Democrats dont care about votes or elections,
They are about winning by any means.
Question for the court; Then what is the point of the Electoral College than to overturn the will of the voters?
Question for the court; Then what is the point of the Electoral College? Seems they think it is to overturn the will of the voters.
I remember quite a few decades ago when, in a Presidential election, the electoral votes were divvied up, ONE voter in some state revolted, and threw his vote to a third party candidate.
I don’t remember the candidate.
should SCOTUS uphold this, then Electors can choose to ignore the National Popular Vote Pact in the unlikely event enough states join the Pact to make it go active ...
i bet the Colorado leftists never thought about that when they filed their lawsuit ...
This is the correct, constitutional decision. Does it also mean that John Kasich gets an electoral vote?
Which nullifies Colorado’s national popular electoral vote as they cannot mandate the electors choose by popular vote.
Cool, dictatorship. 100% of a vote can got to one person, say a republican, but if the elector is a democrap, she can throw all their votes out and disinfranchise her entire state for who she wants to win!
The Founders intended the electors to have just that kind of discretion.
The decision says, “Article II and the 12th Amendment provide presidential electors the right to cast a vote for president and vice president with discretion. And the state does not possess countervailing authority to remove an elector and to cancel his vote in response to the exercise of that constitutional right.”
The dissent does not disagree, but says the case is moot. The decision is by Judge Carolyn B. McHugh, an Obama appointee. It is also signed by Judge Jerome Holmes, a Bush Jr. appointee. The dissent is by Judge Mary Beck Briscoe, a Clinton appointee.
The case was filed by three Colorado Democratic presidential electors from the 2016 election. One of them, Michael Baca, refused to vote for Hillary Clinton even after the Secretary of State, Wayne Williams, warned him that if he didn’t recant, he would be removed as an elector. The other two plaintiffs had also initially said they would not vote for Hillary Clinton, but then yielded to the demand of the Secretary of State. Their motive was not that they had anything against Hillary Clinton. Instead, they were trying to show the nation that our Constitution gives discretion to presidential electors. The state may have the ability to decide how to choose electors, but it doesn’t follow that the state can then tell them how to vote. It is now quite likely that the U.S. Supreme Court will decide this issue. Besides this case, there is also the case in the Washington State Supreme Court in which that court ruled 8-1 that electors can be fined for not voting for the expected presidential candidate. That case is already headed for the Supreme Court, with a cert petition due soon. That case is Guerra v Washington, 19A138.
The decision says that only Michael Baca has standing. He is the elector who refused to give in to the Secretary of State. The other two, because they yielded, do not have standing.
If the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the Tenth Circuit, and finds that electors do have discretion, it is likely that a constitutional amendment to alter or replace the electoral college will be enacted. Another consequence would be that “sore loser” laws could not be applied to presidential candidates, because it would now be apparent that the true candidates in November are the candidates for presidential elector, not the presidential candidate. And the presidential electors wouldn’t be “sore losers”.
For those who listened to the oral argument in the Tenth Circuit back on January 24, 2019, this outcome is not too surprising. It seemed apparent at the oral argument that there was one vote on each side, with little indication of how the third judge was leaning. Here is a link to the 33-minute oral argument.
Another case headed for the USSC to be decided by Constitutionalists in a 5-4 decision.
If Hillary and Soros can buy enough write-in votes from low-information voters, legal and illegal, so that PDJT cannot get minimum electoral votes to be reelected, then desperate Democrats may do the following.
Democrats might possibly be able to exploit 12th Amendment “loophole” where the current Democratic-controlled House can possibly elect write-in Hillary POTUS, regardless if PDJT wins plurality of electoral votes and popular vote.
Excerpted from 12th Amendment: "...and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President [emphasis added]. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two- thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice."
Note that House vote for this purpose recognizes only one vote from each state. So Hillary would need 26 states to win.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Patriots bear in mind that the only reason that reason that desperate Democrats cry for popular vote is this. Crook politicians and the people who own them want to retain control of state powers that the unconstitutionally big, post-17th Amendment ratification Congress has stolen from the states.
This is why patriots need to elect a new patriot Congress in the 2020 elections that will not only promise to support PDJT’s vision for MAGA, now KAG, but will also promise to surrender stolen state powers back to the states.
And to make such changes permanent, patriots also need to support PDJT in leading the states to repeal the 16th and Ill-conceived 17th Amendments.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
Bump
.
I think we’ve known this for about 240 years.