Skip to comments.
Supreme Court: States Can Punish ‘Faithless Electors’; Unanimous Decision
Breibart ^
| july 6, 2020
| Joel B. Pollak
Posted on 07/06/2020 1:55:14 PM PDT by PerConPat
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states may punish faithless electors those members of the Electoral College who refuse to cast their ballots for the candidate whom the majority of voters in the state have chosen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 1moretime; constitution; constructionism; constructionist; electoralcollege; electors; faithlesselectors; nationalpopularvote; npv; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
I see this as a pretty clear statement that the Electoral College has no protected rights when it comes to the process of casting votes.
1
posted on
07/06/2020 1:55:14 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
To: PerConPat
Sorry , Mods...I missed the earlier thread. Pleass delete...
2
posted on
07/06/2020 1:59:19 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal that can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground--Mencken)
To: PerConPat
It doesn’t negate a faithless vote only allows punishment for the faithless voter.
3
posted on
07/06/2020 1:59:52 PM PDT
by
pfflier
To: PerConPat
No, it is exactly the opposite, Rush explained it very well today. The electorial college stands as it always has.
4
posted on
07/06/2020 2:00:00 PM PDT
by
exnavy
(american by birth and choice, I love this country!)
To: PerConPat
What are they going to do to ‘punish’ them? Give them a firm talking to?
I’m telling you guys the Democrats will go ALL OUT this year to commit election fraud.
There seems to be no consequences if they get caught, and there certainly won’t be any investigations if the democrats win.
5
posted on
07/06/2020 2:11:04 PM PDT
by
Mr. K
(NO CONSEQUENCE OF REPEALING OBAMACARE IS WORSE THAN OBAMACARE ITSELF)
6
posted on
07/06/2020 2:11:12 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(Imagine an imaginary menagerie manager imagining managing an imaginary menagerie.)
To: PerConPat
Can a faithless elector still vote, or will he be replaced?
To: PerConPat
Like after they vote against the people’s wishes? So they vote then get their hands slapped?
8
posted on
07/06/2020 2:14:12 PM PDT
by
SkyDancer
(~ Pilots: Looking Down On People Since 1903 ~)
To: PerConPat
We wouldn’t need this if not for Democrats trying to cheat the system and bribe, blackmail or intiminate electors.
9
posted on
07/06/2020 2:14:48 PM PDT
by
\/\/ayne
(I regret that I have but one subscription cancellation notice to give to my local newspaper)
To: Dilbert San Diego
Depends on the state. I think states are moving to replacing them.
10
posted on
07/06/2020 2:22:29 PM PDT
by
jjotto
(Blessed are You LORD, who crushes enemies and subdues the wicked.)
To: exnavy
SCOTUS allows states to award their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote.
Bye, bye America
11
posted on
07/06/2020 2:26:34 PM PDT
by
griswold3
(Democratic Socialism is Slavery by Mob Rule)
To: Dilbert San Diego
The way I read it, a state would be able to replace an elector who refused to vote according to his promise.
12
posted on
07/06/2020 2:32:31 PM PDT
by
LeoTDB69
To: \/\/ayne
13
posted on
07/06/2020 2:48:19 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal that can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground--Mencken)
To: PerConPat
Theoretically, the electors vote based upon their party’s vote in their district. There has been a big move on the Dem side to get electors to just reject the votes.
14
posted on
07/06/2020 2:48:42 PM PDT
by
livius
To: exnavy
Didn't catch Rush today...Not sure I understand your "no." I'm pretty sure, based on today's ruling, the SCOTUS would not rule favorably for those who manipulated electors in order to fix or steal a presidential election. And I'm also pretty sure an election manipulated in this fashion would end up at the court.
15
posted on
07/06/2020 2:58:15 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal that can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground--Mencken)
To: Mr. K
Agree with your comment on Democrats. An election manipulated by faithless electors, IMO, would go to the SCOTUS; and the unanimous decision today does not bode well for manipulators.
16
posted on
07/06/2020 3:03:25 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal that can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground--Mencken)
To: SkyDancer
The SCOTUS made a very strong statement today; and it is a precedent that will likely influence court decisions relating to the tricky business of “faithless electors” for years to come. Supremes after all, eg. Gore vs Bush, can be involved in presidential elections.
17
posted on
07/06/2020 3:11:57 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal that can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground--Mencken)
To: livius
Interesting...I think today’s unanimous ruling indicates the SCOTUS will not look kindly, in the future, on manipulation of electors when or if it hears cases regarding elections contested for this reason.
18
posted on
07/06/2020 3:20:03 PM PDT
by
PerConPat
(A politician is an animal that can sit on a fence and yet keep both ears to the ground--Mencken)
To: PerConPat
So devil in the details question:
An elector is not faithless UNTIL their vote is cast. So does that vote still count? Can a Steat “re-vote” or alter the vote of a faithless elector?
19
posted on
07/06/2020 3:21:03 PM PDT
by
taxcontrol
(Stupid should hurt - Dad's wisdom)
.
Isn’t that ONLY in States where the state’s Electoral College has those rules ??
Or is this the Electors casting for the Majority vote IN THEIR DISTRICT ??
.
20
posted on
07/06/2020 3:43:41 PM PDT
by
elbook
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-32 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson