Feel free to chime in.
I did run some of this by a former U.S. Senator, who said, “McConnell (Yertle) has good lawyers,” and said he’d forward my question to one of them.
Also, my Supreme Court expert, Zen Master, who has yet to miss a single call including the Flynn result so far, said that he thought the USSC would uphold Bush v. Gore. Even if Roberts wanted to screw Trump, courts don’t overturn themselves, and this decision is quite fresh. Also, the “one man, one vote” thing would really run counter to overturning the deadline.
Did court specifically say that they weren’t attaching and precedent to Bush V Gore?’
That is one interpenetration of this sentence:
“Our consideration is limited to the present circumstances, for the problem of equal protection in election processes generally presents many complexities.”
I just wanted to throw this in the mix.
I feel that election ballots must be counted within so many hours after the close of the voting polls. If these states take days and weeks to count, I suspect massive fraud as do most of us here. Something needs to be done. States know well in advance when an election is and they should be held accountable by getting the job done.
This is my rant for the day but I believe we must have some rules in place as well.
Thanks for the ping and your information.
I don’t see a quorum requirement but I do see a problem if a State disenfranchises it’s citizens by intention.
The Constitution says in Article 4:
Section 4
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
What does “guarantee to every State...a Republican Form of Government” mean if a State operates so as to deny the state’s voters the right to send Electors to Congress?
Does the Federal government ignore this requirement at its peril?
That doesn't make a lot of sense. Bush v Gore explicitly states that it is not a precedent. Any other decision on the merits of a new case would not have to worry about that.
"Also, the “one man, one vote” thing would really run counter to overturning the deadline."
The issue was that partial recounts violated equal protection, but that there wasn't enough time to complete a full recount. It's not that a deadline or changing a deadline would somehow violate equal protection.
I’m trusting your judgement on this one...
... The USSC ruled that it was a violation of the “one man, one vote” to only partially count and SINCE they couldn't count the whole state, Gore's partial recount was invalid.
...
What is NOT clear is, what if a state simply refuses to certify its count/electors and doesn't submit at all?
And yet, the very existence of the (Democrat Party's so-far-politically-successful) “Combined Popular Vote” initiatives at their OWN STATE and Local levels! - means that the state democrat parties (and the local governments and populations that control those low-level state entities) DO NOT CARE if they (as a “state” are not represented in national voting. These local politicians ONLY CARE about getting the single (democrat party) national victory “and the Supreme Court for which it stands.”
This is interesting.