Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

U.S. Supreme Court to hear presidential Electoral College dispute
Reuters ^ | 5/13/2020 | Andrew Chung, Lawrence Hurley

Posted on 05/13/2020 4:33:08 AM PDT by EBH

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.

If enough electors do so, it could upend an election.

The nine justices will hear two closely watched cases - one from Colorado and one from Washington state - less than six months before the Nov. 3 election in which presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden challenges Republican President Donald Trump.

The litigation involves the presidential election system set out in the U.S. Constitution in which the winner is determined not by amassing a majority in the national popular vote but by securing a majority of electoral votes allotted to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia.

The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states.

While that number of so-called faithless electors did not change the election’s outcome, it would have in five of the 58 previous U.S. presidential elections.

State officials have said faithless electors threaten the integrity of American democracy by subverting the will of the electorate and opening the door to corruption. The plaintiffs said the Constitution requires them to exercise independent judgment to prevent unfit candidates from taking office.

(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Colorado; US: Washington
KEYWORDS: colorado; election; electoralcollege; electors; faithlesscandidates; faithlesselectors; judiciary; nationalpopularvote; npv; politicaljudiciary; scotus; superdelegates; supremecourt; supremes; votefraud; washington
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last
Well, here we go with this issue. Didn't realize this was on the docket today.
1 posted on 05/13/2020 4:33:08 AM PDT by EBH
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: EBH

Well, look at it this way.
If they get rid of it and turn us into The United States of California and New York, we won’t have to worry about any future second amendment Supreme Court cases.


2 posted on 05/13/2020 4:36:59 AM PDT by RandallFlagg (Fact: Gun control laws kill innocents.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH
The Rats know that there's no way that they could amend the Constitution to nullify the Electoral College...so they're trying an “end around”...just as they do with the 2nd Amendment.
3 posted on 05/13/2020 4:37:49 AM PDT by Gay State Conservative (The Rats Just Can't Get Over The Fact That They Lost A Rigged Election!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

The Supremes have a game changer on their hands.


4 posted on 05/13/2020 4:39:44 AM PDT by certrtwngnut (4- Do something,,,,even if it's wrong.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

There’s nothing complex about it. The SC shouldn’t even be hearing this case. The Constitution (not that it matters anymore) says the states decide how to award their EVs. A state could award its electors based on which league wins the World Series.


5 posted on 05/13/2020 4:40:10 AM PDT by wny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

Whether they’re free to disregard laws?!

How is this even an issue?!


6 posted on 05/13/2020 4:45:33 AM PDT by mewzilla (Break out the mustard seeds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

“The Supreme Court is set on Wednesday to consider a dispute involving whether “electors” in the complex Electoral College system that decides the winner of U.S. presidential elections are free to disregard laws directing them to back the candidate who prevails in their state’s popular vote.”

I’m confused. Don’t electors do that anyway? In 48 states already? Whoever wins the state popular vote has their slate of Electors sent to the EC, and they almost always vote for that person.

Once they get to the EC, they (I suppose) could turn faithless, but that rarely ever happens. is that what this is about? ???


7 posted on 05/13/2020 4:45:44 AM PDT by StoneRainbow68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wny

Originally the Constitution had the same concept with Senators, too.

Personally, I’m a fan of frog jumping contests.


8 posted on 05/13/2020 4:46:42 AM PDT by Spruce
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Gay State Conservative

Kinda like. What RBG said yesterday about Trump and taxes, ....well every other candidate has. ..so.....

The evil in this woman is the only thing keeping her alive. ...at a great expense to the country.


9 posted on 05/13/2020 4:46:45 AM PDT by redshawk ( I want my red balloon. ( https://youtu.be/V12H2mteniE))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: wny

Spot on


10 posted on 05/13/2020 4:52:30 AM PDT by taxcontrol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: EBH

At this point, what difference does it make. (I love to use that phrase:)


11 posted on 05/13/2020 4:53:25 AM PDT by Eleutheria5 ("SHUT UP!" he explained.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH

If they decide that this stuff is OK, then doesn’t that open the door to jury nullification? If I’m on the jury, I can decide whatever I want. I don’t like the particular law — the guy may have broken it, but in my opinion it’s a stupid law, so I say he’s innocent. Or, I guess, the guy may be quite innocent, but I don’t like the way he looks, so I say he’s guilty.

Is that the direction they want to go? You just decide this stuff as you please and don’t need to follow standards and rules?


12 posted on 05/13/2020 4:55:15 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (If White Privilege is real, why did Elizabeth Warren lie about being an Indian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mewzilla
Ahh, you beat me to it! In my defense I must say I'm only on my first cup of coffee!!

=:-)

13 posted on 05/13/2020 4:56:22 AM PDT by jeffc (The U.S. media are our enemy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: wny
There’s nothing complex about it. The SC shouldn’t even be hearing this case. The Constitution (not that it matters anymore) says the states decide how to award their EVs. A state could award its electors based on which league wins the World Series.

Would you apply that same logic to the "National Popular Vote Initiative?"

14 posted on 05/13/2020 4:58:41 AM PDT by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Oh, there will be rules and standards.

But we won’t get a say in any of them.

Look at the WuFlu lockdowns as a preview of coming attractions..


15 posted on 05/13/2020 5:00:13 AM PDT by mewzilla (Break out the mustard seeds.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: StoneRainbow68
Like all things, this is simply bout Trump. 🙄
16 posted on 05/13/2020 5:00:22 AM PDT by Magnum44 (My comprehensive terrorism plan: Hunt them down and kill them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: EBH

this is one of the flaws in our Constitution. In a lot of cases, it is simply too vague.

In this example, it provides NO requirement for Electors to vote for the winner of the popular vote. What does that mean for elections? It could mean chaotic elections.

Let’s say all Electors are “free” to vote for who they want. What if the people vote overwhelmingly for one candidate nationwide, but many Electors don’t like this candidate and vote for someone else? We would then have a dictatorship of 538 people! It would effectively cut the President off from the people by allowing him to only pander to those 538 people to win!

Is that what the people would want? I doubt it. They want to believe their votes count in some way. How long would a “free” Electoral College stand before people want more decisive decisions?

I can’t imagine the Founders intended for the Electoral College to attain dictatorial power over the President.


17 posted on 05/13/2020 5:01:58 AM PDT by Vaden (First they came for the Confederates... Next they came for Washington... Then they came...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: EBH
The Founding Fathers wanted the President to represent a wide- spread consensus of the people. Look at the county-by-county voting for the 2016 election and you'll see their reason for the Electoral College.

The cases involve so-called faithless electors who did not vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Electoral College even though she won the popular vote in their states. … But in 2016, 10 of the 538 electors voted for someone else.

Note the deception from Reuters. It doesn't say that how many of the 10 electors voted for Mrs. Bill Clinton instead of Donald Trump who had won their state's popular vote. They want you think that all of the changed votes were from Clinton to Trump, but in fact the changes went both ways.

Mrs. Bill Clinton urged the electors to change their votes but in the end, hilariously more changed away from her than toward her.

18 posted on 05/13/2020 5:02:22 AM PDT by libertylover (Socialism will always look good to those who think they can get something for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Magnum44

No, I mean i don’t get the particulars of the dispute. Faithless electors have always been allowed to exist, but they will never change an outcome because they are loyalists to whatever candidate chose them, and they only turn faithless when changing their vote doesn’t matter.

So what are we doing here?


19 posted on 05/13/2020 5:03:23 AM PDT by StoneRainbow68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: StoneRainbow68

The article points out that what happened in ‘16 would have changed the outcome in 5 past elections.


20 posted on 05/13/2020 5:15:19 AM PDT by TalBlack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-147 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson