To: TigerClaws
I am less optimistic after reading the PA response. How do Trump’s lawyers respond to IV B of the response? Even if the state issued an unconstitutional policy, the voters of who followed it should not be disenfranchised. They followed the law. Taking away their votes is a harsh remedy for a mistake by the State.
35 posted on
12/10/2020 12:11:27 PM PST by
djpg
To: djpg
SCOTUS will not be deciding the election. They are throwing it back to the legislature, as the Constitution requires. it is still the state that will decide.
43 posted on
12/10/2020 12:13:52 PM PST by
j_guru
To: djpg
Taking away the votes of an entire nation is preferable?
64 posted on
12/10/2020 12:32:01 PM PST by
Blood of Tyrants
(If the meanings in the Constitution can change, why did they bother writing it down?)
To: djpg
I am less optimistic after reading the PA response. How do Trump’s lawyers respond to IV B of the response? Even if the state issued an unconstitutional policy, the voters of who followed it should not be disenfranchised. They followed the law. Taking away their votes is a harsh remedy for a mistake by the State. SCOTUS has previously ruled that individual citizens do not have a constitutional right to vote for electors. Only state legislators do.
76 posted on
12/10/2020 12:56:45 PM PST by
SeeSharp
To: djpg
Taking away their votes is a harsh remedy for a mistake by the State.
By doing it or not doing it, someone’s votes are being negated.
91 posted on
12/10/2020 5:10:29 PM PST by
lepton
("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into"--Jonathan Swift)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson