SCOTUS To Hear “faithless elector” Case in the Spring
Posted: 17 January 2020 06:38 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09

This is a huge case:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-faithless-elector-case-ahead-2020-presidential-election

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/faithless-elector-supreme-court-will-hear-case-could-change-how-n1113051

What it boils to is are Electors required to vote the way the state does or can the go rogue and become a “faithless elector” and be fined or sanctioned?

The party of the winning State picks it’s electors but it certain could change things if the electors decided to go against the voters in the state.

It looks like arguments will be heard in the Spring and a decision made in the summer.

If Hilary would have won, I have no doubt how this would have went. RBG would have retired and the court would be 5-4 liberal and the Elector College would be in trouble.

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2020 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Man, it’s quiet around here. Weird. Too many qualifications I guess.

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2020 06:33 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09

Pines wrote in the Impeachment thread:

So strange I haven’t responded to any of your new threads.
I think it is cause I need to talk to you.


I guess he finally got lonely at being ignored.  I was hoping he would stay put.  It was getting pleasant.  Oh well.  Nothing has changed.  Still not qualified to have a discussion.

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 20 January 2020 07:26 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Hahahah that’s why you are responding to yourself.

Sad!

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 11:35 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4047
Joined  2009-01-07
CU_Tigers4life - 17 January 2020 06:38 PM

This is a huge case:

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-hear-faithless-elector-case-ahead-2020-presidential-election

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/faithless-elector-supreme-court-will-hear-case-could-change-how-n1113051

What it boils to is are Electors required to vote the way the state does or can the go rogue and become a “faithless elector” and be fined or sanctioned?

The party of the winning State picks it’s electors but it certain could change things if the electors decided to go against the voters in the state.

It looks like arguments will be heard in the Spring and a decision made in the summer.

If Hilary would have won, I have no doubt how this would have went. RBG would have retired and the court would be 5-4 liberal and the Elector College would be in trouble.

It’s an interesting question from a constitutional perspective. What are your thoughts? My thought would be that it would be up to the states since the states are able to decide how they select their electors. I saw in the article where it said one perspective is that they are then fulfilling a federal function when they cast their vote. It’ll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS decides, but it would seem to me that they’re casting a vote in a federal process on behalf of their state per the process the individual state has developed for themselves.

 Signature 

“I won’t support any sport where you sit on your ass and go backwards.”

Coach Frank Howard when asked to support a rowing team at Clemson

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 11:57 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09

It’s an interesting question from a constitutional perspective. What are your thoughts? My thought would be that it would be up to the states since the states are able to decide how they select their electors. I saw in the article where it said one perspective is that they are then fulfilling a federal function when they cast their vote. It’ll be interesting to see how the SCOTUS decides, but it would seem to me that they’re casting a vote in a federal process on behalf of their state per the process the individual state has developed for themselves.


My thoughts are it’s a good debate.  I think that anything pertaining to Federal Elections needs some uniformity.  However a solid 10th Amendment debate exists as there is very little guidance on who the electors are appointed.

I think the will of a State needs to be protected or their vote is meaningless. If a Democrat wins California for example the electoral votes need to go to that Democrat nominee. 

The parties are assigning electors to vote a certain way based on the majority of the voters of a State and that will needs to be protected so I hope SCOTUS rules against faithless voters

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Remember when you used to quote the federalist papers? Try to lecture everyone about the constitution?

Lol, so you don’t agree with those anymore huh? Especially oh say 68?
You want judges not to be “strict constructionist”?

Trump has done wonders for you! What a transformation.

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09
SoPinesHeel - 21 January 2020 12:10 PM

Remember when you used to quote the federalist papers? Try to lecture everyone about the constitution?

Lol, so you don’t agree with those anymore huh? Especially oh say 68?
You want judges not to be “strict constructionist”?

Trump has done wonders for you! What a transformation.


Please share with me which Federalist Paper talks about this and I will be happy to read and discuss.  Federalist 68 is the closet thing I can find and it’s pretty vague.

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:22 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Nah it’s not. The closest thing you can find? I told it to you.

But hey you are the supposed constitutional scholar. Right up until you ignore it.
I’m surprised you don’t know it. Wait, no I’m not.

So much for the founders intent.

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09
SoPinesHeel - 21 January 2020 12:22 PM

Nah it’s not. The closest thing you can find? I told it to you.

But hey you are the supposed constitutional scholar. Right up until you ignore it.
I’m surprised you don’t know it. Wait, no I’m not.

So much for the founders intent.

Hamilton probably was referring to only land owners as those that could be elected based on the times.  But it’s vague.

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Wha wha wha??? How dare you disagree with the intent of the founders!

So much for your principals.
I can’t wait til next year when you suddenly find them again.

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09
SoPinesHeel - 21 January 2020 12:36 PM

Wha wha wha??? How dare you disagree with the intent of the founders!

So much for your principals.
I can’t wait til next year when you suddenly find them again.

Help me out old friend.  Could help me find where the Constitution defines how the Electors are selected and what their obligations are?  I know you realize everything in the Federalist papers didn’t make the final cut in the Constitution. In time of vagueness is when they are looked upon and I still think it’s vague.

You may be right. Seriously.  All I’m saying is it’s very vague.  There are many topics that the founding fathers were unable to anticipate based on the evolution of society and technology to cover everything or there would probably be over 100 amendments to the Constitution.  Instead they created a fair but difficult process to amend the Constitution in a way that a “mob rules” mentality doesn’t occur.

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Same reason they created the electoral college. To stop the public from electing a Trump like figure.

Irony here is the people didn’t. The electoral college did because electors refused to do what the founders wanted them to. So the founders intent is perverted.
It’s why it needs to go. Fortunately, after next year it will effectively be moot when a few more states adopt the rules you want.

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  6796
Joined  2009-09-09

It’s an interesting discussion.  Pro-electoral college people are not going to change their views while Pro-popular vote people are for it only as long as it serves their needs.  This is why the Electoral college is essential and why our Nation has the longest government on the planet.  Mob mentality voting can screw things up really fast and you have a mess.  California does so much stuff by referendum and it’s hemorrhaging people to other states, they have an out of control homeless problem and so many more problems that it’s a thread of it’s own.  The Electoral college is a buffer that has protected the Constitutional Representative Republic alive ans well for a few centuries.

 Signature 

Edgar Friendly

Because I like to think, I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech, the freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy who likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder - “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of BBQ ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I want high cholesterol.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 January 2020 12:57 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  9108
Joined  2008-10-29

Protected? It has strained it to the breaking point. You seem oblivious to the damage it has done. If it does it again in 2020 you will see states secede.
If the west coast goes you will see much of the mountain west join them.

But hey he told dem libruhls off gud.

 Signature 

“Looks like the upper hand is on the other foot!”
- President Tug Benson, Hot Shots! Part Deux (1993)

Profile