The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
SCOTUS Rules 9-0 That States Can Require Electors To Vote For State's Winner
Poast new message in this thread
Date: July 6th, 2020 10:59 AM Author: Racy rambunctious site https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-465_i425.pdf (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554907) |
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:03 AM Author: contagious cowardly foreskin forum All the libs agreed? Heh, I'm honestly impressed with them. The feeling I've gotten recently is that they're 100% partisan on every decision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554929) |
 |
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:05 AM Author: Racy rambunctious site its amazing they wasted their time taking such a dumb case when they take 80 cases a year (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554941) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:06 AM Author: contagious cowardly foreskin forum this basically means the national popular vote bullshit is dead right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554947) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:08 AM Author: Racy rambunctious site i dont think this decision says anything about whether a state can require their electors to vote for the national popular vote winner. if anything, it helps imply that they can. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554957) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:08 AM Author: fear-inspiring deep orchestra pit I read the ruling as enabling the National Popular Vote Compact to be enforced (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554958) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:09 AM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle no it means literally the opposite. states can direct electors to vote however the state wants. whether that is by popular vote in the state or popular vote in the country or the candidate that comes first in alphabetical order (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554964) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:13 AM Author: contagious cowardly foreskin forum "Held: A State may enforce an elector’s pledge to support his party’s nominee—and the state voters’ choice—for President."
Doesn't "state voters' choice" mean they have to go with what the state's voters picked? |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:17 AM Author: floppy shivering ratface Sure, but only because that's the system prescribed in each of the states in question (i.e. those which have sanctions).
"Q: Enforceable?" is really the crux of it here. If it's enforceable that way, it's (probably) enforceable in any EV allocation system. |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:20 AM Author: contagious cowardly foreskin forum oh OK. I'm not a lawyer I was just reading the words on the surface level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555032) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:21 AM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle the stated basis for the holding is that the state has the power to make electors stick to a pledge to vote in a certain manner (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555035) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:17 PM Author: Talented crystalline party of the first part codepig no (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555653) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:07 AM Author: fear-inspiring deep orchestra pit Harvard/Yale judges all want the Popular Vote Electoral Compact to replace the republic with a 50% national "democracy". (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554954) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:08 AM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle this was not a partisan case. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554959) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:34 AM Author: frisky irate liquid oxygen That’s just headline cases. My guess is 70% of cases are 8-1 or 9-0 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555084) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:10 PM Author: Cruel-hearted Aggressive Cuckoldry Go here: https://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/
Click any of the terms and look at Merits Cases by Vote Split.
Here's a summarizing table: https://files.catbox.moe/n4l26s.jpg
|
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 4:50 PM Author: Costumed Passionate Rehab Interesting that 5-4 is the second most common voting split (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40556942) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 5:34 PM Author: frisky irate liquid oxygen Interesting. Still shows they agree (7-2 or better) more than not (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40557188) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:05 AM Author: fear-inspiring deep orchestra pit compared to this one, Roe v. Wade was based upon Constitutional reasoning (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554943) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:11 AM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle classic (((hehe))) ruling. imagine the chaos that would be unleashed if scotus held that electors are free agents. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554975) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:12 AM Author: curious zombie-like university Lessig hit hardest.
BUT THE HAMILTON ELECTORS! |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:13 AM Author: floppy shivering ratface Dammit beat me by a minute! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554997) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 2:07 PM Author: salmon plaza (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555970) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:13 AM Author: floppy shivering ratface Lulziest part of this was the campaign for faithless electors in 2016 including the intended-to-be-flattering plea by various Hollywood types that they consider themselves to be "Hamilton electors" as if some Wisconsin county GOP chair was even going to have seen (let alone be bowled over with glee by) this only-on-Broadway diversapalooza thing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40554995) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:19 AM Author: curious zombie-like university https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z0iuWh3sek (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555027) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:24 PM Author: floppy shivering ratface lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555690) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:21 AM Author: curious zombie-like university Lessig, lawyers to offer support to anti-Trump electors By KYLE CHENEY 12/05/2016 07:39 PM EST Share on Facebook Share on Twitter A prominent Harvard University law professor is teaming with a California-based law firm to offer legal support for any members of the Electoral College seeking to oppose President-elect Donald Trump in violation of state law.
Larry Lessig says his new effort, which he calls “The Electors Trust,” will provide free counsel to electors, provided by the midsize firm, Durie Tangri, whose partner Mark Lemley is a longtime associate of Lessig’s.
More significantly, Lessig said, the Trust will offer a platform – with guaranteed anonymity – for electors to strategize about stopping Trump from taking the White House. It’s a platform, he said, that could help electors coordinate to determine whether they’ve gathered enough support to stop Trump from winning the presidency.
“It makes no sense to be elector number five who comes out against Trump. But it might make sense to be elector 38,” Lessig said in a phone interview.
Lessig’s announcement, shared with POLITICO on the eve of the launch, comes as the first Republican member of the Electoral College has publicly declared his opposition to Trump. The elector, Chris Suprun of Texas, published an op-ed in The New York Times to announce his intentions to vote against Trump when the 538 members of the Electoral College cast the official vote for president on Dec. 19.
The announcement has buoyed a team of at least eight Democratic electors – based in Colorado and Washington – that has been working to lobby their Republican counterparts to reject Trump and instead support an alternative Republican candidate. On Monday, those electors signaled they were likely to select Ohio Gov. John Kasich as that alternative – and Suprun, in his op-ed, expressed the same preference.
The Democrats leading the effort, who have dubbed themselves “Hamilton Electors,” have argued that the emergence of the first committed Republican elector to reject Trump would embolden others to break from the Republican nominee. Their goal is to convince at least 36 other Republicans to oppose Trump, the minimum they need to block Trump’s election and send it to the House of Representatives.
Ads by Teads
On Dec. 19, Electoral College members will meet in their respective state capitals and cast the only constitutionally valid vote for president. Trump won the popular vote in states that include 306 electoral votes, and if all of them support him, well above the 270-vote threshold. That’s why anti-Trump electors are working to persuade 37 Republican electors to oppose Trump.
To bolster their effort, a team of lawyers backing the Hamilton Electors are preparing a wave of legal challenges intended to overturn laws in 29 states that purport to bind electors to their party’s nominee. But many constitutional scholars believe those laws – which have never been tested or enforced – run counter to the Founders’ conception of the Electoral College as a deliberative body.
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:27 PM Author: floppy shivering ratface Currently a website advertising car parts: https://electorstrust.org/ (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555713) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:37 AM Author: chest-beating parlour idiot Remember how after all that, the faithless ones were all Hillary electors? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555102) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:29 PM Author: floppy shivering ratface It was 180. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555720) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 5:01 PM Author: duck-like aphrodisiac selfie (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40556996) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 12:34 PM Author: Motley Impertinent Cuckold Fortuitous Meteor minstrel show (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555370) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:14 AM Author: Ebony Hospital Place Of Business this is bad for conservatives long term since faithless electors is the only way they'll be able to win after EVs are recalculated following the 2020 census. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555003) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 11:35 AM Author: Pungent senate headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555092) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 12:27 PM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle any faithless elector voting for tucker, mcwhorter or another white supremacist would be lynched (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555330) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:19 PM Author: Ebony Hospital Place Of Business well now they cant so it doesnt matter (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555669) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 12:34 PM Author: Seedy Temple true, unless we run a real conservative and not a GC neocon or some JewCuck charlatan (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555374) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 12:32 PM Author: Unholy rigpig ceo NOTHING IN THE CONSTITUTION SAYS (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555362) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:21 PM Author: Ebony Hospital Place Of Business Does this mean that electors MUST vote for a state's winner or just that penalties for failure to do so are constitutional? iow if an elector says fuck it and votes for the loser does the state have any recourse to change that elector's vote? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555678) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:25 PM Author: Wonderful House-broken Indirect Expression Double Fault Good question. Please revert back by end of day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555697) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:32 PM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle "There has to be a case." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555741) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:30 PM Author: frisky irate liquid oxygen penalties for failure to do so are constitutional (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40555728) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 1:38 PM Author: poppy charismatic property wrinkle if any elector turns out to be faithless the state can just replace them better question is what if a blue legislature in a purple state says fuck it we're appointing electors that are pledged to biden regardless of who the voters vote for |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 2:15 PM Author: chestnut address pocket flask I think the consensus on here the last time this came up was that you couldn't create a was to pledge electors that disenfranchised the voters of your own state.
However, what is to stop a blue legislature in a purple state from saying that the electors will be pledged to the candidate who wins the most votes in purple state and California combined? Can anyone think why that might not work? |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 4:46 PM Author: Ebony Hospital Place Of Business Article 2 just says each state shall appoint electors in such manner as the state legislature may direct. There's no reason a state couldn't dispense with popular elections and revert back to the original system where the electors are appointed by the governor. The legislature could direct them to cast their vote in whatever manner they want, and per this new scotus ruling they can punish them if they fail to follow those directions. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40556920) |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 4:48 PM Author: chestnut address pocket flask i am not nearly enough of a conlaw scholar to know whether that is true or not.
but I do know that if the NPV compact is permissible, then a legislature in a purple state could create any measurement group, of which that state is a part, and pledge the electors to the winner of that measurement group. |
|
Date: July 6th, 2020 4:52 PM Author: Ebony Hospital Place Of Business probably fine tbh. the citizens of such a state can replace their legislature and governor if they disagree with the process, or they can retain them if they agree with it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#40556954) |
|
Date: May 15th, 2022 6:38 PM Author: Ebony Hospital Place Of Business (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4577623&forum_id=2#44517466) |