The Supreme Court has agreed to address a challenge to the Electoral College

Aerican Thinker ^ | 1/18/2020 | Andrea Widburg

[antidemoncrat]

Since then, Democrats have been bent on destroying the Electoral College by any means short of a constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court has now agreed to take up one of Democrats' attacks on the Electoral College.

[antidemoncrat]

If the Democrats aka Demoncrats succeed in destroying the Electoral College they will have destroyed this Republic.

[Starboard]

It would basically mean mob rule.

[frank ballenger]

How could America reach a point where the Supreme Court will rule on our Electoral College?

If loser don’t like it that they lose, then appeal to more states next time.

That’s why we have it-—so CA and NY will not have 12 million vote margin for Bernie and win the nonexistent “popular vote election.”

[gundog]

Is the Constitution constitutional? We shall see....

[Freee-dame]

What lower court ruled against the Electoral College?

[TexasGator]

Unlike yours, this link explains the challenge:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-electoral-idUSKBN1ZG2EH

[TexasGator]

None

[TexasGator]

See my link

[NohSpinZone]

The headline is a bit misleading, unless there are two electoral colleges cases that the SCOTUS has agreed to take on. As I understand it, the case before the court is whether states have the Constitutional rights to punish faithless electors who choose to cast their electoral college vote against the wishes of the popular vote in that state. This doesn’t seem like it’s a direct challenge to the electoral college system itself.

[mass55th]

Thanks for the link.

[Poison Pill]

Is the Constitution constitutional?

You'll need a stiff drink before you here the answer to that.

[OttawaFreeper]

Basically for the same reasons why Democrats fought for and protected Jim Crow laws in the South until the mid 1960s.

[Menehune56]

I have to wonder how Chief Justice Roberts will opine.

[Kickass Conservative]

How do they Rule to the Constitutionality of something that is written into the Constitution?

Of course, all the States that have imposed giving their Electoral Votes to the Popular Vote Winner are already violating it.

Yeah, I know. That “Shall Not Be Infringed” part is completely ignored already so no surprise.

[Teacher317]

the case before the court is whether states have the Constitutional rights to punish faithless electors who choose to cast their electoral college vote against the wishes of the popular vote in that state. This doesn’t seem like it’s a direct challenge to the electoral college system itself.

You don't see rampant Faithless Electors as an easy route to destroying the entire process? I surely do.

The RNC isn't exactly on our side. They are not for Term limits, they are scared and angry that a non-politician is proving that We the People don't actually need a Political Class to rule DC, and they are not eager to I've up their positions. The RNC and DNC collude to choose electors who will pick Lazamataz, instead of the top vote-getter in each state, and there is literally nothing we can do about it. Poor Laz would be stuck with the job.

[marron]

If the Supremes rule against the college we are back in revolution-mode.

[SaxxonWoods]

Unlike the writer, the expert she consulted has enough sense to not comment without doing research first.

[NobleFree]

Thanks! Sounds like nonsense:

“The plaintiffs challenged the sanctions, saying they were deprived of their rights under the Constitution’s Article II as well as its 12th Amendment, which spell out the Electoral College process.”

[Flick Lives]

The RNC and DNC collude to choose electors who will pick Lazamataz, instead of the top vote-getter in each state, and there is literally nothing we can do about it. Poor Laz would be stuck with the job.

You say it like it's a bad thing! Vote Laz - "Every Night is Lady's Night" !

[NohSpinZone]

The faithless electors in 2016 all voted against Cankles and for John Kasich and Colin Powell, LOL.