Posted on 09/20/2020 9:34:44 AM PDT by rey
I will be super delighted if Trump gets 320 EVs. Hope that comes true.
"The following day, in a 7–2 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the Florida decision, holding that the various methods and standards of the recount process violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. The court ruled 5–4 on the remedy of the matter, with the majority holding that the Florida Supreme Court’s decision had created new election law—a right reserved for the state legislature—and that no recount could be held in time to satisfy a federal deadline for the selection of state electors."
Why the country needs a filled Supreme Court for the 2020 election: Goodwin
A paragraph from Goodwin's article: "A key ruling in Bush v. Gore held that Florida’s use of different standards for counting votes in different counties was unconstitutional, by a 7-2 vote."
Bush v. Palm Beach County Canvassing Board
What needs to be decided once and for all, is these liberal judges allowing late ballots, and those without postmarks on them, to be counted after the fact, or giving them a week or two after the election, to count the mail-in ballots. Wouldn't this fall within the same line of the Florida Supreme Court creating new election laws which in fact, is the responsibility of each State's Legislature?
If Supreme Court does not have 9 Judges, then it goes to the House of Representatives.
In other words Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats will give it to Biden.
This is why it is so paramount to get a new Supreme Court Justice.
The Democrats know this.
Thanks. So a tied SCOTUS in 2000 would have resulted in Florida’s SC ruling standing, and votes would likely have been counted until Gore won?
That’s why we must fill the seat before the election.
In fact, that was just part 1.
Part 2 was the actual contested election case in Florida Circuit Court, presided over by Judge N. Sanders Sauls. David Boies represented Gore, and James Baker represented Bush.
See the ruling from Judge Saunders here.
Gore argued two things:
For #2, Gore wanted to have the partial recounts counted for him. In some cases, he wanted partial manual recounts included, in other cases he wanted second or third machine recounts included.
Sauders ruled that:
This ruling was made on December 4, 2000, well before the deadline for the Electoral College. Before anything goes to SCOTUS, they will require that all necessary and proper state legal remedies are taken, such as was done in Florida in 2000. Democrats will have to go through the state court systems to contest the elections first, and only then will they go to SCOTUS if the states don't rule in their favor.
-PJ
What happens if it is 25-25?
One would hope that, indeed. But Roberts is such a loose cannon.
Now you have my interest piqued.
The 12th amendment says:
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;Article II Section 1 says:
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors...
I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I really would like to know where the "mushiness" lies so I can think about it.
Thanks in advance.
-PJ
That is not comforting to me. Kavanaugh's appointment to his District Court confirmation was delayed and opposed for years by Democrats because he was a real conservative. Real conservative judges don't easily sail through confirmation.
No - Bush v. Gore was decided in December 2000.
The electoral votes were counted by the new Congress in January 2001.
It goes to the House for final decision if neither candidate gets 270.
They keep voting.
Election of 1800 took 36 ballots in the House;
Election of 1824 decided on 1st ballot in the House.
It goes to the house, yes, but each representative does not get a vote. Rather, each delegation (group of representatives from each state) gets one vote.
50 states, 50 votes.
There are more R delegations than D delegations in the current house, even though there are more individual D representatives.
What they did was stop the recount
In whether/when states “appoint.”
If they didn’t “finish counting,” they would immediately go to the courts to insist they are going to “appoint.”
Moreover, keep reading: there are NO penalties for a state that fails to turn in its electors by Dec. 14!! Both the Senate and the Archivist can “request,” but no penalty, And another clause says that the district judge in that district can “request” but no penalty. There is also mushiness in the Bush v. Gore ruling on the Dec. 14 date.
So it is absolutely not clear what happens to a state that doesn’t submit its slate. And you can be darn sure that 100 D lawyers right now have briefs on what the definition of “appointed” is.
Can’t be. Right now, Rs have a 2-delegation majority, and even in the rosiest scenarios for Ds, that won’t change with the new Congress, but (I haven’t run the numbers) if Rs pick up 20 seats it might change toward the Rs favor. Ask fieldmarshaldj.
That’s my low #.
I think he could go as high as into the 350s.
The 12 amendment clearly states a candidate needs to win "a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed," yet you don't respond to this part in your replies to me.
This means that the threshold is reduced from 270 by half the count of Electors from each state that fails to appoint.
Can't you see this? It does NOT mean that states can drop out but the candidate must still reach 270.
RE: the definition of "appointed." We all know that a plain reading means that it's the people who participate. You can't participate if you're not appointed to the role. It would be the same definition that's used in Presidential appointments and Senate confirmations. Someone is named to a position -- that's an "appointment."
Appointment to the Electoral College is when the slate of named Electors is certified. It is NOT a "slot," it's an actual named person, just like elsewhere in the Constitution.
-PJ
Yes, and if they’re still unable to do so as of January 20, then the Speaker becomes Acting President. Yet another reason to elect a Republican House.
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.