1 posted on
07/06/2020 7:32:02 AM PDT by
jazusamo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
To: jazusamo
👍
2 posted on
07/06/2020 7:32:47 AM PDT by
Road Warrior ‘04
(BOYCOTT The NFL & NASCAR! Molon Labe! Oathkeeper!)
To: jazusamo
Hypothetical fake problem. Who had standing to bring the suit?
3 posted on
07/06/2020 7:34:44 AM PDT by
Eleutheria5
("SHUT UP!" he explained.)
To: jazusamo
unanimous decision.........9-0..................Left freaks out, in 5, 4, 3..................
4 posted on
07/06/2020 7:35:07 AM PDT by
Red Badger
(To a liberal, 9-11 was 'illegal fireworks activity'..........................)
To: jazusamo
Even the commies were afraid to go there. It would negate even having elections.
5 posted on
07/06/2020 7:36:01 AM PDT by
jmaroneps37
(Conservatism is truth. Liberalism is lies)
To: jazusamo
Next we need them to forbid States demanding their electors ignore locally cast votes in favor of the national popular vote.
6 posted on
07/06/2020 7:36:21 AM PDT by
Rurudyne
(Standup Philosopher)
To: jazusamo
12 posted on
07/06/2020 7:42:57 AM PDT by
bigbob
(Trust Trump. Trust the Plan)
To: jazusamo
How does that work?
How does an elector prove faithlessness?
If electors prove faithlessness by their vote when the Electoral College votes, must there be a redo of the Electoral College vote and if so, how does that work?
If the Electors have to vote in line with the vote of their State, what’s the point of the Electoral college?
“(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...”
I didn’t see any more.
13 posted on
07/06/2020 7:43:23 AM PDT by
KrisKrinkle
(Blessed be those who know the depth and breadth of ignorance. Cursed be those who don't.)
To: jazusamo
It costs MILLIONS, sometimes TENS Of MILLIONS to get cases to the level of a SCOTUS ruling.
Who funded this attempt at legalized treason?
14 posted on
07/06/2020 7:43:27 AM PDT by
montag813
(Nonsenze)
To: jazusamo
15 posted on
07/06/2020 7:45:14 AM PDT by
kabar
.Support Free Republic Folks, Donate Today!
Please bump the Freepathon or click above to donate or become a new monthly donor!
KAGA!
18 posted on
07/06/2020 7:47:37 AM PDT by
jazusamo
(Have You Donated to Keep Free Republic Up and Running?)
To: jazusamo
Agree on the Washington case (fining), but disagree with the the Colorado case (removal).
19 posted on
07/06/2020 7:48:18 AM PDT by
cmj328
(We live here.)
To: jazusamo
did this just kill the compact ?
25 posted on
07/06/2020 7:54:09 AM PDT by
stylin19a
( 2016 - Best.Election.Of.All.Times.Ever.In.The.History.Of.Ever)
To: jazusamo
The Constitution gives States exclusive powers on how electoral votes are handled. Remember in 2000 the Florida Legislature was prepared to allocate their electoral votes to George Bush if necessary.
26 posted on
07/06/2020 7:54:25 AM PDT by
AU72
To: jazusamo
So electors cant vote for other candidates but they can deny their party an electoral vote?
34 posted on
07/06/2020 7:59:22 AM PDT by
a fool in paradise
(Joe Biden- "First thing I'd do is repeal those Trump tax cuts." (May 4th, 2019))
To: jazusamo
>>>The Supreme Court on Monday ruled that states can prohibit their Electoral College representatives from disregarding voters when casting their ballots in presidential elections.<<<
This seems to say to me that if a state is run by democrats, it can choose NOT to prohibit their E.C. reps from disregarding voters.
I’m not sure this is the win that some are claiming.
It seems to leave it up entirely to the states, not the Constitution.
37 posted on
07/06/2020 8:01:21 AM PDT by
Pilgrim's Progress
(http://www.baptistbiblebelievers.com/BYTOPICS/tabid/335/Default.aspx D)
To: jazusamo
I like the ruling.
Recalling that Dems/Marxists/progressives just HATE free and fair elections.
As I understand it, the ruling will keep Dems from going full-Stalinist rogue in the EC.
To: jazusamo
45 posted on
07/06/2020 8:09:04 AM PDT by
null and void
(It never ends when you go down that slippery slope of digging for the truth.)
To: jazusamo
We simply do not know what we are talking about until we see the opinion.
If the thrust of the opinion as to the effect that the Constitution awards the states unfettered prerogative to control their electors, this could be a very very dangerous opinion for us. A growing number of states will simply require electors to vote the national consensus, and the geography of the electoral college will give Democrats the advantage.
If the opinion is limited in that it acknowledges a constitutional power in the states to only control faithless electors, the opinion is benign.
53 posted on
07/06/2020 8:29:43 AM PDT by
nathanbedford
(attack, repeat, attack! Bull Halsey)
To: jazusamo; SunkenCiv; AuH2ORepublican; BillyBoy; fieldmarshaldj; Impy
57 posted on
07/06/2020 8:36:58 AM PDT by
campaignPete R-CT
(Committee to Re-Elect the President ( CREEP ))
To: jazusamo
While I agree with punishing faithless electors, I don't agree that states can remove an elector for having voted faithlessly. The vote having happened, in the past tense, means that the vote has happened. ("The electors...shall vote") The list-making function, and the signing and certification, are not vetoes on the vote: the vote is not a corporate vote, it is an individual vote. ("...and of the number of votes for each...")
59 posted on
07/06/2020 8:47:38 AM PDT by
cmj328
(We live here.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-27 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson