 |
|
07-06-2020, 12:31 PM
|
#1
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
SC Electoral Colllege Decision is Unanimous
In unanimous decision, Supreme Court rules 'faithless electors' not able to vote as they wish.
https://www.msnbc.com/hallie-jackson...sh-87083077751
Hard to imagine but the entire court flipped the Left a big bird! 
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 12:39 PM
|
#2
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 666
|
The left will not stop with this decision. They will keep trying to remake America, and not for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 12:50 PM
|
#3
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stevecsd2
The left will not stop with this decision. They will keep trying to remake America, and not for the better.
|
The only option left to dimwits is to try to abolish the EC altogether by a mere statute as an end-run around to circumvent the stringent and lengthy amendment process, which is highly unlikely.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 01:21 PM
|
#4
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston , Tx.
Posts: 9,587
|
Looks like fighting it out (literally) may be the most decisive way.
Get rid of the garbage and have legitimate elections moving forward.
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 02:16 PM
|
#5
|
|
Librocubicularist
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Ohio
Posts: 10,466
|
Didn't the court say that states could punish faithless electors but that their vote still stands?
All the faithless electors in 2016 were pledged to Clinton. None of them switched their vote to Trump so what's the big deal?
I suspect that most electors are financially well off. A $1000 fine seem cheap for 15 minutes of fame. How many would do this if the penalty were a year in jail?
__________________
Sapere aude
|
|
|
|
|
07-06-2020, 06:03 PM
|
#6
|
|
$2 Showbettor
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: The Villages
Posts: 2,578
|
I believe the state can legally replace the elector now, like the state of Colorado did with Michale Baca. And also fine him/her.
The party doesn't HAVE to force the elector to vote for whoever won the state presidential election, but it would have to be a rare, rare screwball occurrence.
For example, if between the time of election day and the time the Electoral College convened, something happened. Such as in 1872 when Horace Greeley died after Election Day. Or if the elected president did something crazy, such as shot someone or committed a crime on the day after election day.
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 03:34 AM
|
#7
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
|
Bull! A neutral decision. Generally opening the door to eventually reforming or maybe eliminating the electoral college. They did not want to do much with an election approaching
However, the court ain't finished this term. They will be ruling on Trump's taxes soon.
Watch out! 
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum. 
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 09:22 AM
|
#8
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Bull! A neutral decision. Generally opening the door to eventually reforming or maybe eliminating the electoral college. They did not want to do much with an election approaching
However, the court ain't finished this term. They will be ruling on Trump's taxes soon.
Watch out! |
So, "unanimous" = neutral? What if the unanimous decision had gone the other way?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 10:07 AM
|
#9
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
So, "unanimous" = neutral? What if the unanimous decision had gone the other way? |
So I see you never learned to tie your legal shoelaces. Neutral as the court was unanimous in not taking political sides particularly right before an election. However president Biden may re-visit this issue.
Justice Obama has a nice ring to it.
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 10:32 AM
|
#10
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
|
You didn't answer my question, Mr. Empty Suit.
And, yes, the court did take "political sides" by not ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 10:41 AM
|
#11
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
You didn't answer my question, Mr. Empty Suit.
And, yes, the court did take "political sides" by not ruling in favor of the plaintiff. |
Wrong bunky.
The Supreme Court Declined an Invitation to Blow Up the Presidential Election
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-electors.html
The Supreme Court declined an invitation to blow up the 2020 presidential election on Monday. The justices ruled unanimously that states may compel electors, the individuals who make up the Electoral College, to vote for the winner of the statewide presidential race by either removing or fining “faithless electors.” In truth, this decision should not have been necessary: There is no serious constitutional argument that states are powerless to dictate electors’ votes. But the nation can breathe a sigh of relief that the court did not take the bait to make the upcoming election even more chaotic.
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Last edited by hcap; 07-07-2020 at 10:45 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 01:47 PM
|
#12
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Houston , Tx.
Posts: 9,587
|
The boneheads just want the Electoral College removed to increase their odds of winning, just as open borders and prison voting would do. They can't win anything on their own merit, they have to change history and rig elections to be successful. At least this has been the model in recent history.
Hcap, you can fling bullshit as far as want to, but at the end of the day it is what it is. 
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 02:37 PM
|
#13
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 46,883
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by hcap
Wrong bunky.
The Supreme Court Declined an Invitation to Blow Up the Presidential Election
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...-electors.html
The Supreme Court declined an invitation to blow up the 2020 presidential election on Monday. The justices ruled unanimously that states may compel electors, the individuals who make up the Electoral College, to vote for the winner of the statewide presidential race by either removing or fining “faithless electors.” In truth, this decision should not have been necessary: There is no serious constitutional argument that states are powerless to dictate electors’ votes. But the nation can breathe a sigh of relief that the court did not take the bait to make the upcoming election even more chaotic. |
You are truly dense! Very dense! Read your own headline! The fact that the SC didn't "accept" an invitation to blow up the presidential election was certainly NOT a win for the plaintiffs in the case and, therefore, was a win for the defendants.
Do you have any living brain cells left at all?
__________________
Consistent profits can only be made on the basis of analysis that is far from obvious to the majority. - anonymous guru
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 03:33 PM
|
#14
|
|
velocitician
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 26,295
|
9-0 seems like a definite result of a wrong being righted
__________________
"If this world is all about winners, what's for the losers?" Jr. Bonner: "Well somebody's got to hold the horses Ace."
|
|
|
|
|
07-07-2020, 03:53 PM
|
#15
|
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 30,398
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxcar
You are truly dense! Very dense! Read your own headline! The fact that the SC didn't "accept" an invitation to blow up the presidential election was certainly NOT a win for the plaintiffs in the case and, therefore, was a win for the defendants.
Do you have any living brain cells left at all? |
Back to insults again. Have you ever stopped?
The court avoided "blowing up" or disrupting the upcoming election. Now tell your moron king not to suppress the vote. Unfortunately it ain't gonna do him any good in the coming Biden landslide.
He choice will then be either seek asylum with Vlad, or winds up sharing the blanket with Big Bruno in Leavenworth.
The supreme court will not get involved in that either.
__________________
The inmates have taken over the asylum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
