Posted on 12/12/2016 12:02:41 PM PST by Brad from Tennessee
My POINT is: Just what Trump’s attorneys said would happen, it would ‘undermine’ the election results...
Did Ted Cruz go in Colorado during the primaries and take the delegates? Did Hillary go in and win the State of Colorado in the General Election?
When I lived in that State and was a registered Republican, Colorado was a RED state, it isn’t anymore...it’s BLUE...because of California people moving in and taking their politics with them...I was there and seen what was happening...now why do you suppose that happens??? So there is MY point...
Amen.
Judge shopping has nothing to do with it. The issue in question is not under the purview of the federal court system.
If any court should hear this suit it should be a Colorado state court.
Reminder: 2020 is a Census year.
That means the 2020 Electoral College will be different from this year.
The change does not happen until 2022 as the results of the census are not released until after the 2020 election.
You are also speculating on the change based on current projections. As we saw with Louisana in the last cycle, force majure events could change the numbers.
Lock her up
The 2020 election will not be affected by the 2020 census.
Okey doke.
A court may only turn to extrinsic information to interpret the constitution when the plain language of the article is ambiguous. Where it is clear and unambiguous the Court's only role is to enforce the article. in this case Article II reads "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress."
That is plain and unambiguous. If the legislature passed a law naming the dogcatchers of the largest cities and towns in the state as the electors that would be valid.
I agree with you. That’s why I called the suit totally bogus.
They’re insane.
.
It already is war.
Are you just waking up princess Van Winkle?
But,... the RUSSIANS....!!!!
I think the schedule is . . . it does. But the lawsuits may indeed cause the delays that make you correct.
Certifiably so.
.
>> “and the courts have absolutely nothing to say on the matter.” <<
When has that ever gotten in their way?
.
He’s right. Can anything good come of this? The left is delusional.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each,
It doesn't actually restrict an Elector.
So, we're back to whether a Court wants to interpret the law according to the normal rules of torts - that is, that one must actually occur before relief can be sought (in this case, the Elector would have to be faithless in violation of state law) - or activist (which in this case would be oh, so, very much legislating from the bench).
If the District Court both grants venue and audience (it shouldn't have either), then realize the Supreme Court is ideologically split at 4-4. So, in such case, what's the makeup of the Appeals Court that has jurisdiction over Colorado?
Sue away about the Colorado law, that frees up discontented electors there to vote their conscience. They know they really wanted Bernie Sanders, and he was quite obviously cheated out of the Democrat nomination by the usual Clintonian machinations.
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.