Posted on 12/15/2020 7:03:59 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The “way” of establishing the process is exactly the process that was violated. In each of the named states, judicial or executive decisions were used to violate the actual laws. By doing so, those states explicitly violated the process agreed to that the rules were to be enacted by the legislatures alone.
It is not that the voting/counting processes were wrobg or bad, but rather that they were established in contravention of the constitutionally prescribed manner for doing so.
Why haven't the LEGISLATURES of those states done anything to deal with this situation?
bump
In a case like this, they certainly should have done that. Thomas and Alito said the same thing.
I don’t know if you recall the ACB hearings, but one of the questions she was asked (and I don’t remember by whom) was whether she would recuse herself, since Trump was nominating here, if a question came up about the elections. She waffled a bit, but she obviously did the equivalent thereof in this case.
The other thing this question indicates is that the Dems knew in advance that this would not be a legitimate election. Even Nancy Pelosi boasted “[Trump] will never get elected, we have plans.”
For the same reasons Congress lets the Supreme Court decisions alter the Constitution, because they want it that way and that is the only way they can get to their destination. The people would never stand for most of it if they were given a choice, so don't let them have one. Simple.
Except in this case the State is the culprit.
Ditto...
Especially since those state legislatures are “REPUBLICAN”...
Something is afoot... More than meets the eye or ear...
In PA, IIRC, the legislators sued to overturn the judicial rewrite of the mail-in ballot law. The state supreme court, which authorized that rewrite dismissed the suit stating that the legislature hadn’t sued in time (it was after the election), despite the judicial rewrite occurring only a short time before the election.
The legislatures wrote the rules, the executive and judicial branches changed them, and the legislature was denied relief to reimpose the original rules because they “didn’t react fast enough”.
In GA, there were not one but apparently two separate “secret” consent decrees between the executive branch and the democrat party. Neither was publically announced until shortly before the election, IIRC. Neither had as a party the legislature, so the legislature was not informed until too late.
In both PA and GA, as well as a couple of other states, the legislatures voted alternate slates of electors. in MI, which did the same, the executive branch tried to intimidate and prevent those electors from voting their alternate slate.
I am unclear whether a state legislature can sue its executive and/or judicial state branches in federal court, much less at SCOTUS. SCOTUS has original jurisdiction in disputes between states, but has (rightfully, IMHO) refused to participate in most intra-state squabbles.
The sad conclusion, to me, is that the legislatures set up their rules, which were unconstitutionally changed just before the election, and nobody seems to have standing and/or jurisdiction to adjudicate the wrongs. The legislature could possibly simply order the seating of alternate electors, but the administration of these elections were assigned to the executive branch, trusting that they would follow the law as written.
The cheat, even when discovered, in this scenario cannot be resolved by peaceful means within the state governments. The side that cheated, in most cases, controls the apparatus appointed to ensure proper administration of the legislature-defined rules for the election.
What specific actions would you have those legislatures take?
... and ...
We didn’t have a constitution in 1776 either...
On this we agree on everything else you defended, not so much. Would have been better for Thomas and Alito to have said nothing than what they said. Their no vote was sufficient to show dissaproval.
What you seem unable to grasp is that an illegal vote accomplishes the same thing as not counting your vote. Apparently the Supremes can't grasp it either so you are in good esteemed company.
The legislatures should have convened and voted for their own separate slate of electors.
This was NOT done yesterday. The reports you saw about alternate slates of electors being assembled was done by the electors themselves and/or the state GOP organizations, not the legislatures.
I would normally find Mr. Carrington’s argument quite reasonable, except for one small detail: this is a federal election for the one nationwide elected office in the land. By Mr. Carrington’s assertion, I suppose Bush v. Gore would be illegitimate as well, since Florida should have had the sovereignty over that result instead of SCOTUS.
That is one of the points of the suit that I heard about on talk radio, say what you may about that particular source. The edicts allowing ballots to be received up to 9 days after election day effectively hurt all the voters in the other states that stopped the vote on election day. If the Supremes heard the case and ultimately invalidated those edicts, every ballot that could be proved to have been received after November 3 gets thrown out. That would presumably include all those truckloads of ballots that arrived at counting centers in the wee hours of November 4.
Such a ruling could have effectively tilted the victory away from Biden and toward Trump. And if it was impossible to separate the illegal ballots from the legal ballots, the court could have then ordered the state legislators to either re-do the election in those states or choose the electors themselves.
Like I said in a previous reply, Mr. Carrington’s arguments would be right on the mark IF the subject weren’t the FEDERAL election for the one nationwide elected office in the land.
Thank you for the direct answer. I have been somewhat sheltering from all of this for a while - my BP and anger level benefit from not reading all of the discussions - so I was unaware that the alternate slates were not official alternate slates.
Roberts is a coward. He failed in his job and his duty for fear of a possible riot by the lawless. He failed his oath to uphold and defend the Constitution ... out of fear.
He is a coward. Let history record his cowardice for all to see.
While the votes yesterday were not "official," they were absolutely necessary in order to ensure that a competing slate of electors had duly cast their votes IF any of the remaining legal challenges carry forward into January. The Constitution clearly states that the electors from all the states must convene on the same day ... which is one of the few non-negotiable directives the Constitution has about elections.
The writer suffers from an extreme case of Normalcy Bias, acting as gg by ings will be normal from a judicial POV once Biden-Harris packs the Court.
Threat to Federalism? Try on a one party nation for size, and see if intervening in that his case is worse.
What a short-sighted moron!
I have not read the Hillsdale commentary.
My hope is that Hillsdale, located in Michigan, is not kowtowing to its huge donor base in Michigan, (some of whom could be Democrats or RINOrats) by writing this commentary.
Hillsdale has a strong reputation of being one of the very few conservative colleges in the USA.
But, money sometimes talks louder.
Hillsdale’s learned scholars could have written a very different report about what is happening in 2020.
The Author’s are obviously unaware of The Four Boxes.
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.