Posted on 12/09/2016 7:22:15 AM PST by TangoLimaSierra
Who has info on this moronic Texas elector who is going to vote Cankles?
I can’t get anything definitive on Texas law, but since Abbot and the Texas GOP haven’t said anything, I gather he is within his right to do so without any penalties whatsoever.
Who is going to stop the democrats? The Supreme court? This is why they killed Scalia. many of us have been warning the monster (Hillary ) is playing dead. soro has unlimited billions and that’s why this has gotten this far.
Whether or not stein leaves it there is up to her. I will not be surprised at all if she files either an appeal in the 6th Circuit (she lost in Judge Conehead's court) or SCOTUS (having exhausted her rights under MI law and disagreeing with the 6th Circuit that the feds will follow state law).
Some years ago in Indiana, Boxer Mike Tyson was convicted of rape by the trial court. Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz saw an opportunity for some publicity so he sought and received permission to represent Tyson on appeal.
After losing before the state Court of Appeals, Dershowitz made a big deal out of demanding that one of the Justices on the Supreme Court recuse himself, because Dershowitz had met his wife at a dinner party as I recall. The Justice was happy to comply with Dershowwitz' request, but pointed out in his order that, in Indiana, Justices who recuse themselves are not replaced and that Dershowitz previously had to convince 3 out of 5 justices and now had to convince 3 out of 4.
Tyson went to prison.
I don’t anything other than the news that he wasn’t supporting Trump.
I have said that a pre-announced faithless elector should be easily replaced. But you are correct. It depends on Texas law. It’s hard to imagine Texas law being fine with faithless electors.
Also, I don’t think the Hamiltonian view of independent electors continued to be relevant once direct voting for presidential candidates, rather than for electors, became the norm. (I think I could argue from the 24th amendment that the direct vote for president is now assumed to be the national norm.)
Everyone has been predicting these “stein” recounts dead every step of the way laughing at us that say Soros and Hillary and the media are playing dead. Yet now it still alive and goes to the MI supreme Court and they got 2 pro-Trump justices to recuse themselves and they Killed Scalia.
That being said as a warning for us to fight against this coup I hope your prediction turns out to be true.
Trump has billions, a couple of his appointees have billions, so I think Soros can be checkmated.
Ex post facto laws are prohibited with respect to criminal laws but not necessarily in regard to Civil laws. Provided there is no Criminal penalty a law requiring repayment of services to the government would not necessarily be unconstitutional. For instance a tax law that is passed that raises taxes retroactively for earnings made before the end of the current tax year would not be unconstitutional even though the money was earned at a time when the money was subject to a lower tax.
There are a lot of laws that apply retroactively that manage to punish people and companies monetarily but not criminally that are passed every year.
I’d say they should pass it and then let Jill Stein either pay it or pay her attorneys or both.
Frankly the State could just sue her for filing a frivolous lawsuit and making a frivolous demand for a frivolous recount. So even if the law were ruled unconstitutional, she could still be sued for wasting taxpayer dollars on a lark.
The 6th is notorious for actually following the law.
The 4-4 Scotus would then revert back to the 6th, so the 6th is the issue.
Wouldn’t she have to show some error in interpreting MI law to appeal to the 6th?
Hillary will be our President or they will provoke a civil war. If it turns our that there is no peaceful way for 1/2 of the country to change the course of the country, including a valid election, which the loser conceded, what do they think is going to happen if they attempt a coup?
And frivolous is being kind. Are they allowed to use the expression “temper tantrum” in a court opinion?
Of course it’s fake, it’s against Hillary! Snort/s/s/
If it had been bad News for us it would be real!
It’s just going through the various stages, and each stage has said ‘no’. I expect the same of the MI Supreme Court. Cboldt just suggested she could go the 6th circuit and the Scotus. I suppose she could, but I don’t see her getting a different answer regarding Michigan law. And Michigan law, especially in her case of 1% of the vote, makes absolutely perfect sense. Why should MI get stuck paying millions just because Stein is snorting LSD...or is certifiably nutso?
I wonder, though, if a retroactive law is itself legal.
No.
Is that the same as ‘ex post facto’?
Yes.
If she appeals to the 6th, it would be on the grounds that they volunteered deference to state law before she lost on the issue of "right to recount" in the federal court below. Her argument isn't that there is an error in interpreting state law, it is that the US constitution requires recounting in order to validate the contest, and that recounting is a constitutional right (pretty much of everybody), necessary to insure the integrity of the contest.
No money for you!
Would that suggest that I, too, could go to the 6th asking for a recount to insure integrity? At some point, that would get crazy.
Just to be clear, I see all those options as purely academic. No higher court is going to touch this case. She's done. It's hard for me to imagine a case that runs out of academic and pointless arguments, and that's all she had from the start. The lower courts and appellate courts have humored her (and a couple of partisan courts even gave her what she asked for), but at this point, even her partisan compatriots have told her she's lost.
Start a go fund me for a ad campaign. Raise lots of money from liberals. Run a one day tesx only ad in the smallest newspaper you can find.
>Guess it depends on what “ANY” means...takes a court to screw up this...
No, it takes a LAWYER to take the plain English of “Shall not”, “No State shall”....or attempt to parse the meaning of the word ‘is’.
IMO, those of the legal profession should be barred from any/all legislative positions. It seems their ilk have done nothing to craft solid Law, but instead reams of legalize that can be fit to any situation.
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.