Posted on 12/07/2020 1:12:45 PM PST by kellymcneill
Perhaps the biggest tell regarding Cruz is the fact that in every interview he’s made since the election, he makes sure to make the point that POTUS’s challenges to the election results are a long shot. Everything that Cruz has said since the election indicates a man hedging his bets, not a patriot fighting to save our republic.
I agree. And I heard Alan say it. Cruz will be wasted in Senate. Better on Scotus.
If I remember correctly he was Solicitor General for Texas.....I’m sure you’re right. For that I will be eternally grateful to him. That was a horrible double murder.......
>>Ted has experience arguing at scotus.
“Can’t we all just get along?” < /liberal whine >
Nope, that isn't even in the top 100 reasons.
That being said, as someone who has little use for Cruz, I agree he could be an asset at the SC fighting for Trump.
I had no issues with Cruz until some of the behaviors in the 2016 election cycle... however I still don’t consider him an enemy... I am not a zealot. I know who the enemies are.. and while I disagree with some of Ted’s actions he is not “the enemy”
I don't believe this is true.
Us Code Title 3 Chapter 1 is clear that there is a difference between "appointed" and "apportioned."
The the 538 votes are "apportioned" to the states, but the winners on Election Day are "appointed."
Both the Constitution and Title 3 are clear that the candidate needs a majority of "appointed" electors, or in other words, a majority of Electoral College votes cast.
-PJ
The difference with Bush v Gore is that the leader was the person being harmed by Gore's selective recounting of partisan counties. Stopping the recount and letting the certification stand was the remedy for Bush. Gore had already gone through one "remedy" of the contested election trial in Florida (David Boies was his counsel), which he lost.
President Trump has been denied a contested election trial in every state he's filed in, and he's the one who was harmed by unconstitutional election process changes engineered by the Democrats in all the swing states. In this case, the remedy would be to overturn the certification and hand the decision to the state legislatures via US Code Title 3 Chapter 1, and Article II Section 1 of the Constitution.
The trouble for President Trump is that he needs more than Pennsylvania overturned; he needs Georgia and Michigan, perhaps Wisconsin, too, since the problems in Pennsylvania were also coordinated with the other swing states by the Democrats. However, those cases haven't reach SCOTUS yet, so it's not clear that there is a critical mass of certifications to be overturned such that President Trump rightfully wins.
-PJ
Your brain hears an “L” after “K”? Odd wiring that
******** I have no idea why you two want to say anything to me, take both of your nasty attitude somewhere else. Dumb people talk about other people, intelligent people talk about things and ideas. I get it
Grannie’s Cracklin’ Cornbread
I'm with them FRiend.
The Kraken is a Scandinavian Mythological Seamonster of tremendous size of strength said to exist off the coasts of Norway and Greenland. Its tentacles are large enough to be able to pull entire Ships under the Water and destroy cities with relative ease. The Creature possessed endurance to match its strength.
How you could come up with Cracklin Cornbread when the Kraken Meme is a zeitgeist of our age is beyond me. Do you think of hushpuppies when someone tells you to shut up?
He is a good choice to argue for the Constitution..
So many are posturing probably including Ted. I said he is smart. I also indicated I don’t trust him.
Based on the pedigree and associations of Paul Ryan’s bedmate my instincts about Eddie Munster’s clone were correct. Little traitor.
“I don’t believe this is true.”
Looking at the elections of 1864 and 1868 when Congress rejected the electors of some states, the benchmark needed to win a majority did not decrease. It remained the same. At least that’s how I understand it. In 1864, a candidate needed to win 117 EC votes out of a total of 233. Lincoln won 229 but 17 of them were invalidated by Congress which still left him well above the 117 EC vote needed.
The situation you're describing is what Congress did AFTER the Electors voted and a winner was determined. The situation I'm describing is BEFORE Electors vote, and states fail to send Electors.
That's a big difference from Lincoln's day.
-PJ
I don’t know of any state that is going to fail to send electors. Biden already has enough of the ‘appointed’ electors to win and he’s going to have more tomorrow. So even if SCOTUS throws out Georgia and PA, Biden will still hit the 270 threshold.
We will have more than GA and PA going to SCOTUS
Either one falls it should be like dominos, because they all used the same MO
I don’t think either are going to SCOTUS and time is almost out. The EC votes next Monday.
If SCOTUS "throws out" Georgia and PA, the legislatures will appoint the Electors directly.
I don't think that "safe harbor" laws apply to state legislatures exercising their Article II Section 1 powers, due to the supremacy clause in Article VI.
If SCOTUS throws out the certification of elections and there is no time to hold new elections due to the safe harbor laws, then the state legislature will appoint Electors directly so as to prevent the disenfranchisement of their state.
-PJ
You might want to tweet your rant to President Trump who said Rudy is in the hospital with corona virus (not heart disease etc).
Are you kidding? You think the left wouldn’t pull that stunt? Ha!
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.