about the electoral college... Edited July 7, 2020 by Reality Check 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorquemada Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 31 minutes ago, whatdrought said: Number of faithless electors Trump benefitted from in ‘16 = number of IQ points on OP’s most recent testing. Unless i'm losing my mind (possible!) then the real issue of the faithless electors was worry around them voting for Hillary in states that Trump carried, not the other way around? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
njbuff Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) Funny, you braindead leftists weren't complaining about the Electoral College before the 2016 Election. You people are nothing but a bunch of American-hating bed-wetting crybabies. Get a life and worry about things that matter, like WORKING. Edited July 7, 2020 by njbuff 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Joe Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 17 minutes ago, Reality Check said: The STATES elect the President. Period. That is all there is to it. If Hillary had one, a certain cross section of the population wouldn't even care about the electoral college... Whilst we are pointing out grammatical errors you made me smile. Maybe we should ask Bill in the blue dress? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 37 minutes ago, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said: DOH And to the public in general Why do people focus on a duplicate CopyPaste? Does it take away from the Topic at hand? Or does it make you feel smart? As I interpreted it. The Popular Vote overrules gerrymandered districts So yeah go ahead and attack the poster and not discuss the topic. No matter how much soros pays you, it's way too much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Reality Check said: The STATES elect the President. Period. That is all there is to it. If Hillary had one, a certain cross section of the population wouldn't even care about the electoral college... Nobody would've cared because she won the popular vote also. I want the electoral college to stay because it's always been funny to me seeing the elitist candidates try and connect with the farmers in Iowa. Warning: Disturbing photo Edited July 7, 2020 by Doc Brown 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Oh Jeez !! How about a warning next time Doc B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Brown Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, B-Man said: Oh Jeez !! How about a warning next time Doc B. Next time? I'll use the editor as a time machine. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 2 minutes ago, Doc Brown said: Next time? I'll use the editor as a time machine. I see it now, But it is waaaaaay too small. Your eyes are just drawn to that abomination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts