Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nevilledog

(50,679 posts)
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 02:13 PM Nov 2020

Renato Mariotti: Trump's allies are panicking...



Tweet text:Renato Mariotti
@renato_mariotti
Trump's allies are panicking, so now they're asking Republican state legislatures to disenfranchise their constituents.

Mark R. Levin
@marklevinshow
REMINDER TO THE REPUBLICAN STATE LEGISLATURES, YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY OVER THE CHOOSING OF ELECTORS, NOT ANY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, SECRETARY OF STATE, GOVERNOR, OR EVEN COURT. YOU HAVE THE FINAL SAY -- ARTICLE II OF THE FED CONSTITUTION. SO, GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY
11:04 AM · Nov 5, 2020
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

NCDem47

(2,238 posts)
3. The mother of all nuclear options.
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 02:19 PM
Nov 2020

There wil be NO turning back if Republicans go this route.

Although, I've been told on this site not to worry about this for a whole host of reasons.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
4. The theory is that they can violate state laws and ignore the vote
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 02:35 PM
Nov 2020

Last edited Thu Nov 5, 2020, 03:13 PM - Edit history (1)

All they need to do is appoint Trump electors. Kavanaugh recently opined in a case that the state Supreme Court can not assert state law prohibits ignoring votes. Do four others agree? If so then Republican legislators can ignore voters. Then the House of Representatives on a one state one vote basis can affirm that. Then Trump is re-elected. The constraint is that state legislators may fear that voters will be outraged and will vote them out. Of course no Republican elected official will care that it violates state law.

Cicada

(4,533 posts)
8. Kavanaugh cited Rehnquist concurrence to bush v gore 2000 to disagree
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 03:22 PM
Nov 2020

It wasn’t a stretch to Rehnquist or Kavanaugh. I think the other four conservatives on the court, not Roberts, might agree with Kavanaugh. In my opinion this is a real possibility even if not probable. Why does the betting market give Trump a 12% chance today? I think this may be the reason for his 12%.

Volaris

(10,260 posts)
12. Which is ridiculous on its face because:
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 03:53 PM
Nov 2020

Doesnt one of the last paragraphs of the BvG decision say, essentially:

'Oh and please never ever cite this case as precedent for anything ever, because even we know how fucked up it is; K Thanx Bye.'

Kavs must not have bothered to read the whole thing to the end.

Mr. Ected

(9,670 posts)
5. So the entire basis of our "democracy" - the privilege of voting - is also a mirage?
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 02:39 PM
Nov 2020

We've learned so much about the shortcomings and flaws in our system in the past 4 years. There used to be a code of honor. Without honor, the Constitution is just an old piece of paper.

Whiskeytide

(4,459 posts)
10. If you begin to realize you cannot win fair ...
Thu Nov 5, 2020, 03:27 PM
Nov 2020

... elections, your only option to remain in office is to do away with fair elections.

Posters here have pooh-poohed this threat as a violation of the law, and therefore an impossibility. I don’t think they have been paying attention. The law is not high on Тяцмр‘a list of priorities.

And are they really worried about a backlash and being voted out if they pull something so blantantly improper? Again, doing away with fair elections kind of solves that problem for them too, right?

This at least shows that it’s something they have considered. I hope I’m being paranoid, but we’ll see, I guess.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Renato Mariotti: Trump's ...