Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
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