Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
About that cunning plan of having GOP-controlled state legislatures dismissing Biden's popular vote wins in their states and opting to select Trump electors instead:

Can Trump win with 'fantasy' electors bid? State GOP says no - APsplaining

Republican leaders in four critical states won by President-elect Joe Biden say they won't participate in a legally dubious scheme to flip their state's electors to vote for President Donald Trump. Their comments effectively shut down a half-baked plot some Republicans floated as a last chance to keep Trump in the White House.

State GOP lawmakers in Arizona, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin have all said they would not intervene in the selection of electors, who ultimately cast the votes that secure a candidate's victory. Such a move would violate state law and a vote of the people, several noted.

"I do not see, short of finding some type of fraud -- which I haven't heard of anything -- I don't see us in any serious way addressing a change in electors," said Rusty Bowers, Arizona's Republican House speaker, who says he's been inundated with emails pleading for the legislature to intervene. "They are mandated by statute to choose according to the vote of the people."

by Bernard on Sat Nov 14th, 2020 at 09:43:13 AM EST
by Oui on Sat Nov 14th, 2020 at 11:13:05 AM EST
[ Parent ]
CHIAFALO ET AL. v. WASHINGTON
Held: A State may enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nom-inee--and the state voters' choice--for President.
[...]
Nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from takingaway presidential electors' voting discretion as Washington does. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint electors, and the Twelfth Amendment only sets out the electors' voting proce-dures. And while two contemporaneous State Constitutions incorporated language calling for the exercise of elector discretion, no language of that kind made it into the Federal Constitution. Contrary to the Electors' argument, Article II's use of the term "electors" and the Twelfth Amendment's requirement  that the electors "vote," and that they do so "by ballot," do not establish that electors must have discretion.
[...]
KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and  GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, and  KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined.  THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined as to Part II.
unanimous
What was the question?
archived: Tue Jan 28th, 2020
by Cat on Sat Nov 14th, 2020 at 04:06:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Probably no harm that Trump tests the boundaries of constitutionality so that any flaws are highlighted and judicial precedents are set.

Index of Frank's Diaries
by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Sat Nov 14th, 2020 at 04:30:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
exactly and rather, "judicial precedents are" affirmed.

You all will recall the Anti-RBG's quaint, if abrupt and stoic, references to "precedent" and "super-precedent" case law in her confirmation hearing.

by Cat on Sat Nov 14th, 2020 at 07:52:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
by Cat on Sat Nov 14th, 2020 at 08:21:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series